Student personality, classroom environment, and student outcomes: A person–environment fit analysis

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThis study examines whether congruence between classroom environment and student personality is associated with increases in student satisfaction and performance. Data were collected from students (n = 1763) at a comprehensive state university and analyzed using mixed-level maximum likelihood polynomial regression analysis and surface response methodology. Results indicate that student personality is a consistent predictor of student satisfaction, classroom environment is a consistent predictor of performance, and the interplay between the two is important in predicting satisfaction and performance. The personality characteristics of agreeableness and conscientiousness and the classroom environment dimension of structure were all positively related to both satisfaction and performance. Congruence between several personality traits and classroom environment elements was found to increase satisfaction, performance, or both. The implications of these results for instruction and research on person-environment fit in higher education are discussed.

The impact of personality on students' perceptions towards online learning

“…In another definition by McGeown et al (2014), personality is "a set of underlying traits that determine how an individual typically behaves, thinks and feels" (p. 279). Previous studies have shown that personality is a consistent predictor of student satisfaction (Pawlowska, Westerman, Bergman, & Huelsman, 2014), university dropout and attrition rates (Alarcon & Edwards, 2013;Lounsbury, Saudargas, Gibson, & Leong, 2005), academic motivation (Komarraju & Karau, 2005;Zhou, 2015), and academic performance Pawlowska et al, 2014;Vedel, 2014;Zhou, 2015). From the above studies, we can conclude that personality does play an important role in students' learning experiences.…”

WhatsApp is the Message: Out-of-Class Communication, Student-Teacher Relationship, and Classroom Environment

“…Communicating with teachers outside the classroom may impact students' perceptions of teachers (Dobransky & Frymier, 2004) and may affect the student-teacher relationship and classroom environment (Myers & Claus, 2012). Student-teacher relationship is key in the overall teaching and learning process (Birch & Ladd, 1998;Cornelius-White, 2007;Gregory & Weinstein, 2004;Hamre & Pianta, 2001Sabol & Pianta, 2012); so is classroom environment (Dorman, 2003;MacAulay, 1990;Pawlowska, Westerman, Bergman, & Huelsman, 2014). Hence, OCC may affect learning and teaching at large.…”

“…Under the personal development dimension, the categories are task orientation, and competition; under the system maintenance dimension, the categories are order and organization, rule clarity, teacher control, and innovation; and under the relationship dimension, the categories are involvement, affiliation, and teachers support. It is important to note that although early empirical examinations supported this structure (Trickett, Qninlan, & Trickett, 1979), later analyses found different data-driven structures of it (Boren, Callahan, & Peugh, 2011;Pawlowska et al, 2014;van der Sijde & Tomic, 1992). Additionally, Moos and Tricket's original measuring tool for classroom environment-the Classroom Environment Scale (CES)-is a very long one, including ninety items.…”

“…Later, this tool was refined (cf. Pawlowska et al, 2014). One of its most recent versions, in the context of undergraduate students, includes 32 items in five dimensions: Structure and Focus, Instruction Support, Participative Learning, Classroom Involvement, and Student Competition (Pawlowska et al, 2014); Pawlowska et al's analyses revealed a somewhat different inner structure of the Scale, with some items cross-loading in multiple dimensions and some failing to load in any category.…”

“…Pawlowska et al, 2014). One of its most recent versions, in the context of undergraduate students, includes 32 items in five dimensions: Structure and Focus, Instruction Support, Participative Learning, Classroom Involvement, and Student Competition (Pawlowska et al, 2014); Pawlowska et al's analyses revealed a somewhat different inner structure of the Scale, with some items cross-loading in multiple dimensions and some failing to load in any category. As all items in our questionnaire are ranked on a 5-point Likert type scale-which may impact overall scale structure by itself; as we shortened the Scale, taking only 16 items (4 of which are reversed); and as we administered this questionnaire to elementary-, middle-, and high-school students -we ran an exploratory factor analysis, in order to explore the structure of this adapted tool.…”