A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING, PERSONALITY, AND ACHIEVEMENT

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographicaliy in this copy. Higher quality 6* x 9’ black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell &Howell Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF-REGULATED
LEARNING, PERSONALITY, AND ACHIEVEMENT
Mary Sue Thompson Polleys
A Dissertation
Submitted to
the Graduate Faculty of
Auburn University
in Partial Fulfillment ofthe
Requirement for the
Degree of
Doctor ofPhilosophy
Auburn, Alabama
December 16,2000

UMI Number: 9988470
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 9988470
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Certificate ofApproval:
_______
Frances K. Kochan
Professor
Educational Foundations, Leadership,
and Technology
DaW M . SI
Professor
and Technology
S j t fSafebury-Glennon_J
Assistant Professor
and Technology
F. Pntchett
Graduate School

VITA
Mary Sue Thompson Polleys, daughter ofJohn Davis and Florence (Treadwell)
Thompson, was bom in Columbus, Georgia, on February 1,1944. She graduated from
Harris County High School in Hamilton, Georgia, in 1962. She earned the degree of
Bachelor of Arts in Speech from Mercer University in 1966 and began her teaching
career in the Muscogee County School District that same year. She earned the degree of
Master ofArts in Speech from Auburn University in 1970 and later taught in the Speech
Departments oflocal colleges. In 1999 shejoined the faculty ofColumbus State
University, where she serves as Instructor ofLeadership and Director ofthe Servant
Leadership Program. She has also served as Chair ofthe Muscogee County School
Board since 1994. While at Auburn, her primary interests have been areas related to
improving opportunities for student achievement. Much ofher graduate work has
focused on learning theory and curriculum issues. She is married to Eugene Hardwick
Polleys, Jr., and they have one son, John Hardwick Polleys, and daughter-in-law, Tara
McCallum Polleys.
iii

DISSERTATION ABSTRACT
Doctor ofPhilosophy, December 16,2000
(M.A, Auburn University, 1970)
(B.A., Mercer University, 1966)
141 Typed Pages
Directed by David M. Shannon
The purpose ofthis study was to investigate the relationships between self-
regulated learning (SRL), personality, and achievement. Specifically, the study
investigated whether a relationship exists between personality and self-regulated
learning, whether a relationship exists between achievement based on assignment to a
remedial group and self-regulated learning, and whether achievement moderates the
relationship between personality and self-regulated learning.
Subjects were 126 college students, approximately halfofwhom were remedial
students. All subjects completed both the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Statistical measures, including
iv

multiple regression correlations, a series ofmoderated regressions, and a MANOVA
procedure were performed in analyzing the data.
Significant relationships between SRL and personality were found in 17 instances
out ofa possible 60 for the whole group ofsubjects. The multivariate test found no
significant influence ofachievement on SRL.
When subjects were separated into the remedial and non-remedial groups,
differing patterns emerged. The non-remedial group showed relationships in only seven
ofthe 60 possibilities. The remedial group, however, showed relationships in 15 ofthe
60 possibilities. The JP personality preference was the most powerful predictor ofself
regulated learning for both remedial and non-remedial groups. Although the personality-
SRL relationships were different in many factors between the non-remedial and remedial
groups, the overall multivariate test showed no significance; hence, achievement was not
found to be a moderator ofthe personality-SRL relationships.
v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To my friends and mentors at Auburn University, this work could not have been
completed without your help. To Dr. David Shannon, who makes statistics enjoyable,
for undying patience and generous gifts oftime. To Dr. Frances Kochan, whose genuine
caring inspired me to have faith enough to complete the doctoraljourney. To Dr. Jill
Salisbury-Glennon, for enthusiastic encouragement and for introducing me to the
concept ofself-regulated learning. And to the Auburn family’s beloved Dr. Edith Miller,
who through kindness and passionate interest in her students has given so much to us all.
To my former teachers. How often I’ve been grateful for Mrs. Palmer and Mrs.
Lovitt, the two superb high school teachers who taught me English and typing!
To my friends and colleagues in Columbus who gave practical help. You helped
score data, make my computer work properly, bolster my confidence with statistics, and
even run errands in order to keep me writing.
To my immediate family who gave me the freedom to pursue this goaL To my
mother, who, at 87, loves to learn, and whose continuous self-improvement efforts
spawned my interest in self-regulatory skills. And to my late father, whose sense of
humor, wisdom, and pride in his daughters’ accomplishments gave my sisters and me all
the self-efficacy we’ve ever needed. I am indebted beyond my capacity to repay.
vi

Style manual used: American Psychological Association Style Manual, 4* Edition
Computer software used: SPSS 7.5 for data analysis; Corel WordPerfect for wordprocessing
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................x
I. THE NATURE OF THE STUDY................................................................ 1
Introduction
Background
Statement ofthe Problem
Purpose ofthe Study
Hypotheses
Definitions
Significance of the Study
Limitations
Assumptions
Justification
Overview
II. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................ 18
Introduction
Self-Regulated Learning
Personality Type Theory
Relationships between Personality and SRL
The Teaching of SRL
Origins ofCognitive Development
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Summary
m . METHODOLOGY.................................................................................... 66
Purpose of Study
Research Design
Instrumentation
Subjects
Summary
viii

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND DISCUSSION 86
Data Analysis
Discussion
Summary
V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
Summary of Study
Discussion ofFindings
Conclusions
Recommendations
Summary
RECOMMENDATIONS 100
REFERENCES 116
IX

LIST OF TABLES
1. Reliability Analysis ofMSLQ..................................................................... 75
2. Demographic Characteristics of Subjects................................................... 82
3. Correlation ofMSLQ Factors with MBTI Dimensions for
Whole Group........................................................................................... 89
4. Comparison ofMSLQ Factors for Group 1 (Remedial) and
Group 2 (Non-Remedial)......................................................................... 94
Group 1 - Remedial Students................................................................... 95
Group 2 - Non-Remedial Students.......................................................... 96
7. Summary ofModerating Effect of Achievement on
Relationship between Self-Regulated Learning and
Personality............................................................................................... 98
x

I. THE NATURE OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Educators have long pondered differences in academic achievement. Students
who are gifted according to measures of intelligence do not always produce superior
academic performance. On the other end ofthe spectrum, sometimes students who do
not score well on standardized measures of intelligence or achievement work far beyond
their expected capacity. Such situations might be partially understood through the
theory of learning that focuses on personally initiated strategies. While ability and
environment are viewed by some learning theorists to be fixed entities, the idea that
learning can be self-regulated raises many interesting questions. Pertinent issues include
the meaning of“self-regulated” learning; how the concept relates to academic
achievement; whether the processes ofself-regulated learning can be taught and learned;
whether there are relationships between self-regulated learning and personality; and,
finally, whether there are differences between remedial and non-remedial students in
terms ofthose relationships. This study takes these issues into consideration and
specifically investigated possible relationships between self-regulated learning,
personality, and achievement.
1

2
Background
Self-regulated teaming (SRL) is a fairly new construct in research literature, and
it covers a wide variety ofbehaviors. Self-regulated learners seek to control their own
learning behavior, motivation, emotions, and cognition. They self-monitor and self-
correct as they move toward their learning goals. Metacognitive, motivational,
behavioral, and environmental processes are all involved in self-regulated learning
(Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997).
Self-regulated learning is often thought ofin terms ofunique processing routines
and knowledge structures shaped by social interaction and culture (Matthews et al.,
2000). As such, it is viewed as malleable—as a construct encompassing skills and
behaviors that can be changed. Courses focusing on study skills and learning strategies
are often based on the premise that self-regulated learning can be taught and learned.
Personality and psychological type, on the other hand, are generally viewed as
encompassing traits that are thought to relate to stable individual differences that remain
fixed across time and different situations (Matthews et al., 2000). Some theorists have
resisted considering possible links between self-regulated learning and personality
because of the apparent conflict between stable and unstable characteristics (Pintrich,
1995).
Matthews et aL (2000, p. 171) declare, in feet, that “integration ofresearch on
personality traits and self-regulation requires a resolution oftwo conflicting world
views.” These researchers seek to resolve that conflict through a recently-published
synthesis in which stable cognitive knowledge structures are seen as “both a basis for

3
personality traits and as an important influence on context-bound self-regulative
cognitions” (Matthews et al., 2000, p. 171). These writers conclude that styles ofself
regulation are an integral aspect ofpersonality, and they suggest that the “structuring of
self-knowledge reflects the structure ofthe adaptive challenges laid down by the
environment” (Matthews et al., 2000, p. 201).
Matthews’ earlier work in collaboration with Wells (1994,1996) provided the
foundation for such conclusions. That work resulted in development ofthe Self-
Regulative Executive Function (S-REF) Model that distinguishes three levels of
cognition in integrating personality trait and social-cognitive perspectives for self
regulation. The lower level provides inputs from lower-level processing that are
stimulus-driven and depend on intruding thoughts and codes for external stimuli. The
next level, metacognition, is the supervisory executive that implements voluntary control,
and the third level is self-knowledge held in long-term memory. The executive is the
core ofthe system, and it is influenced by self-knowledge.
Traits are conceptualized in the S-REF model as relating to stable individual
differences in the various processing components, especially properties ofself-
knowledge. Clinical evidence indicates that an individual’s self-beliefs shape self-
regulative processing (Wells, 1997). Matthews et al (2000, p. 176) state that “the
personality trait construct appears superficially to be antagonistic to the fluid, dynamic
nature ofself-regulative processing.” They then emphasize, however, that broad traits
do, in feet, relate to self-regulation, that certain self-regulative traits are “nomothetic
constructs that predict individual differences in self-regulative behavior,” and that the

4
role of self-knowledge in maintaining the stability ofpersonality traits has been neglected
(Matthews et al, 2000, p. 176). Matthews (1997, 1999) asserts that self-knowledge
plays an important role in choice of environments and adaptive goals and that self-beliefs
foster acquisition of skills required for adaptive specialization. The work ofMatthews
and Weils provides a general framework that accommodates both the “idiographic
content ofself-knowledge and stable, nomothetic qualities ofself-regulation related to
personality traits” (Matthews et al, 2000, p. 176). Studies of individual differences in
self-regulation, according to these researchers, allow personality traits to be linked to the
various processes in the S-REF model
Given the importance ofself-knowledge in the synthesized model, the process of
understanding one's personality preferences would seem to be a valuable endeavor. One
tool for identifying personality preferences is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
This instrument, based on the work of Carl Jung, was developed by Isabel Myers and
Katharine Briggs for the purpose of making Jung’s type theory more accessible to the
general population (Myers, 1980). Not only does Jungian theory hold that each person
has natural strengths that can be maximized as the individual pursues his or her own path
toward excellence, but the theory also promotes understanding of possible weaknesses
that can result as one operates from his or her natural preferences (Myers, 1980).
Further, good type development holds that a person can learn to develop skills for the
less-preferred dimensions—skills that will help one to compensate for the possible
weaknesses that are likelyto be found in each ofthe different psychological types
(Bayne, 1997). Thus, incorporating type theory into the synthesized view presented by

5
the S-REF model might introduce the optimistic element ofa possible vehicle for
changing self-beliefs that negatively influence desired self-regulation.
The personality preferences measured by the MBTI relate to whether one prefers
Extraversion or Introversion, Sensing or Intuition, Thinking or Feeling, and Judging or
Perceiving. Those preferences then combine to form one of sixteen psychological types.
Both the preferences and the types are important. Myers and Briggs insisted that the
MBTI measures, not traits, but types and that the sixteen types are iclevant and essential
to understanding personality (Myers, 1980). The preferences are also important in this
study, not as traits within themselves, but as indicators ofexactly which preferences
might relate to self-regulated learning. Thus, this study considered the subjects’
preferences for functioning as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in relation
to subjects’ scores on the 15 SRL scales ofthe Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire.
An additional dimension considered in this study is that ofstudent achievement.
It sought to examine whether remedial students (those enrolled in Basic Studies courses)
demonstrate any different patterns in their relationships between self-regulated learning
and personality than non-remedial students (those enrolled in regular university classes).
It seems reasonable that remedial students would have lower self-regulated learning
scores than non-remedial students because SRL skills have been found to be associated
with academic achievement (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). However, since students in
Basic Studies courses in this study were placed there because ofscores on standardized
tests, not on the basis ofself-regulation, such an assumption cannot be made. Some

6
Basic Studies students might, in feet, practice greater degrees of self-regulation in terms
ofperseverance and diligence than do students in regular classes who happen to score
somewhat higher on standardized exams. At any rate, since self-regulatory skills are
beneficial for both gifted and at-risk students, consideration ofthe two groups’
differences (remedial and non-remedial) could prove useful.
Statement ofthe Problem
Self-regulated learning skills often differentiate effective from ineffective learners.
As teachers attempt to help students improve their self-regulatory abilities, success
varies. Differences have been found in students’ willingness to use self-regulated
learning even while controlling for academic ability (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991;
Zimmerman, 1989). According to McCombs, “Students may need to be assisted with
self-awareness, self-definition, and self-evaluation capabilities before they can develop
skills for the self-regulation of their own learning” (McCombs, 1989, p. 73). Efforts to
promote self-regulated learning might be enhanced by taking into account personality
preferences if, in feet, relationships are found to exist between the constructs. In
addition to teachers’ individual work with students, courses have been constructed
focusing on self-regulated learning with names such as “Learning to Learn,” “College
Success,” or “Improving Study Skills.” Such courses have met with varying degrees of
success. Again, an important missing element might be a consideration ofpersonality
preferences and their relationship to SRL skills.
Both students at-risk academically and those who are classified as academically
gifted benefit from improved self-regulatory abilities, but whether students at different

levels ofacademic achievement experience different relationships between self-regulated
learning and personality has not been explored. If for example, remedial students show
different patterns ofrelationships between SRL and personality from those exhibited by
non-remedial students, insights might be developed that could lead to more effective
remediation. Specifically, a need exists to investigate the lr (lowing questions:
1. Is there a relationship between personality and self-regulated learning?
2. Is there a relationship between achievement (group assignment) and self-
regulated learning?
3. Is the relationship between personality and self-regulated learning moderated
by achievement?
Purpose of Study
The purpose ofthis correlational study was to investigate possible relationships
between personality and self-regulatory skills. Investigating such relationships could
yield information that might add to the body ofknowledge in the fields of learning theory
and type theory. By fostering an understanding ofpossible relationships between the
factors comprising the constructs, this study could provide added insight into the nature
ofthe dimensions measured by the two instruments, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Possible insights might be
developed as to why some learners initiate certain strategies and others do not, why
learners prefer some strategies over others, why some students are much more adept at
regulating their own learning than are others, and how students might be helped to

develop skills for their less-preferred personality dimensions ifthose dimensions are
found to be related to self-regulated learning.
Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were tested in this study:
1. There will be no relationship between the dependent variable ofself-regulated
learning and the independent variable ofpersonality.
2. There will be no relationship between the dependent variable ofself-regulated
learning and the independent variable ofachievement as defined by assignment to
remedial or non-remedial classes.
3. The relationship between self-regulated learning and personality will not be
moderated by achievement.
Definitions
Terms as they are used in this study are defined as follows:
1. Self-regulated Learning is a construct encompassing various skills and
behaviors for studying and learning typically used by good learners. Skills range from
mnemonic devices to management oftime and environment and organizational and
comprehension strategies. Cognitive, affective, motivational, and behavioral components
provide the individual with the capacity to adjust his or her actions and goals to achieve
desired results in light ofchanging environmental conditions (Zeidner et al., 2000).

9
2. Personality refers to an individual’s behavioral and emotional characteristics
resulting from preferences for certain ways of functioning. Carl Jung’s typology, slightly
modified and elaborated by Isabel Myers and Katharine Briggs (Myers, 1980), provides
the conceptual framework for the definition ofpersonality used in this study.
3. Achievement is defined by assignment to remedial or non-remedial classes.
4. Temperament is defined as the “substrate upon which personality...and the self
are constructed” (Demetriou, 2000, p. 223). The term is used interchangeably in this
study with personality.
5. Psychological type is a construct measured by the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) and based on Carl Jung’s theory ofpsychological types. The theory
holds that much seemingly chance variation in human behavior is, in feet, the logical
result ofa few basic, observable differences in mental functioning; specifically, the way
people prefer to use their minds in the way they perceive and the way they make
judgments.
6. The Perceiving preference is understood to include the processes ofbecoming
aware ofthings, people, occurrences, and ideas (Myers, 1980) through either
(a) Sensing - perceiving things directly through the five senses or
(b) Intuition-indirect perception by way ofthe unconscious.
7. The Judging preference includes the processes ofcoming to conclusions about
what has been perceived (Myers, 1980) through either
(a) Thinking - coming to conclusions by a logical process aimed at an
impersonal finding, or

10
(b) Feeling - coming to conclusions by appreciation, bestowing on
things a personal, subjective value.
8. The Extraversion-Introversion preference is the dimension ofpsychological
type that relates to a person’s relative interest in his/her outer and inner worlds.
(a) Extraversion - a preference for the outer world ofpeople and things
(b) Introversion - a preference for the inner world ofconcepts and ideas.
9. The Judgment-Perception preference is the dimension ofpsychological type
that involves a person’s choice between the perceptive attitude and the judging attitude
as a way of life and method ofdealing with the surrounding world.
(a) Judging - a preference for coming to conclusions, orjudgments,
which results in ordering one’s life
(b) Perceiving - a preference for continuing to gather data, to perceive
and collect evidence, thus delayingjudgment, which results injust
living (as opposed to ordering) one’s life.
10. The dominant process is the person’s best process that dominates and unifies
his/her life. For extraverts who preferjudging, the dominant will be their choice between
thinking and feeling. For extraverts who prefer perceiving, the dominant will be their
choice between sensing and intuition. Just the opposite is true for introverts (Myers,
1980).
Significance ofthe Study
If relationships do exist between self-regulated learning and personality, then an
important missing element in self-regulatory instruction might be an understanding of

11
personality preferences, including how such preferences result in psychological type, and
how those preferences relate to self-regulated learning. If self-regulated learning factors
are related to personality or psychological type, then personality preferences are a salient
issue for self-regulated learning instruction. Teachers might find it useful to assist
students in understanding the possible relationships between students’ personality
preferences (including their psychological type) and their self-regulatory efforts.
Connecting knowledge ofpersonality preference with insight pertaining to self-regulated
learning might help students understand why they have formed certain learning habits
and which oftheir preferences relate to those habits.
A proper understanding oftype theory helps students realize that, while their
greatest strengths will come naturally from their preferred orientations, they can, when
necessary, develop and use skills for their less-preferred dimensions. Such insight might
offer motivation and direction for individuals to develop dimensions that do not come
naturally for them but with which they can become quite proficient. Such understanding
could enable teachers to work more effectively with students in finding ways of
developing skills for students’ less-preferred personality dimensions when those
dimensions might positively affect self-regulatory skills. Pintrich (1989) has suggested
that the active learning and critical thinking ofdifferent types o f students might be
improved by differing types of interventions. Although Pintrich referred to differences in
motivation, cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulatory skills and not to differences in
temperament types, his conclusion that the effects ofinstruction will differ depending on
the characteristics of students seems pertinent. Ultimately, students might become better

12
learners through deeper understanding ofconnections between their personality
preferences and self-regulated learning.
By fostering an understanding ofpossible relationships between the factors
comprising the constructs ofself-regulated learning and temperament types, this research
could provide added insight into the nature ofthe dimensions measured by the MBTI
and the MSLQ. Better understanding ofexactly what intuition is, for example, could
result from this study. Intuition, one ofthe eight dimensions delineated by the MBTI, is
described in MBTI literature as another way ofknowing, something apart from the five
senses. People who prefer intuition as a way ofgathering information from the world
around them are said to know but don’t know how they know. They experience
knowing as a hunch or a “sixth sense” (Myers, 1980). In MBTI literature, intuition is
associated with vision, the future, and the big picture—all concepts very much in demand
in the current business world and often the focus ofleadership training. Investigating
intuition in terms ofself-regulated learning could deepen the understanding ofboth of
those entities.
Other possible relationships between the factors could yield valuable insights as
well Metacognition, for example, a key element in improving SRL, is measured by the
MSLQ as Metacognitive Self-Regulation. It includes goal setting, self-monitoring, and
self-testing, all ofwhich are foundational skills for SRL. Both theoretical and practical
benefits could result from expanding understanding ofmetacognition, personality, and
the possible relationships between the two areas for remedial and non-remedial students.

13
Limitations
1. As is typically the case with correlational and quasi-experimental studies,
causal relationships cannot be inferred. Subjects were students enrolled in already-
existing, intact classes. Randomization, therefore, was not possible. Extraneous
variables were controlled to the extent possible in that both instruments were
administered to subjects at the same time. The same person administered the instruments
to all classes, and all subjects were given the same information about the study.
Nevertheless, threats to internal validity exist since the extent to which differences on the
dependent variable (SRL) are the direct result ofthe independent variable (personality or
achievement) cannot be fully determined. External validity deals with the issue of
generalizabQity. Results from this study should be generalized with caution and only to
similar populations.
2. Both instruments used in this study are self-report measures. Self-report
measures depend on subjects’ ability and willingness to report accurately. While some
research indicates that subjects do not tend to fake or falsify responses on the MBTI
(Bayne, 1997), the MSLQ has not been as extensively researched. The possibility exists
that subjects’ self-reporting could be flawed.
3. The use of self-report measures also suggests the possibility ofresponse sets.
Responses based on social desirability or response acquiescence are possible, though
again, not likely on the MBTI, given the instrument’s forced-choice format (Wilson,
1992). Eight questions on the MSLQ are reverse coded items, a measure designed to
help control response sets, but the possibility still exists.

14
4. Any time participants are aware that they are the focus ofresearch, as is the
case in this study, the possibility exists that they might react in a way that affects
responses. For example, some subjects might attempt to please the researcher by
complying with what they speculate the researcher wants or expects to occur. On the
other hand, some participants may attempt to toil whatever outcomes they believe the
researcher hopes to find. This possibility also limits the ability to generalize from this
sample to a larger population.
5. The sample is made up of students in intact classes who attend a four-year
state university in the southeastern United States. The students live in a mid-size city or
surrounding rural or suburban areas. These students may be different from students not
in the particular classes or from those who live in different environments. The subjects,
furthermore, agreed to participate in the study. They were, therefore, not randomly
chosen. The lack ofrandomness presents a condition that further limits the ability to
generalize.
Assumptions
1. This study investigates self-regulated learning, personality, and achievement,
which are constructs. Because constructs cannot be directly observed, their existence
cannot be proved nor disproved. Thus, it is assumed that the constructs exist because of
empirical evidence and because they explain behavior and increase understanding of
behavior.
2. An assumption was made that, as college students, subjects in this study were
able to read and comprehend the MBTI and MSLQ accurately.

15
3. There was an assumption that subjects responded to questions on the MBTI
and MSLQ as honestly and accurately as possible.
Justification
A major reason for attempting to understand the nature ofself-regulated learning
is the beliefthat more thorough insight into its nature might stimulate thinking about
“ways to promote more adaptive self-regulatory aptitudes, practices, and interventions”
(Zeidner et al., 2000, p. 766). There is a need, according to Zeidner and colleagues, for
studies that seek to unravel how individuals become efficient self-regulators. Little
research has focused on self-regulatory processes in different demographic groups. We
lack information about whether differences exist between males and females, varying
sociocultural groups, social classes, or those with disparate beliefsystems. This study
will document any differences in self-regulated learning skills according to the various
demographic factors of Gender, Ethnicity, and Age.
Pintrich (2000) points out the need to research the role ofpersonal characteristics
in moderating the relations between self-regulation and goals. Although earlier stating
that “self-regulated learning is not a personality ‘style’ or trait that the individual has no
control over, as suggested, for example, by the Myers-Briggs typology” (Pintrich, 1995),
more recently Dr. Pintrich has theorized that “personality characteristics such as general
temperament or emotionality may create a context where the relations between goals and
regulation are modulated or exacerbated” (Pintrich, 2000, p. 492).
Pintrich and Schrauben theorized that a student brings “certain ‘entry’
characteristics” to a learning situation that help to shape the student’s interactions with

16
the learning tasks and processes (Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992, p. 152). These
researchers conclude that there needs to be some way to represent the consistency and
coherence in students’ beliefs about themselves and their behavior over time and
situations but still maintain a dynamic view ofthe selfand varying motivational beliefs
that can be activated in different situations (Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). “We need to
find ways to integrate research on individual differences with research on the
development of self-regulatory components,” declare Zeidner et al. (2000, p. 764), as
they point out that the assessment of individual differences in self-regulation is an area
that has been inadequately investigated.
Caffarella and O’Donnell investigated self-directed leai Jng, which is quite similar
conceptually to self-regulated learning, and concluded that “the most promising idea
seems to be conceptualizing self-directed learning as a personality construct versus a
mode of instruction” (Caffarella & O’Donnell, 1988, p. 55). They suggest exploring this
idea quantitatively using quasi-experimental methods. Eisenman (1989) also suggested
that self-directed learning should be studied in terms ofpersonality. Such a coupling
might provide the foundation for a comprehensive theory, according to Oddi (1987).
Zeidner et al. (2000, p. 755) point to the need for “mapping out the pattern of
relationships between self-regulation and related individual difference constructs.” While
some individual difference variables have been investigated, declare these researchers, we
know little about the relationship between self-regulation and, for example, extraversion
(Zeidner et aL, 2000), which is one ofthe dimensions included inthis study.
Focusing specifically on connections between self-regulated learning and

17
personality with regard to both remedial and non-remedial students has not been
previously undertaken. Looking at these constructs from a new perspective might
prompt new implications for teaching and learning and might serve as an impetus for
further investigation as well. While most work in the field of self-regulated learning has
occurred within the last 15 years, it is now the subject of intense professional interest and
scrutiny (Zeidner et al., 2000) and will continue to be an important focus for educational
psychologists in the 21s*century.
Organizational Overview
Following this first chapter, this study is organized as follows: Chapter Two
introduces a review of related literature. Chapter Three discusses the methodology
employed in the study including the research’s purpose, design, instrumentation, and
subjects. Chapter Four is comprised ofan explanation and discussion of the data
analysis, and Chapter Five consists ofthe summary, discussion of findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Literature dealing with self-regulated learning (SRL) presents a view of learning
that is different from other models. Rather than focusing on ability and environment as
fixed entities, self-regulated learning focuses on personally initiated strategies to improve
learning outcomes (Zimmerman, 1989). When "personally initiated strategies" enter the
equation, one might reasonably ask questions relating to individual differences. Among
such questions might be why some learners initiate certain strategies and others do not,
why learners prefer some strategies over others and why some students are much more
adept at regulating their own learning than are others.
Issues of modeling, teaching, or environmental factors might account for some
differences in self-regulated learning, but it seems logical to ask whether personality or
temperament factors might also influence a student's self-regulatory behavior. Issues to
be examined might include whether remedial students differ in their abilities to self-
regulate learning, and if so, one might examine those differences in terms ofpersonality.
Another relevant issue for investigation is whether metacognition, the vital component of
self-regulation that deploys and monitors self-regulatory strategies, might be related to
personality preferences. Finally, the logical question might be asked ofwhether an
18

19
understanding of self-regulation expanded to incorporate type theory could offer
students and teachers another tool for developing self-regulatory competence.
Theorists have noted that the selfhas received very little attention in the context
of self-regulated learning research and have pointed out that current research focuses
narrowly on the regulation aspect and ignores the selfaspect (McCombs, 1989;
McCombs & Marzano, 1990). More research is needed that explores individual
differences in covert processes to determine why students with similar attributes and
experiences diverge in self-regulation (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). Garcia suggests
that additional studies of the self in self-regulated teaming “would comprise a promising
and exciting line of research” (Garcia, 1993, p. 64). Como summarizes by declaring,
“What seems clear is that many students do not self-regulate when they could and should
on school tasks. Many of those who do are less efficient or effective than they might be"
(Como, 1986, p. 333).
Como states that three types of research currently exist: first, studies that aim to
increase students’ knowledge and use ofappropriate task-related cognitive and
metacognitive strategies; second, studies that try to increase student motivational
processes by improving perceptions of self-control and self-efficacy; and finally, studies
that try to improve classroom or home support systems. These three “ought, eventually,
to come together” (Como, 1986, p. 346).
This literature review aims toward the emergence of such a synthesis by
investigating self-regulated learning in relation to type theory and achievement. The
review focuses on self-regulated learning and personality type theory. The relationship

20
of self-regulated learning to academic achievement and the possibility ofteaching SRL
skills are also explored. Next, the possible relationship between SRL and personality is
examined. The review also encompasses discussion of two tools for measuring self-
regulatory behavior and temperament types, specifically, the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, respectively.
Self-Reeulated Learning
Self-regulated learning, a fairly new construct in research on student performance
and achievement (Pintrich, 1995), might be defined as the ability to set realistic goals, to
employ strategies to achieve the goals, to closely monitor goal attainment, and to
evaluate one's own thinking (Manning et al.,1996). Teachers recognize self-regulators
when they see them. They are students who attempt to control their own behavior,
cognition, motivation and affect. They are goal-directed and use self-monitoring and
self-correcting behavior to move toward goals. Their behavior is regulated by the "self,"
not someone else such as a parent or teacher.
In terms of learning processes and responses, self-regulators set goals effectively,
use strategies to achieve their goals, and monitor their acquisition closely.
Motivationally, they are self-efficacious about their abilities to learn, inquisitive about
intellectual interests, and dedicated to their attainment of knowledge and skilL
Behaviorally, they are self-starters who appear to derive intrinsic motivation from their
efforts to acquire knowledge and skill (Zimmerman, 1986). Multi-dimensional criteria,
including metacognitive, motivational, behavioral, and environmental processes, are used
to define the self-regulation of academic learning (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997).

21
Researchers report that self-regulators typically know that good academic
performance is linked to effort, are aware of the influence of surrounding conditions on
their academic concentration and exert control over those conditions, and are willing to
work late into the night and get up early the next morning to finish assignments due
(Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). They know and use various strategies for learning
such as outlining, summarizing, clustering, underlining, reviewing, finding key words,
picturing, diagraming, rehearsing, paraphrasing, taping, self-verbalizing, and questioning
(Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997). They are resourceful in choosing study partners or
helpers, seek help selectively and confidently but request only limited assistance, desiring
independent mastery when possible. They plan realistically and use time effectively,
monitoring their own progress toward goals they have set and giving themselves rewards
and consequences for progress toward those goals. They are more metacognitively
aware of performance outcomes even before receiving feedback than are students who
do not regulate their own learning. As might be expected, they tend to be prompt and
consistent in school attendance, and they regularly complete homework (Zimmerman &
Risemberg, 1997). Self-regulated learning is often referred to as a “fusion of skill and
will” (Garcia, 1993, p. 1).
Students who do not practice self-regulated learning behave very differently from
the self-regulators. They, for example, give up more easily, are more likely to attribute
success to innate ability (that they believe they do not have), to luck, or to some other
factor outside their control, and they are more influenced by extrinsic factors. They have
a higher need for approval, lower selfesteem, greater anxiety, lower self-efficacy about

22
academics, and lower academic goals. They are more likely to be impulsive, are more
selfcritical, and are reluctant to ask for help. When they do seek help, they are more
likely to copy a peer’s work than to seek only limited help, and they are less accurate in
assessing themselves (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997).
The work of Albert Bandura has been central in the emerging field of self-
regulated learning (McCombs, 1986). Bandura began research and writing about these
issues in 1964, and his social cognitive theory has had a significant impact on other
theorists. According to Bandura (1982), to be self-determined and self-regulated
requires the "tools of personal agency and the self-assurance to use them effectively."
Affective, cognitive, and metacognitive processes are all involved in self-regulated
learning, with metacognitive knowledge and skills providing the basic structure for the
development of positive self-control and self-regulation (McCombs, 1986).
Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Success
Research shows that gifted students spontaneously use self-regulatory learning
strategies more frequently in comparison to nongifted students. Zimmerman and
Martinez-Ponz (1990) determined fourteen categories of self-regulation strategies and
interviewed students to ascertain their use ofthese strategies. Subjects were 90 gifted
students and 90 regular students from the fifth, eighth, and eleventh grades. Researchers
gave the subjects eight hypothetical learning situations involving classroom tasks,
homework, studying, and test taking. Students were asked to name all the methods they
would use to help them fulfill the task requirement. Responses were transcribed
verbatim and classified according to the self-regulated learning strategies determined by

23
Zimmerman and Martinez-Ponz. Among the strategies are the following: goal setting
and planning; organizing and transforming materials as in outlining; rehearsing and
memorizing; self-evaluating of the quality of one's own work; self-consequencing with
rewards or punishment for success or failure; keeping records and monitoring events or
results; seeking information from non-social sources such as reference books;
environmental structuring of the physical setting to make learning easier; seeking
assistance from peers, teachers, and adults; and reviewing tests, notes, and texts.
Results of the research indicated that the gifted use a greater number of strategies and
that the following 4 of the 14 strategies differentiated the gifted students: organizing
and transforming, self-consequencing, seeking peer assistance, and reviewing notes
(Zimmerman & Martinez-Ponz, 1990). Of greatest interest in this study, besides the
feet that gifted students report overall greater self-regulation than do their nongifted
counterparts, is that this was not the case in all or even most of the 14 categories of
self-regulation. The implication is that even gifted students can benefit from self-
regulated strategy training in order to bring them to even higher potential. Researchers
report evidence that under-achieving gifted learners may possess less developed self-
regulative skills than high achievers and that "the quality ofmetacognition during the
initial learning tasks is directly related to the quality of the final performance or
exceptional performance" (Manning et al.,1996).
Sternberg (1986) suggests that some key features of giftedness, other than
intellectual superiority, are the abilities to choose strategies that will best achieve desired
goals, to regulate one's thoughts and environmental obstacles so as to better focus one's

24
attention to the completion of the task, and to monitor one's progress so as to ascertain
that goals are being met. These are some of the very same abilities ascribed to the
metacognitive component of self-regulated learning (Risemberg & Zimmerman, 1992).
Zimmerman (1986) has named metacognitive functioning as a key subprocess in self-
reguiated ieaming.
Obach and Moely (1993) conducted a study in which they sought to verify the
idea that children who report the use ofcognitive strategies and self-regulation will
exhibit mastery-oriented motivational goal patterns. Results indicated that task
orientation is positively related to students' strategy use and that goal orientation in the
classroom could predict strategic and motivated learning as Nolen and Haladyna (1990)
had earlier shown.
Self-regulation ofcognition and behavior has been found to be an important
aspect of academic performance by Pintrich and DeGroot (1990). A study involving
173 seventh graders examined relationships between academic achievement, motivation,
and self-regulated learning. Findings indicate that while the students' beliefs about the
value of the task and their feelings of self-efficacy were related to performance, self
regulation was the best predictor of actual academic performance. In this study, self
regulation (planning, skimming, comprehension monitoring, persistence, diligence) and
cognitive strategy use (rehearsal, summarizing, paraphrasing, outlining, verbalizing,
mnemonic devices, etc.) were highly correlated. Strategy use, however, without the
concomitant use of self-regulation, was negatively related to performance. In short, the
study indicates that self-regulators have high efficacy and value beliefs and high strategy

25
use, but the motivational beliefs and strategies are necessary, yet not sufficient, for
successful academic performance. The motivational beliefs seemed to play a facilitative
role in the use of self-regulatory practices, but self-regulation seemed to be more directly
implicated in performance (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Lindner and Harris (1993) also
produced results that suggest that self-regulated learning is an important component in
academic success and that it can be measured effectively. Their results indicate a
significant relationship between self-regulated learning and grade point average.
Just as high achievers exhibit greater degrees of self-regulation than do under
achievers, so experts show greater self-regulating tendencies than do novices (Nickerson
et al., 1985). Not only do expert performers differ from novices by virtue oftheir
greater knowledge of their specific area of expertise, they also tend to differ in the ways
in which they apply their knowledge and approaches to intellectually demanding tasks.
The experts demonstrate more emphasis on planning and strategizing, better
management of time and resources, more careful monitoring and evaluating of progress,
and these characteristics seem to be independent of subject area (Nickerson et al.,
1985). Experts know more, know they know more, know better how to use what they
know, better organize what they know, and know better how to learn still more than do
novices (Nickerson et aL, 1985). Experts also show a greater ability in the
metacognitive skill of accessibility; that is, they can better access their knowledge at
appropriate times and for appropriate purposes, a skill that exemplifies the distinction
between having knowledge and being able to retrieve it from memory when it is needed
(Nickerson et al, 1985).

26
Strategies that Drive Self-Regulation
With regard to high achievers’ metacognitive skills, Kuhl resurrected Ach's early
theory of volitional control (Kuhl, 1984). Ach and Kuhl make an important distinction
between motivation and volition. They define self-regulation and volitional processes
synonymously (Como, 1986). Volitional processes correspond to the control aspects of
metacognition in the view of Ach and Kuhl. In school learning, volitional processes are
those that protect the intent to learn in school from personal or environmental
distractions. Kuhl describes the following six volitional strategies that drive self
regulation (Como, 1986):
1. Attention and encoding - These are control processes directed at the control
of cognitive progress. They discriminate task-relevant information from other
distractions, channel attention in right directions, and hold information in working
memory long enough to influence action. Berk (1986) showed that young children use
private self-speech to direct their attention to math seatwork in school. Mischel (1981)
showed that even very young children will use the strategy of avoiding visual contact
with distracting environmental stimuli when attempting to control their concentration.
Some older students will control concentration on a task by looking forward to the
rewards that will accompany completed work. While the perception of social rewards is
a motivational process, the tendency to make them focal at the right moment is
volitional
2. Selectively encoding - Task related information is presumed to foster
enactment. For example, when given an assignment, a student may begin immediately to

27
act as ifsome parts of the task were more important to understand and act upon than
others. Large individual differences can be observed among people in their ability to use
this strategy. Rohrkemper (1986) found high achievers more likely than low achievers to
begin encoding quickly.
3. Information-processing control, or parsimony of information processing -
When thinking through a task, a student who processes information parsimoniously
spends an optimal amount of time processing and then gets down to action. There is a
metacognitive recognition that sufficient information has been processed to permit task
initiation, and there is a resulting tendency to act rather than to keep processing.
4. Motivation control - These are strategies referred to in the literature as
motivation-enhancing strategies. These have been the focus of most research on self
regulation in the United States. They include self-reinforcement and self-imposed
penance. Some self-regulatory strategies are more helpful than others in enhancing
continued motivation.
5. Emotion control - This refers to the use of reassuring self-speech to control
negative affect, such as telling oneself not to worry or to try harder. These are efforts to
control or put offthe onset of potentially bad emotional states, such as worry or anxiety,
which are closely aligned with motivation controL
6. Environmental control - This refers to one ofthe most active steps students
can take to protect the intent to learn in school. Engaging these strategies assumes the
metacognitive awareness that such strategies will help. Asking the teacher to clarify is
contingent upon the student’s knowledge that she has foiledto comprehend, which

28
implies that she must have been monitoring comprehension and that she feels free and
unafraid to say so.
The importance ofthe volitional strategies to the larger phenomenon ofself-
regulated learning is clear. Students who access and use these strategies when
necessary are expected to be more efficient learners, and those who learn more efficiently
are expected to demonstrate higher academic performance.
Academic performance in relation to the interplay of motivation and cognition
was the subject ofa study conducted with college students in Michigan (Pintrich, 1989).
A subject group of 224 students took the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire and were then arranged into five groups based on cluster analysis of
scores. The five groups differed in their pattern of academic performance, motivation,
cognition, metacognition, and effort management. Clusters One and Two differed in
academic performance. Cluster Three consisted of students who were motivated but not
self-regulating; Cluster Four, of students who were self-regulating but not motivated in
terms of task value; and Cluster Five, of students who were self-regulating and
motivated but lacked confidence for succeeding in the course.
Results suggested that the motivational and cognitive aspects of student learning
complement one another synergistically rather than operating in isolation from one
another (Pintrich, 1989). “Students can be skilled in cognitive and self-regulating
strategies, but motivational beliefs can influence how these strategies are used for
different tasks” (Pintrich, 1989, p. 154). The feet that students in Clusters Three, Four,
and Five all showed similar levels of performance suggests that the motivational and

29
cognitive variables that drive self-regulated learning are interrelated and complementary
(Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992).
The Role of Self-Monitoring
Self-monitoring, defined as "deliberate attention to some aspect of one's
behavior" (Schunk, 1983), is an essential component of self-regulated learning.
In general, students with effective metacognitive skills accurately estimate their
knowledge, monitor their learning, update their knowledge, and develop plans for new
learning (Everson, 1997). The key self-regulatory factor in the effective use of study
time is the quality of students’ cognitive monitoring (Flaveli, 1979). In order to plan and
control their use of time effectively, students must realize when they are not learning, but
students often fail to monitor their learning (Ghatala et al., 1989) and thus fail to regulate
their use of time (Gettinger, 1985).
Self-monitoring requires one to attend selectively to certain actions or cognitive
processes, to distinguish them from other behavior, and to differentiate their outcomes.
Formal self-monitoring involves systematic observations and reflectivejudgments.
Information obtained through self-monitoring can be used to evaluate personal progress,
to determine patterns of behavior that have causal effects, to implement different
behavior aimed at redirecting action, and to set realistic goals (Zimmerman & Paulsen,
1995). Self-monitoring usually involves keeping records such as logs, tallies, or tape
recordings that provide information about the quality and outcomes of a learner’s work.
Self-monitoring enhances learning by focusing students’attention on sources of
confusion or inefficiency, by helping students to discriminate between effective and

30
ineffective performance, and by revealing the inadequacy ofa learning strategy so that
the student will be prompted to find a more suitable one. Self-monitoring can also
improve the student's ability to manage and maximize study time as well as foster
reflective thinking. Self-monitoring has also been found to affect motivation
(Zimmerman & Paulsen, 1995). Feedback from self-monitoring can reveal unexpected
progress and increased feelings of self-control. Schunk (1983) found that proper self
monitoring can lead to increases in perceptions of self-efficacy, expectations, goal
setting, and finally overt motivation.
While there is a great deal of agreement about the overt features of self
monitoring, theorists differ in their understandings of the psychological dimensions that
cannot be openly observed. Information-processing theorists see self-monitoring as a
cybernetic system. Information about an individual’s current activity enters the system as
a perception and is compared with a goal. Ifthe standard is met, no further actions are
necessary. Ifa discrepancy exists between performance and the goal, the individual must
act to reduce the discrepancy (Carver & Scheier, 1981). For the cognitive-behavioral
theorists, control of stimulus and response is the focus (Karoly & Kanfer, 1982).
Stimulus control involves efforts to avoid or manage problem situations (studying in the
library instead of a noisy dormitory, for example), and response control means
rewarding oneself for achievements (having a snack after completing an assignment, for
example). Metacognitivists (Flavell, 1979; Schraw, 1994) view self-monitoring in terms
ofmeta-awareness and meta-control of knowledge and of cognitive experiences and
strategies. Metacognitive researchers have studied self-monitoring ofprimary cognitive

31
processes such as attention, memory, reading comprehension, and communication
(Zimmerman & Paulsen, 1995). The social-cognitive theorists stress the
interdependence of all the major forms ofself-monitoring: cognitive, behavioral, and
environmental. A student, for example, can monitor where she reads (environmental),
how last she reads (behavioral), and how well she comprehends (cognitive). These three
areas reciprocally influence each other (Zimmerman & Paulsen, 1995).
Effective self-monitoring leads to improved goal setting, better planning and use
of time, and better use of learning strategies. If self-monitoring is integrated into a
larger framework of self-regulated learning, students experience positive benefits. If not,
the effects of self-monitoring efforts are usually short lived (Zimmerman & Paulsen,
1995).
The interaction of factors seems to be a significant issue. Como (1986, 1989)
suggests that the ability to actualize one's learning goals, in the face of competing
factors, is a function of volitional resolve that grows with metacognitive awareness of
one's own motivational intentions, cognitive processes, and emotions. She reports a
study designed to test the interactive influence of two self-regulatory processes-goal-
setting and metacognitive awareness-on students' performance. Subjects were grouped
according to their level of metacognitive awareness and their participation ineither a
goal-setting intervention or a filler activity. All subjects completed a novel decision
making task. As hypothesized, the interaction of being asked to set clearly defined goals
and a tendency to develop a high degree ofmetacognitive awareness best facilitated
individuals' performance on a decision-making task. Specifically, as hypothesized, clearly

32
defined goals set by individuals who demonstrated a tendency to be metacognitively
reflective resulted in the best performance on the decision-making task. In addition,
individuals who showed a tendency to reflect metacognitively but who were not asked to
set a task goal did not perform as well A similar level of performance resulted from
individuals who were asked to set a task goal but who did not tend to be reflective. The
target goal gave a motivating challenge while metacognitive awareness provided
volitional resolve (Como, 1986).
The literature suggests that the student who effectively self-regulates is one who
bases explicit goals for learning on high levels of self-awareness. The implication for
educators is that it may not be enough for teachers to employ strategies such as goal-
setting aimed at fostering motivation. Instead, interventions aimed at developing
students' cognitive awareness and motivation may be important to foster purposeful self-
regulation of their own learning. While this study testing the interactive influences of
SRL, personality, and achievement provides initial support for multidimensional
interactive self-regulation models, the need exists to validate the interactive
conceptualizations of self-regulated learning (Ridley et aL, 1992).
Personality Type Theory
Carl Jung’s Psychological Types
Self-awareness of cognitive processes might be enhanced through an
understanding ofpsychological type, a theory with roots in the work ofthe Swiss
psychiatrist, Carl Jung (1875-1961). Where others saw randomness in human
personality, Carl Jung saw patterns. He believed that much seemingly chance variation

33
in human behavior is not due to chance at all but is, instead, the logical result ofa few
basic, observable differences in mental functioning (Myers, 1980). These basic
differences result from the way people prefer to use their minds, specifically the way they
perceive and the way they makejudgments. Perceiving refers to the processes of
becoming aware of things, people, occurrences, and ideas. Judging includes the
processes of coming to conclusions, or judgments, about what has been perceived
(Myers, 1980). Perception determines what people see in a situation, andjudgment
determines what they decide to do about it. Basic differences in perception and
judgment logically result in corresponding differences in behavior.
Wavs of Perceiving: Sensing and Intuition
Jung (1923) observed that individuals use two distinct and sharply different ways
of perceiving. One means of perceiving is the process of sensing, by which one gathers
information directly through the five senses. The other is the process of intuition, which
is defined as "indirect perception by way of the unconscious, incorporating ideas or
associations that the unconscious tacks on to perceptions coming from outside" (Myers,
1980, p. 2). Those who prefer sensing are interested in the actuality around them and
pay attention to facts and details. Those who prefer intuition as a means of perceiving
rely on hunches, ideas coming faintly out ofnowhere, and become engrossed in pursuing
possibilities (Myers, 1980). This dimension related to preferences in perceiving is the SN
preference: S for sensing and N for intuition.

34
Wavs of Judging: Thinking and Feeling
Jung also noticed two distinct and sharply contrasting ways of coming to
conclusions. Some people prefer to use thinking processes, that is, logical reasoning
aimed at an impersonal finding. Others, on the other hand, prefer to use feeling
processes, making decisions based on personal, subjective values (Myers, 1980). The
theory suggests that, while a person is likely to make some decisions with thinking and
some with feeling, he/she is almost certain to enjoy and trust one way ofjudging more
than the other. The preferred process will be used more often, trusted and acted upon
more frequently than the less preferred, which becomes a sort of minority opinion, half
heard and often wholly disregarded (Myers, 1980). A reader who considers first
whether ideas are consistent and logical is using thinking-judgment while one who is
conscious first that the ideas are pleasing or displeasing, supporting or threatening is
using feeling-judgment (Myers, 1980). Those who prefer thinking favor objectively
applied rules, policies, and regulations, while those who prefer feeling afford more
relevance to factors such as affiliation, warmth, and harmony (Thompson & Borrello,
1986). The basic preference for the personal or the impersonal approach to life refers to
the TF preference: T for thinking and F for feeling (Myers, 1980).
The Inner and Outer Words: Extraversion and Introversion
Another basic difference in how people use perception andjudgment stems from
their relative interest in their outer and inner worlds. Jung (1923) noticed that some
individuals prefer to relate to the outer world of people and things and are energized by
other people while others prefer to relate to the inner world of concepts and ideas and

35
draw energy from solitude. Individuals, according to type theory, are not limited either
to the inner world or to the outer. Well-developed introverts can deal effectively with
the world around them when necessary, but they do their best work inside their heads, in
reflection. Extraverts, as well, can deal capably with ideas, but they do their best work
extemaily, in action. For both types, the natural preference remains, similar to right or
left-handedness (Myers, 1980). This dimension based on the inner and outer worlds is
the El preference: E for extravert and I for introvert.
Final Preference: Judging and Perceiving
The final preference that enters into the identification oftype is one proposed by
Myers, and it serves a dual purpose in the interpretation ofthe instrument (Willis, 1984).
This preference relates to the choice between the perceptive attitude and the judging
attitude as a way of life. The people who are more comfortable perceiving prefer to
continue gathering data. They realize that not all the evidence is in and that new
developments might occur. They tend to be more flexible and spontaneous than those
who preferjudging. The judging preference leads an individual to be more comfortable
making the decision, coming to closure, arriving at a verdict, thus shutting offperception
for the time being. These individuals tend to organize and order their lives (Myers,
1980). This preference centered around the drive for closure vs. the desire to keep
options open is the JP dimension: J forjudging and P for perceiving.
16 Temperament Types
Each ofthe preferences (S/N, T/F, E/I, J/P) is entirely independent ofthe other
preferences, but the different preferences interact with each other (McCaulley, 1981).

36
Sixteen different combinations, therefore, occur. Based on scores from the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the most widely used instrument for operationalizing
Jung’s theory, a person is “typed” as either an ESTJ, an INFP, or any of the other 14
possible combinations. Myers wrote detailed descriptions for each of the 16 types
(McCaulley, 1981). Each of these patterns of preference results in a different kind of
personality, characterized by the interests, values, needs, mental habits, and surface traits
that naturally result from the combination (Myers, 1980). According to MBTI theory,
each of the 16 types represents a specific cluster of cognitive and affective preferences
(Pittenger, 1993). Myers describes each of the preferences as a “fork in the road of
human development.”
Each ofthese preferences...determines which oftwo contrasting forms of
excellence a person will pursue. How much excellence people actually achieve
depends in part on their energy and their aspirations, but according to type
theory, the kind of excellence toward which they are headed is determined by the
inborn preferences that direct them at each fork in the road (Myers, 1980, p. 10).
The Dominant Function
According to type theory, one of the processes (either perceiving orjudging) is
dominant. The role ofthe dominant process is that ofa “governing force” that unifies
the individual’s life (Myers, 1980). The dominant process overshadows the other
processes and shapes the personality accordingly—a phenomenon noted by Jung that
became, along with the Extraversion-Introversion preference, the basis of his type theory
(Myers, 1980). Jung believed that the dominant process should be highly developed. He

37
advocated that for every person one process—Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, or
Feeling—must have clear sovereignty, with opportunity to reach its full development, ifa
person is to be really effective (Myers, 1980).
The preference on the JP dimension is used in determining the dominant function.
Extraverts who prefer Judging rely predominantly on either Thinking or Feeling. On the
other hand, extraverts who prefer Perceiving rely on either Sensing or Intuition. For an
ENTJ, for example, the T would be dominant, and the N, in this case, would be the
auxiliary process (Willis, 1984).
The introvert’s dominant function, however is determined in a more complex
fashion. Because the JP dimension always indicates a person’s reaction to the external
world, the introvert’s J or P score points to the auxiliary process—the one used when
assuming an extraverted role. The most relied upon process for an introvert is used on
the internal world. Thus, T is the dominant, internally focused process for an INTP, and
N is the auxiliary process (Willis, 1984).
Relationships between Personality and Self-Regulated Learning
Reflecting on type theory and self-regulated learning led to a search for literature
that might illuminate possible relationships between the two constructs. A great deal of
research exists linking personality type with various cognitive issues such as learning
styles, but when one asks whether there exist differences in the use of self-regulating
strategies among those who prefer different personality preferences, some, but not
extensive, related research can be found.

38
Sharma (1996) studied relationships between self-regulation and personality type
in students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. She administered the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI)
to a sample of 16 students and reported significant positive correlations between
Extraversion and Information Processing; Thinking and Information Processing,
Selection of Main Ideas, and Test-taking Strategies; and Extraversion and Attitude.
Significant negative correlations were found between Perception and Information
Processing, Selection ofMain Ideas, and Test-taking Strategies. She concluded that the
correlational study furnished insights into the behavior patterns ofthe learner and also
provided an effective technique to identify individual strengths and weaknesses in
specific study strategies. “Service providers,” Sharma (1996, p. 229) contends, “can
identify specific gaps in skills and help teach the acquisition of these skills in a manner
which complements the student’s personality preference.”
Another correlational study using the MBTI was completed by Wilson (1992),
who investigated relationships between psychological type and self-directed learning
readiness. Self-directed learning (SDL) and self-regulated learning (SRL) share many
commonalities. For example, self-efficacy for learning, initiative, independence, taking
responsibility for one’s own learning, and the ability to use basic study skills and
problem-solving skills are included in Wilson’s description of SDL. A number of
researchers have called for SDL to be thought ofas a personality construct or trait
versus a mode of instruction and for the personality or psychological dimensions to
receive greater attention (e.g., Caffarella & O’Donnell, 1988; Eisenman, 1989; Loesch

39
& Foley, 1988; Oddi, 1987). Wilson (1992) found a correlation coefficient between
SDL readiness and sensing-intuhion of .44, significant at the .001 level. She concluded
that the intuitive psychological type seems to be related to self-directed learning and
suggested that investigating psychological characteristics might be useful in developing a
greater understanding of SDL.
Similar conclusions were drawn by Atman and Romano (1987), who studied the
conation cycle in order to examine the steps that occur between setting a goal and the
achievement ofthat goal. They used four instruments to examine personality attributes
related to goal accomplishment capability: the Goal Orientation Index, the Rotter Locus
of Control (1/E) Scale, the Bass Orientation Inventory, and the Myers-Briggs Type
Inventory. While not delineating specific differences relating to type theory, the authors
concluded that personal information from inventories enables individuals to make
decisions concerning their personal and professional development, that correlation data
can be used to tailor individualized prescriptions for self-monitored behavior change, and
that development of metacognitive and intrapersonal skills is a necessary element in the
holistic development of individuals (Atman & Romano, 1987).
Campbell and Davis (1988) also concluded that knowledge of psychological type
could assist students in developing critical thinking skills. They assert that the key to
developing a learner's ability to think critically is found in the order of the learner's
preferences for perception (S/N) andjudgment (T/F). Relying on type theory's ideas
concerning the dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions, Campbell and Davis
(1988) conclude that learners who know their own preferred and non-preferred

40
approaches can reinforce their strengths while working to overcome their weaknesses.
Their results suggest the usefulness of self-understanding through type theory for
improving students' abilities to learn.
Melear (1989) administered the Learning Style Profile (LSP) and the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to over 600 students in order to determine the students'
learning styles as a predictor for success in a college biology course. The researcher
concluded that the biology course could be improved by offering more learning
opportunities preferred by the various personality types (Melear, 1989).
An additional study (Mandinach, 1987) found results suggesting that individual
differences are important in self-regulated learning. Protocols of more and less
successful students were distinguishable by the spontaneous use ofself-regulated
learning processes. Successful students showed a greater ability to shift levels of
cognitive engagement in response to stimuli and feedback, and students seemed to
demonstrate individual differences in regard to the shifting ability.
Davis and Henry (1997) gathered data based on the Goal Orientation Index
(GOI), which describes conative capacity, the MBTI for identifying participants'
psychological types, and participant journals, student interviews, and questionnaires.
The study found a significant difference in the students' Judging/Perceiving preferences,
with the distance learning participants preferring Judging and the lab participants
preferring Perceiving. The researchers concluded consistency with type theory that
holds Ts prefer closure, clear goals, and schedules while P’s prefer spontaneity (Davis
& Henry, 1997).

41
The J’s preference for exerting control might relate to a study conducted by
Garcia and Pintrich (1996) that focused on autonomy, motivation, and performance.
Because those who score high on the Judging dimension prefer to make decisions and
control schedules, events, and people, they might be expected to prefer autonomy as
well. Autonomy was defined in this study as the student’s perception about the extent to
which he or she is allowed to share in decision-making about course policies. The term
was used interchangeably with self-determination. The researchers found that autonomy
does “seem to modestly foster intrinsic goal orientation, task value, and self-efficacy”
(Garcia & Pintrich, 1996, p. 484). These three factors are components of self-regulated
learning. Test anxiety, another SRL factor examined in this study, seemed to
be “more trait-like and resistant to contextual factors” (Garcia & Pintrich, 1996, p.483).
Similarly, the data showed baseline levels of motivation to be the strongest predictors of
end-of-term motivation, “indicating that a great deal of student motivation is established
a priori of course enrollment” (Garcia & Pintrich, 1996, p. 485). Although the authors
conclude that the data lend support for the benefits of fostering autonomy within
academic settings, results of the study also seem to indicate possible connections
between individual differences and self-regulated learning.
Chase (1988) used the MBTI to investigate the enhancement of learning through
type theory. This study looked for the effects of practice and personality on the
development of students’written responses to literature. The study indicates that
students' responses changed over the instructional period in directions guided by their
individual personality preferences. Introverts' responses, for example, were more "self

42
referenced and less global at the end offour weeks" (Chase, 1988). In feet, the research
indicates that few significant changes in students' written responses were found until
response statements were examined interms of MBTI types. Chase (1988) suggests
that studies of response which do not examine personality characteristics of the
respondent may risk overlooking patterns of growth in a student's written
response—patterns that may be discernible in one personality type and not in another
Concluding that personality preference theory based on MBTI types may offer an
essential foundation for developing a curriculum that allows for the validation of
individual differences with the context of shared language communities, Chase also
points to the value of type understanding in terms of academic achievement (Chase,
1988).
Hecht, Boster, and LaMer (1989) reported evidence that extraverts were more
self-monitoring, using external cues to control and adjust their communication.
Introverts were low self-monitors, less aware of others, and did not adjust their
communication styles. Entwistle and Entwistle (1970), on the other hand, found that
introverts had better study habits than extraverts.
While not studying personality type specifically, Garcia (1993) focused on the
importance of the selfby investigating the role ofthe self-schema in self-regulated
learning. Indicating that the self-system is the source ofmotivation and affective states
necessary for self-regulated learning, Garcia (1993) incorporated the construct into self
regulated learning theory. She proposed that self-schemas are cognitive frameworks of
knowledge about the selfwhich link multiple goals ofthe individual and that

43
performance is an indicator ofthe self-schema. She theorized that self-schemas might
provide the bridge between motivation and strategy use—that they serve both as a
pattern of action and for action—and that they influence both affect and cognition. She
further postulated that there must exist some mechanisms that guide behavior as
individuals regulate their behaviors according to beliefs inherent in their self-schemas.
My purpose is to suggest that such guiding mechanisms might be found in personality
type theory.
Viewing type theory and self-schema theory conjointly might supply some
missing links. Could, for example, a person’s preference for functioning provide origins
ofthe self-schema? Could type theory provide a viable source for new “possible selves”?
Could type theory present possibilities for helping people alter the self-schema?
Sometimes self-defeating, self-limiting beliefs are incorporated into the self-schema.
Garcia declares, for example, that “self-handicapping may be a strategy in which one
engages when negative self-schemas are activated in the working self-concept, perhaps
when potential failure is imminent, such as prior to an examination” (Garcia, 1993, p.
26). She suggests that research should continue to probe the differences between
present and possible selves and between positive and negative selves (Garcia, 1993).
Type theory holds that personality preferences combine to form a profile and that each
profile has natural strengths and corresponding weaknesses. An understanding of one’s
profile can then lead to a practical way ofaddressing those possible weaknesses when
individuals leam that they can develop skills for functioning from their less preferred
dimensions.

44
The notion of developing skills for the less preferred dimension is a crucial
understanding in type theory. Without this understanding, one might assume that “type”
is impervious to the individual’s control—that type is, in terms familiar to attribution
theorists, internal, stable, global, and uncontrollable. Some theorists, in fact, have
apparently rejected the idea ofthe possible connections between innate personality traits
and self-regulated learning for that reason. “Self-regulated learning is not a personality
‘style’ or trait that the individual has no control over, as suggested, for example, by the
Myers-Briggs typology, which, for example, might classify someone as inherently an
introvert or extravert” (Pintrich, 1995). Hofer et al. (1998) reject a strong trait model,
assuming instead that “the different cognitive and motivational beliefs and strategies that
students bring with them to college courses are not traits and are amenable to change”
(Hofer et al., 1998, p. 81).
This view, however, is based on the assumption that ifa factor is stable (lasting
as opposed to temporary) or innate, as Jung believed about the temperament preferences,
it must be uncontrollable by the individual. Type theory holds, however, that the
relatively stable trait results from simple innate preferences for ways of functioning and
that individuals can learn to modify those preferences when necessary once they
understand that they have the power to do so (Barr & Barr, 1989). Individuals also can
leam that such modifications can be effected in a temporary fashion that does not impede
development or use oftheir more preferred dimension. Just as a person can leam to
write with his/her less preferred hand when necessary, type theory holds that one can
leam skills and behaviors that do not “come naturalfy’and that one can become very

45
adept at using such acquired skills when necessary. Some innate factors (eye color and
height, for example) are not subject to the individual’s control while others (tendency
toward obesity and handedness, for example) can be controlled when it becomes
important for a person to do so. The traits in a person’s personality type profile are like
the latter. While such traits have been shown to be stable over time, nothing in type
theory holds that they are not under the individual’s control.
Teaching Self-Regulated Learning
In addition to the possibility of developing skills for the less preferred
temperament dimensions, the matter of whether or not self-regulation can be taught and
learned is of key importance. Zimmerman, who has investigated how effective students
leam on their own for over 25 years, believes that all students have the power to become
"smart learners," ifthey use self-regulatory processes to study more effectively and that
these processes can be taught (Zimmerman et al., 1996). Zimmerman and Paulsen
(1995) state that all students can leam how to become self-regulating regardless of age,
gender, ethnic background, actual ability level, prior knowledge, or motivation. He adds
that while it is not always easy, all students have the potential to control their own
learning and should accept that responsibility.
Since SRL skills are used more extensively by the gifted, it becomes imperative
to ask whether such skills can be taught successfully to under-prepared students.
Trawick and Como (1995), in working with under-prepared community college
students, set up a volitional enhancement program for teaching new behaviors, skills, and
attitudes to students who may have never had access to models who demonstrate

46
characteristics necessary for self-regulated learning. The program may be seen as
providing "a competing environmental model for students whose current environments
may not lend themselves to initiating or supporting particular models of learning and
behavior" (Trawick & Como, 1995). The focus ofthe program is helping students know
the need for changing their thoughts and behaviors and helping them acquire specific
new knowledge and ideas-for example, that they can formally monitor study time. The
researchers conclude that change occurs through a gradual process of internalizing
knowledge over a period of time and that a program longer in duration and incorporated
into the regular curriculum ought to facilitate specific self-management outcomes
(Trawick & Como, 1995). The researchers also concluded that opportunities that
encourage students to access their own thinking processes-investigating, for example,
how they choose answers on homework exercises or how they eliminate other possible
responses-help students become accustomed to thinking about their thinking. Because
other researchers (Pressley et al., 1984) have found that lasting strategy use requires an
explicit connection between the instructional situation and the usefulness of the strategy,
Trawick and Como (1995) suggest that instructors be taught how to incorporate
strategy skills into their courses rather than concentrating on content alone.
Bonner, in collaboration with Zimmerman and Kovach (Zimmerman et aL,1996).
has conducted impressive case studies of individualized tutoring ofstudents
experiencing academic difficulty. Teachers, according to these researchers, can shift
responsibility for the learning process by helping their students develop self-regulating
skills. The teaching process in this model includes (l)asking students to self-monitor,

47
(2)helping them analyze their own data individually or in small groups, and (3)helping
them set goals and choose strategies in light of self-monitored outcomes. The teacher
teaches self-regulatory techniques by modeling self-monitoring and strategy-selection
procedures. Finally, the teacher encourages the students to self-monitor, providing
crucial support when students' strategies do not seem to work (Zimmerman et al., 1996).
Such a teaching process attends first to students' learning methods before the focus
shifts to learning outcomes. Teachers function more like tutors or coaches by providing
specific, personalized feedback instead of merely presenting general information to
students.
Johnston (1996) also maintains that self-regulatory skills can be taught and points
out that current information about student learning indicates clearly that students' failure
to leam can usually be attributed to lack of effort or lack ofappropriate strategies for
accomplishing the learning, rather than innate ability. In other words, motivational or
strategic knowledge is lacking, and when students leam how to use their abilities, they
persist and achieve at higher levels. The problem, suggests Trawick and Como (1995),
might not be that the students lack effort or "will." Rather, they may need to fine-tune
their volitional resources to benefit from their persistent efforts.
Work completed by Lindner and Harris (1993) also indicates that many students
can profit by instruction that emphasizes the understanding and use of self-regulated
learning skills and attitudes. Carr (1996) likewise maintains that it is possible to improve
the self-regulatory skills of students through instruction-that teachers can teach students

48
to think about their goals, about what they are doing and why, and about different
approaches that will have more successful results.
Butler (1997) joins other researchers in reporting studies suggesting that students
benefit from strategic content learning approaches to instruction. Results indicate
positive shifts in students' knowledge and beliefs central to effective self-regulation,
including metacognitive strategies, self-monitoring, perceptions of self-efficacy, and
attributional beliefs (Butler, 1997). Butler’s research (1997) was conducted with
students who have learning disabilities, suggesting that strategic content learning might
be a promising approach for at-risk students.
Trawick (1988) targeted students with a history of academic failure in order to
study the relationships between self-regulated learning strategies, attributional patterns,
academic performance expectancies, and academic performance. The study took into
account three different components of self-regulation: cognition (for acquiring,
retaining, and retrieving information), motivation (for propelling efforts), and volition
(for monitoring and protecting intentions). Trawick (1988) found support from Como's
research (Como et al., 1982) for the hypothesis that the underlying strategies of self
regulated learning can be acquired when students are given explicit instruction and
modeling coupled with multiple opportunities for practice.
Origins of Cognitive Development
When thinking of how to teach self-regulatory skills, theorists consider how
cognitive and metacognitive processes develop in the first place. Wertsch (1979)
conducted studies that focus on the development of self-regulatory skills in preschoolers

49
and concluded that metacognitive processes, like other higher psychological functions,
have social origins. Young children who served as subjects worked on ajigsaw puzzle
with their mothers. Researchers documented four levels of interaction as regulation of
the problem-solving process shifted from mother to child. At the first level, the child
does not understand that her mother's prompts or instructions relate to the task. At the
second level, the child realizes that the adult's instructions are related to the task in some
way, but as the full connection between speech and activity is not always evident to the
child, she might not make appropriate inferences. At the third level, the child is able to
make inferences from parental instructions and interpret implied statements meaningfully.
At this point, the child begins to regulate more personal activity as she begins to better
understand the task and solution process. This transition from mother-regulation to the
child's self-regulation continues as the child proceeds to the fourth, most advanced level.
At this point, the child regulates her own activity. The child often utters a monologue as
she solves the task, so that self-regulation is observable. This study supports the notion
that parents initially regulate their child's problem solving behavior and cede this
regulation as the child's competence grows. To the extent that mothers encourage the
child to adopt planning, monitoring, and other regulatory strategies, they may enhance
the child’s development of metacognition (Forrest-Pressley & Waller, 1984).
Understanding the possibility of teaching such skills is further expanded by a
consideration ofVygotsky's theory concerning the origins ofcognitive development.
Three important components of Vygotsky's theory give novel perspectives. First,
Vygotsky believed that knowledge is socially transmitted and cognitive processes are

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING, PERSONALITY, AND ACHIEVEMENT

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING, PERSONALITY, AND ACHIEVEMENT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING, PERSONALITY, AND ACHIEVEMENT

Similar to A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING, PERSONALITY, AND ACHIEVEMENT (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING, PERSONALITY, AND ACHIEVEMENT