The influence of students’ intelligence types and personality traits on academic performance in distance learning in the digital environment

The academic paper investigates the influence of students’ intelligence types and personality traits on academic performance in order to increase the remote (distance) or online learning effectiveness. The research was conducted in 2019–2021 on the basis of three groups of bachelor students who studied in different training forms, namely: full-time (classroom) form in 2019 and 2021 and remote (distance) form in 2020. The students were tested annually in accordance with J. Bruner’s methodology adapted by G.V. Rezapkina in order to determine the leading intelligence types; as well as according to the Russian-language version of the Big Five Inventory questionnaire adapted by S.A. Shchebetenko for the purpose of analysing students’ personal traits. The data obtained in the full-time (classroom) and remote (distance) form of training were processed statistically and compared with each other for interpretation and the practical recommendations formation. The research result was an empirical model of the intelligence types and personality traits influencing academic performance in different training forms. Therefore, as a positive factor in the transfer to distance training mode, the authors highlighted the expressiveness of students’ creative thinking. Conversely, the prevalence of the verbal-logical intelligence type is rather a factor in favour of the classic classroom interaction format. Regardless of the chosen training form, the general relevance of the activation and adaptation of students of humanitarian specialties with a pronounced visual-figurative and subject-effective thinking is emphasised. Previously obtained data on the general positive influence of such personal qualities as: benevolence, conscientiousness and openness to new experience on the training effectiveness are also confirmed. Neuroticism, on the other hand, is an insignificant personal factor that has a negative impact in the framework of the classroom format, and the positive influence in distance training mode. By the way, a hypothesis has been put forward about the lower efficiency of online (as opposed to full-time) team activities, including design works in groups with pronounced extraversion.

1. Altakhyneh B. (2019), “The impact of using Bruner’s approach, supported by total communication, on the mathematics achievement of students with hearing disabilities in Amman schools”, International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 63–78. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.12.5

2. Audet L.C., Levine S.L., Metin E., Koestner S. and Barcan S. (2021), “Zooming their way through university: Which Big 5 traits facilitated students’ adjustment to online courses during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Personality and Individual Difference, vol. 180, no. 1, article 110969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110969

3. Belinskaya E.P. and Fedorova N.V. (2020), “Personal factors of evaluating the efficiency of distance education”, Obrazovanie lichnosti, no. 1-2, pp. 44–52. (In Russian).

4. De Feyter T., Caers R., Vigna C. and Berings D. (2012), “Unraveling the impact of the Big Five personality traits on academic performance: The moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy and academic motivation”, Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.013

5. Emamepur S. and Shams H. (2004), “Study of learning styles in students of university and their relationship with academic achievement and gender”, Psychological-Educational Researches Quarterly of Tarbiyat Moalem, no. 5, pp. 1–24.

6. Gappi L.L. (2013), “Relationships between learning style preferences and academic performance of students”, International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, vol. 4, no. 2. pp. 70–76.

7. Garine A.G.F. (2014), The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness (catme): personality predicting teamwork competencies. Available at: https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/bitstream/10071/8706/1/Thesis%20final.pdf (accessed 05.12.2021).

8. Gavrilov I.V., Lukash I.V., Orlov I.V., Kazaeva A.V. and Andrega D.S. (2017), “Individual psychological approach at the mathematical forecast of progress of students at Department of Biochemistry”, Vestnik Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo meditsinskogo universiteta, no. 1, pp. 21–24. (In Russian).

9. Geramian S. M., Mashayekhi S. and Ninggal M.T.B.H. (2012), “The relationship between personality traits of international students and academic achievement”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, no. 46, pp. 4374–4379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.257

10. Hejazi E., Hakimi S., Lavasani M.G. (2011), “The relationships between personality traits and students’ academic achievement”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 836–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.312

11. Ilin E.P. (2013), Psychology of creativity, creativity, giftedness, Piter, St. Petersburg, Russia. (In Russian).

12. Jahanbakhsh R. (2012), “Learning styles and academic achievement: a case study of Iranian high school girl’s students”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 51, pp. 1030–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.282

13. Juhász M. (2010), “Influence of personality on Teamwork behaviour and communication”, Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, vol. 18, no. 2. pp. 61–74. https://doi.org/10.3311/pp.so.2010-2.02

14. Kalugin A.Yu., Shchebetenko S.A., Mishkevich A.M., Soto K.D. and John O. (2021), “Properties of the Russian version of the Big Five Inventory – 2”, Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vyshei shkoly ekonomiki, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 7–33. (In Russian) https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2021-1-7-33

15. Kichuk S.L. and Wiesner W.H. (1997), “The big five personality factors and team performance: implications for selecting successful product design teams”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, vol. 14, no. 3–4, pp. 195–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0923-4748(97)00010-6

16. Ling A.S., Basit A. and Nizam D. (2017), Does learning style impact student academic performance? // International Journal Of Education, Learning & Training (IJELT). No 2. Pp. 14–21.

17. Lutskovich V.V. (2013), “The specifics of the relationship between types of thinking and subjective features of understanding”, Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 53–61. (In Russian).

18. Mayasova T.V. and Lekomceva A.A. (2015), “Formation of professional preferences, tendencies and their сommunication with nature of thinking of first-year students of different specialties”, Modern scientific researches and innovations, no. 11 (55), pp. 53–61. (In Russian).

19. Nighute S. and Sadavarte S.K. (2014), “Relationship between big five personality traits and academic performance in medical students”, Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences, vol. 3, no. 17, pp. 4446–4452. https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2014/2457

20. Noftle E.E. and Robins R.W. (2007), “Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116

21. Rezapkina G.V. (2007), Selection for specialised classes, Methodology “Type of thinking”, Genezis, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian).

22. Sheinov V.P. (2017), “On the relation between the mindset types in lecturers and students and their personal characteristics”, Systemic psychology and sociology, no. 3 (23), pp. 34–40. (In Russian). (accessed 26.12.2021).

23. Vedel A. (2014), “The Big Five and tertiary academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 71, pp. 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.011

24. Yu Z. (2021), “The effects of gender, educational level, and personality on online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic”, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00252-3