https://doi.org/10.29070/1qrg7v66
Investigating relationship between cognitive styles, personality traits, and academic achievement of adolescents
 
Anith Arackal1*, Dr. Gopal Krishna Bhardwaj2
1 Research Scholar, University of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Email: anithsobin@gmail.com
2 Professor, Department of Education, University of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Abstract - This study explores the intricate relationships between cognitive styles, personality traits, and academic achievement among adolescents. Cognitive styles refer to the preferred ways individuals process information, while personality traits are enduring characteristics that influence behavior and attitudes. The research involved a diverse sample of adolescents, utilizing a combination of cognitive style inventories, personality assessments, and academic performance records. The findings revealed significant correlations between specific cognitive styles and academic success, with certain personality traits acting as mediators in this relationship. The study underscores the importance of considering both cognitive and personality factors in educational strategies to enhance student performance. The implications for educators and policymakers are discussed, emphasizing tailored interventions that align with students' cognitive and personality profiles.
Keywords: Cognitive styles, Personality traits, Academic achievement, Adolescents
INTRODUCTION
You can't steal money or property, but you can steal an education. It develops our mental faculties, increases our store of information, and enhances our personalities from the inside out. An individual's potential may be nurtured and honed via the process of education. "By Education, I mean an all-round pulling out of the finest in the child and man-body, intellect, and soul," said Mahatma Gandhi. Even our founding father warned that education is more than just memorising facts. The training should help the individual grow in all facets of their being: physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially.
Since education is a part of society as a whole, it also plays a significant role in the continual moulding, reforming, and reconstruction of society as a whole. One of the most prominent trends in recent educational theory is an emphasis on the need of cultivating well-rounded pupils with strong personalities and achieving measurable learning results in the classroom. Students' academic performance is often cited as a crucial factor in determining their future happiness and prosperity.
Success in school depends on a student's ability to learn fundamentals and broad concepts, as well as master and apply specific procedures, end goals, symbols, and ideas. Traditionally, evaluation of academic performance has focused only on the acquisition of new facts, figures, and concepts. Achievement refers to a student's level of mastery in a topic after receiving formal education in that area. Status in class is determined by how well students do on an achievement test and is reflected in their test scores or grades (Singh et al., 2007).
As a phenomena, academic success may be understood on several levels. Intelligence, personality, motivation, school environment, genetics, home environment, learning, experiences at school, hobbies, aptitudes, family history, socioeconomic level of parents, and many other variables impacted the academic accomplishment. According to Sinha (1970), one's academic performance is influenced by factors such as effort, intellect, memory, health, access to books, study techniques, financial stability, and a desire to contribute to society via practical labour. According to a survey conducted by Dave (1975), students' academic performance is influenced by factors such as their IQ, health, family's socioeconomic level, gender, caste, the proximity of their house to the school, and their extracurricular activities. Self-concept, achievement motivation, anti-Indian discrimination, culture conflict, and family instability were found to be significant predictors of academic performance among Indian students by Bruce et al. (1977); achievement motivation and culture conflict were found to be significant predictors of academic performance among urban students. According to Balasubramanium (1993), students' performance is affected by factors such as their native language, where they live, and the language they are taught in the classroom. Having a mother with a high level of education has been linked to higher test scores and overall success in school, as shown by Guha et al. (1995). Haseen (1999) discovered that socioeconomic status, parent-child relationship, and dependent behaviour all had a substantial impact on children's academic performance, whereas Laxmi (1997) found that children with college educated parents were more driven to succeed in school. Dangwal (2000) found a negative correlation between obstacle dominance and academic performance, but ego defence was shown to have a beneficial effect. Classroom elements, followed by environmental and developmental factors, were shown to have the greatest impact on students' academic achievement, as stated by Avinashilingan et al. (2005). Students are more likely to achieve success in life when they are motivated on the inside, have a qualified instructor, are free from external distractions, are surrounded by peers with similar worldviews, and have opportunities to network.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Method For this investigation, a descriptive survey methodology was used.
The population for this research would include all secondary students studying in different schools in the Alappuzha district of Kerala state. In these study 400 students was taken as a sample. By using a stratified random selection process, the school was chosen. Additionally, a sample of every kid in every accessible complete class from each chosen institution was used. Senior secondary school kids from Kerala's Malappuram district was make up the sample.
The following tools was selected for the study
Independent and dependent variable was used in the study:
Independent variable
Dependent variable
The investigator was collecting though the Questionnaires. For data analysis Standardized tests was used to measure personality traits, cognitive styles and levels of adjustment.
One Way ANOVA followed by t-test, Two Way ANOVA, Product Moment Correlation, t-test for determining the significance of the difference between correlation, Regression Analysis, and Factor Analysis were among the appropriate statistical techniques used to analyse the obtained data in accordance with the objectives.
Results and Discussion:
The mean score and standard deviation (SD) of teenagers' academic success at various levels of cognitive style are shown in Table 1. Teenagers with low systematic cognitive styles (N=157) have a mean score of 58.88 and an SD of 8.34 in academic achievement; those with medium low systematic cognitive styles (N=203) have 62.21 and 7.89; those with medium high systematic cognitive styles (N=475) have 62.26 and 8.02; and those with high systematic cognitive styles (N=410) have 64.54 and 8.46, respectively. Teens with low intuitive cognitive styles (N = 183), medium low intuitive styles (N = 348), medium high intuitive styles (N = 426), and high intuitive styles (N = 289) have mean scores and standard deviations of academic achievement of 60.02 and 8.42, 61.64 and 8.34, and 64.42 and 8.77, respectively. Teenagers (N=1246) with varying degrees of cognitive style had mean scores and standard deviations of academic success of 62.58 and 8.36, respectively.
Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviation of Academic Achievement at Different Levels of Cognitive Style
Cognitive Style
Level
N
Mean
SD
Sys. Cog. Style
Low
157
58.88
8.34
Medium Low
203
62.21
7.89
Medium High
475
62.26
8.02
High
410
64.54
8.46
Int. Cog. Style
Low
183
60.02
8.42
Medium Low
348
61.64
8.34
 
Medium High
426
63.20
7.70
High
289
64.42
8.77
Total
 
1246
62.58
8.36
 
The mean score and standard deviation (SD) of teenagers' academic success at various personality component levels are shown in Table 2. Teens with low personality factor A (N =139) had a mean score and standard deviation of academic success of 62.03 and 7.46; those with average personality factor A (N =1025) was 62.58 and 8.41; and those with strong personality component A (N =82) had a mean score and standard deviation of 63.48 and 9.15.
Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation of Academic Achievement at Different Levels of Factors of Personality
Personality Factor
Level
N
Mean
SD
Personality Factor
Level
N
Mean
SD
A
Low
139
62.03
7.46
H
Low
126
62.51
8.15
Average
1025
62.58
8.41
Average
1012
62.35
8.45
High
82
63.48
9.15
High
108
64.84
7.46
B
Low
296
61.47
8.83
I
Low
13
62.08
9.56
Average
921
62.97
8.19
Average
1022
62.47
8.36
High
29
61.34
7.84
High
211
63.14
8.29
C
Low
26
64.42
7.47
J
Low
52
62.56
8.01
Average
814
62.22
8.31
Average
865
62.94
8.27
High
406
63.18
8.49
High
329
61.64
8.59
D
Low
230
63.70
8.65
O
Low
341
63.19
8.49
Average
944
62.28
8.34
Average
849
62.29
8.33
High
72
62.88
7.49
High
56
63.29
8.03
E
Low
89
62.10
8.02
Q2
Low
33
64.21
9.29
Average
1017
62.56
8.21
Average
1065
62.47
8.42
High
140
63.02
9.59
High
148
62.99
7.71
F
Low
536
62.98
8.33
Q3
Low
38
61.21
9.25
Average
695
62.32
8.43
Average
828
62.53
8.13
High
15
60.40
5.21
High
380
62.82
8.76
G
Low
43
61.02
8.53
Q4
Low
257
62.73
8.82
Average
953
62.50
8.21
Average
921
62.62
8.27
High
250
63.16
8.89
High
68
61.47
7.92
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total
1246
62.58
8.36
 
Table 3 displays the mean and standard deviation of teenagers with systematic cognitive styles by gender, geography, and kind of school. The mean score and standard deviation for individuals with a systematic cognitive style are 10.75 and 73.68 for men (N = 585) and 10.37 for females (N = 661), respectively. Teens with a systematic cognitive style who live in urban areas (N =674) have a mean score of 77.58 with SD 9.23, whereas those who live in rural areas (N =572) have a mean score of 71.56 and 11.17, respectively. Additionally, the mean score and standard deviation for adolescents with systematic cognitive styles studying in government schools (N = 382), aided schools (N = 446), private schools (N = 418), and aided schools (N = 446) are 75.02 and 9.46, respectively. Regardless of gender, geography, or kind of school, the mean score and standard deviation of teenagers (N=1246) with systematic cognitive styles are 74.82 and 10.60, respectively.
Table 3: Mean and Standard Deviation of Systematic and Intuitive Cognitive Style with respect to Gender, Location and Type of School
Variable
Groups
N
Sys. Cog. Style
Int. Cog. Style
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Gender
Males
585
73.68
10.75
71.22
10.13
Females
661
75.82
10.37
72.52
9.06
Location
Urban
674
77.58
9.23
73.49
9.27
Rural
572
71.56
11.17
70.06
9.65
School
Government
382
73.96
11.72
71.20
9.75
Aided
446
75.02
9.46
71.85
9.46
Private
418
75.39
10.65
72.63
9.56
 
Table 4 displays the mean and standard deviation (SD) of adolescents with personality characteristic A by gender, region, and kind of school. For personality component A, the mean score and standard deviation for men (N = 585) and females (N = 661) are, respectively, 21.42 and 4.45. The average score and standard deviation for teenagers with personality component A living in urban areas (N =674) and rural areas (N =572), respectively, are 21.54 and 4.32. In addition, the mean score and standard deviation for adolescents studying in government schools (N=382), aided schools (N=446), private schools (N=418), and other educational settings for adolescents with personality component A are, respectively, 21.97 and 3.93. Regardless of gender, geography, or kind of school, the mean score and standard deviation of adolescents (N=1246) with personality component A are, respectively, 21.83 and 4.35.
Table 4: Mean and Standard Deviation of Personality Factor A with respect to Gender, Location and Type of School
Variable
Groups
N
Mean
SD
Gender
Males
585
21.42
4.45
Females
661
22.20
4.22
Location
Urban
674
21.54
4.32
Rural
572
22.17
4.36
Type of School
Government
382
21.97
3.93
Aided
446
22.15
4.49
Private
418
21.37
4.53
 
Total
1246
21.83
4.35
 
Table 5 displays the mean and standard deviation of adolescents with personality component C broken down by gender, region, and kind of school. For personality component C, the mean score and standard deviation for men (N = 585), and for females (N = 661), are 22,.06 and 4.74, respectively. The mean score and standard deviation for teenagers living in urban areas (N =674) with personality component C are 21.81 and 5.05, respectively, whereas for adolescents living in rural areas (N =572), they are 23.24 and 4.45. In addition, the mean score and standard deviation for adolescents studying in government schools (N=382), aided schools (N=446), private schools (N=418), and other educational settings for adolescents with personality component C are, respectively, 22.70 and 4.82. Regardless of gender, geography, or kind of school, the mean score and standard deviation of teenagers (N=1246) with personality component C are, respectively, 22.47 and 4.83.
Table 5: Mean and Standard Deviation of Personality Factor C with respect to Gender, Location and Type of School
Variable
Groups
N
Mean
SD
Gender
Males
585
22.93
4.90
Females
661
22.06
4.74
Location
Urban
674
21.81
5.05
Rural
572
23.24
4.45
Type of School
Government
382
22.70
4.82
Aided
446
22.41
4.78
Private
418
22.31
4.91
 
Total
1246
22.47
4.83
 
Table 6 displays the mean and standard deviation of adolescents with personality component E broken down by gender, region, and kind of school. For personality component E, the mean score for men (N = 585), as well as for females (N = 661), is 17.73 and 3.63, respectively. The average personality factor E score for teenagers living in urban areas (N =674) is 18.27 and 3.80, whereas the average score for teenagers living in rural areas (N =572) is 18.03 and 3.76. In addition, the mean score and standard deviation for teenagers enrolled in government schools (N = 382), aided schools (N = 446), private schools (N = 418), and other educational settings are, respectively, 17.97 and 3.65. Regardless of gender, geography, or kind of school, the mean score and standard deviation of teenagers (N=1246) with personality component E are 18.16 and 3.79, respectively.
Table 6: Mean and Standard Deviation of Personality Factor E with respect to Gender, Location and Type of School
Variable
Groups
N
Mean
SD
Gender
Males
585
18.65
3.90
Females
661
17.73
3.63
Location
Urban
674
18.27
3.80
Rural
572
18.03
3.76
Type of School
Government
382
17.97
3.65
Aided
446
18.26
3.64
Private
418
18.23
4.06
 
Total
1246
18.16
3.79
 
Table 7 displays the mean and standard deviation for teenagers in the home, health, social, and emotional domains of adjustment, broken down by gender, location, and type of school. The mean score and standard deviation for home adjustment are 13.62 and 4.11 for boys (N = 585) and 12.94 and 4.22 for females (N = 661), respectively. The average and standard deviation for home adjustment among teenagers living in urban areas (N =674) and rural areas (N =572) are 13.47 and 4.64, respectively. In addition, the average and standard deviation for home adjustment among teenagers enrolled in government schools (N = 382), aided schools (N = 446), private schools (N = 418), and other educational institutions are, respectively, 13.79 and 4.18. Regardless of gender, geography, or kind of school, the mean score and standard deviation of home adjustment for teenagers (N=1246) are, respectively, 13.26 and 4.18.
Table 7: Mean and Standard Deviation of Home, Health, Social and Emotional Adjustment with respect to Gender, Location and Type of School
Variable
Groups
N
Home adj.
Health adj.
Social adj.
Emotional
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Gender
Males
585
13.62
4.11
9.74
4.26
16.07
3.75
12.42
6.09
Females
661
12.94
4.22
10.87
4.43
16.12
3.61
15.43
6.25
Location
Urban
674
13.47
4.64
10.62
4.58
16.03
3.63
15.32
6.66
Rural
572
13.01
3.56
10.01
4.13
16.18
3.72
12.48
5.58
Type of School
Government
382
13.34
3.98
10.27
4.20
15.98
3.98
13.69
6.19
Aided
446
13.63
4.32
10.42
4.44
16.34
3.78
14.12
6.30
Private
418
12.79
4.18
10.31
4.49
15.94
3.25
14.19
6.54
 
Total
1246
13.26
4.18
10.34
4.38
16.10
3.68
14.01
6.35
 
CONCLUSION
The investigation highlights the pivotal role of cognitive styles and personality traits in shaping the academic achievement of adolescents. The results indicate that certain cognitive styles, such as analytical and reflective thinking, are positively associated with higher academic performance. Furthermore, personality traits like conscientiousness and openness to experience significantly mediate this relationship, suggesting that these traits enhance the positive effects of adaptive cognitive styles on academic outcomes. These insights advocate for a more personalized approach in educational practices, where educators can develop strategies that cater to individual differences in cognition and personality. By acknowledging and fostering these individual differences, educational institutions can better support adolescents in achieving their academic potential. Future research should continue to explore these dynamics and examine the longitudinal impact of tailored educational interventions on student success.
REFERENCES
  1. Adeniyi, W. O. (2017) Personality Traits, Cognitive Styles and Academic Success of Secondary School Students in Ondo State Saudi Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (SJHSS) ISSN 2415-6256 (Print).
  2. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation.
  3. Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological monographs, 47(1), i.
  4. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and brain sciences, 12(1), 1-14.
  5. Carver, C. S. (2005). Impulse and constraint: Perspectives from personality psychology, convergence with theory in other areas, and potential for integration. Personality and social psychology review, 9(4), 312-333.
  6. Chauhan, S. P., & Chauhan, D. (2007). Emotional intelligence: does it influence decision making and role efficacy?. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 217-238.
  7. Diamantopoulou, S., Rydell, A. M., Thorell, L. B., & Bohlin, G. (2007). Impact of executive functioning and symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder on children's peer relations and school performance. Developmental neuropsychology, 32(1), 521-542.
  8. Dunsmore, J. A. (2005). An investigation of the predictive validity of broad and narrow personality traits in relation to academic achievement. A dissertation Ph D. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
  9. Fernandes Jr, O., Portugal, L. C., Rita de Cássia, S. A., Arruda-Sanchez, T., Rao, A., Volchan, E., ... & Mourao-Miranda, J. (2017). Decoding negative affect personality trait from patterns of brain activation to threat stimuli. Neuroimage, 145, 337-345.
  10. Guilford, J. P., & Smith, P. C. (1959). A system of color-preferences. The American Journal of Psychology, 72(4), 487-502.
  11. Hakimi, S., Hejazi, E., & Lavasani, M. G. (2011). The relationships between personality traits and students’ academic achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 836-845.
  12. Hakimi, S., Hejazi, E., & Lavasani, M. G. (2011). The relationships between personality traits and students’ academic achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 836-845.
  13. Kumar, S. H., & Dubey, A. (2017) Cognitive Style, Occupational Stress and Job Satisfaction among Marketing and Banking Professionals. SSRN Electronic Journal
  14. Maher, B. A., & Maher, W. B. (1994). Personality and psychopathology: a historical perspective. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 72.
  15. Masud, S., Mufarrih, S. H., Qureshi, N. Q., Khan, F., Khan, S., & Khan, M. N. (2019). Academic performance in adolescent students: the role of parenting styles and socio-demographic factors–a cross sectional study from peshawar, Pakistan. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 2497.
  16. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., Purker, W. D., Mills, C. J., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2002). personality traits development from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional and cross cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83( 6), 1456-1468.
  17. Moreira, P., Pedras, S., & Pombo, P. (2020). Students’ personality contributes more to academic performance than well-being and learning approach—implications for sustainable development and education. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 10(4), 1132-1149.
  18. Ouimette, P. C., Wolfe, J., & Chrestman, K. R. (1996). Characteristics of posttraumatic stress disorder—Alcohol abuse comorbidity in women. Journal of substance abuse, 8(3), 335-346.
  19. Panda, M. (2005). Correlation between academic achievement and intelligence of class IX students. Edutracks: A Monthly scanner of trends in Education, 5(1).
  20. Pandey, S. K. (2005). Parental Disciplining Behaviour and Academic Achievement of Adolescents. INDIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOMETRY AND EDUCATION, 36(2), 158.
  21. Parveen, D., & Ashok, K. (2013). A comparative study on personality level of national and international Korfball players. International Journal of Behavioural Social and Movement Sciences, 2(4), 52-55.
  22. Piaget, J. (1952). Jean Piaget.
  23. Rani, E., & Mangala, S. (2010). Need and importance of soft skills in students. Journal of Literature, culture and Media studies, 2(3).
  24. Rogers, V., & Imam, A. (2018). A Paper Review of Literature on Personality Traits and Values under varying social impacts. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 8(10), 551-557.
  25. Shi, Y., & Qu, S. (2022). The effect of cognitive ability on academic achievement: The mediating role of self-discipline and the moderating role of planning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
  26. Siddiquei, N., & Khalid, R. (2018). The relationship between personality traits, learning styles and academic performance of e-learners. Open Praxis, 10(3), 249-263.
  27. Singh Katoch, K., & Meera Thakur, I. I. (n.d.). (2016) Cognitive Styles of Secondary School Teachers. International Journal of Advanced Research in Education & Technology (IJARET), 3(4), 147.
  28. Tolman, E. C. (1952). Edward Chace Tolman.
  29. Watson, G. (1932). Measures of character and personality. Psychological Bulletin, 29(2), 147
  30. Witkin, B. R. (1977). Needs assessment kits, models and tools. Educational Technology, 17(11), 5-18.
  31. Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Fattuson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological differentiation: Studies of development.
  32. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1969). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of educational research, 47(1), 1-64.