1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Personality Personality is a pretty important word in the English language. If you ask someone why they chose their spouse or what the most important quality the look for in a friend is, most people will say a good personality. But, what does that mean? The truth is, the meaning of a good personality is different for everyone. Some people like quiet people, while others want to hang out with the loudest person in the room. Some value humor, while others praise intellect. And, of course, many people can have both intellect and humor and these things are both part of their personalities. These different factors, in fact, are considered to be personality traits. In psychology, the Big Five personality traits are five broad domains or dimensions of personality that are used to describe human personality. The theory based on the Big Five factors is called the Five Factor Model. Beneath each factor, a cluster of correlated specific traits are found; for example, extraversion includes such related qualities as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement seeking, warmth, activity and positive emotions. There have been different theoretical perspectives in the field of personality psychology over the years including human motivation, the whole person, and individual differences. The Big Five falls under the perspective of individual differences. The Big Five represents taxonomy (classification system) of traits that some personality psychologists suggest capture the essence of individual differences in personality. These traits were arrived at through factor analysis studies. Factor anal yese is a technique generally done with the use of computers to determine meaningful relationships and patterns in behavrial data. You begin with a large number of behavrial variables. The computer finds relationships or natural connections where variables are maximally correlated with one another and minimally correlated with other variables and then groups the data accordingly. After this process has been done many times a pattern appears of relationships or certain factors that capture the essence of all of the data. Such a process was used to determine the Big Five Personality factors. Many researchers tested factors other than the Big Five and found the Big Five to be the only consistently reliable factors

Strict trait personality psychologists go so far as to say our behavior is really determined by these internal traits, giving the situation a small role in determining behavior. In other words, these traits lead to an individual acting a certain way in a given situation. History of Big Five factors In psychology, the Big Five personality traits are five broad domains or dimensions of personality that are used to describe human personality. The theory based on the Big Five factors is called the Five Factor Model (FFM). The Big Five factors are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. The Big five has been preferably used, since it is able to measure different traits in personality without overlapping. During studies, the Big Five shows consistency while in interview, self description of traits and observation. Beneath each factor, a cluster of correlated specific traits is found; for example, extraversion includes such related qualities as gregariousness, assertiveness, excitement seeking, warmth, activity, and positive emotions. The five factors is a summary of the factors of the Big Five and their constituent traits: The Big Five model is a comprehensive, empirical, data-driven research finding. Identifying the traits and structure of human personality has been one of the most fundamental goals in all of psychology. The five broad factors were discovered and defined by several independent sets of researchers. These researchers began by studying known personality traits and then factoranalyzing hundreds of measures of these traits (in self-report and questionnaire data, peer ratings, and objective measures from experimental settings) in order to find the underlying factors of personality. The Big five personality traits were the model to comprehend the relationship between personality and academic behaviors. These five overarching domains have been found to contain and subsume most known personality traits and are assumed to represent the basic structure behind all personality traits. These five factors provide a rich conceptual framework for integrating all the research findings and theory in personality psychology. The Big Five traits are also referred to as the "Five Factor Model" or FFM, and as the Global Factors of personality. Russell & Karol (1994) At least four sets of researchers have worked independently for decades on this problem and have identified generally the same Big Five factors: Psychological Assessment Resources. These four sets of researchers used somewhat different methods in

finding the five traits, and thus each set of five factors has somewhat different names and definitions. However, all have been found to be highly inter-correlated and factor-analytically aligned. (International Personality Item Pool (2001). The Big Five traits are broad and comprehensive; they are not nearly as powerful in predicting and explaining actual behavior as are the more numerous lower-level traits. Many studies have confirmed that in predicting actual behavior the more numerous facet or primary level traits are far more effective When scored for individual feedback, these traits are frequently presented as percentile scores. For example, a Conscientiousness rating in the 80th percentile indicates a relatively strong sense of responsibility and orderliness, whereas an Extraversion rating in the 5th percentile indicates an exceptional need for solitude and quiet. Although these trait clusters are statistical aggregates, exceptions may exist on individual personality profiles. On average, people who register high in Openness are intellectually curious, open to emotion, interested in art, and willing to try new things. A particular individual, however, may have a high overall Openness score and be interested in learning and exploring new cultures but have no great interest in art or poetry. The most frequently used measures of the Big Five comprise either items that are selfdescriptive sentences or, in the case of lexical measures, items that are single adjectives. Due to the length of sentence-based and some lexical measures, short forms have been developed and validated for use in applied research settings where questionnaire space and respondent time are limited, such as the 40-item balanced International English Big-Five Mini-Markers or a very brief (10 item) measure of the Big Five domains. Each of the Big Five personality traits contains two separate, but correlated, aspects reflecting a level of personality below the broad domains but above the many facet scales that also comprise the Big Five. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., and Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domain: 10 aspects of the Big Five. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93, 880896. The aspects are labeled as follows: Volatility and Withdrawal for Neuroticism; Enthusiasm and Assertiveness Extraversion; Intellect and Openness for Openness/Intellect; Industriousness and Orderliness for Conscientiousness and Compassion and Politeness for Agreeableness. Here we explain the all dimensions in deeply. So let us see the whole summary of these five dimensions

Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless). Conscientiousness is a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement against measures or outside expectations. The trait shows a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behavior. It influences the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses. The average level of conscientiousness rises among young adult Conscientiousness is one of the five personality traits of the Big Five personality theory. A person scoring high in conscientiousness usually has a high level of self-discipline. These individuals prefer to follow a plan, rather than act spontaneously. Their methodic planning and perseverance usually makes them highly successful in their chosen occupation. High conscientiousness means a person is responsible and reliable. Conscientiousness is about how a person controls, regulates, and directs their impulses. Individuals with a high level of conscientiousness on a career test are good at formulating long-range goals, organizing and planning routes to these goals, and working consistently to achieve them. Despite short-term obstacles they may encounter. Other people usually perceive a conscientious personality type as a responsible and reliable person. However, individuals who score high in conscientiousness on a personality test can be compulsive perfectionists and workaholics. They might also be seen as being boring or inflexible. Take a free person and then declines among older adults. Conscientiousness concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses. Impulses are not inherently bad; occasionally time constraints require a snap decision, and acting on our first impulse can be an effective response. Also, in times of play rather than work, acting spontaneously and impulsively can be fun. Impulsive individuals can be seen by others as colorful, fun-to-be-with, and zany. None the less, acting on impulse can lead to trouble in a number of ways. Some impulses are antisocial. Uncontrolled antisocial acts not only harm other members of society, but also can result in retribution toward the perpetrator of such impulsive acts. Another problem with impulsive acts is that they often produce immediate rewards but undesirable, long-term consequences. Examples include excessive socializing that leads to being fired from one's job,

hurling an insult that causes the breakup of an important relationship, or using pleasure-inducing drugs that eventually destroy one's health. Impulsive behavior, even when not seriously destructive, diminishes a person's effectiveness in significant ways. Acting impulsively disallows contemplating alternative courses of action, some of which would have been wiser than the impulsive choice. Impulsivity also sidetracks people during projects that require organized sequences of steps or stages. Accomplishments of an impulsive person are therefore small, scattered, and inconsistent. A hallmark of intelligence, what potentially separates human beings from earlier life forms, is the ability to think about future consequences before acting on an impulse. Intelligent activity involves contemplation of long-range goals, organizing and planning routes to these goals, and persisting toward one's goals in the face of short-lived impulses to the contrary. The idea that intelligence involves impulse control is nicely captured by the term prudence, an alternative label for the Conscientiousness domain. Prudent means both wise and cautious. Persons who score high on the Conscientiousness scale are, in fact, perceived by others as intelligent. The benefits of high conscientiousness are obvious. Conscientious individuals avoid trouble and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence. They are also positively regarded by others as intelligent and reliable. On the negative side, they can be compulsive perfectionists and workaholics. Furthermore, extremely conscientious individuals might be regarded as stuffy and boring. Unconscientiously people may be criticized for their unreliability, lack of ambition, and failure to stay within the lines, but they will experience many short-lived pleasures and they will never be called stuffy. Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. cold/unkind). Agreeableness is a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. The trait reflects individual differences in general concern for social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are generally considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. Although agreeableness is positively correlated with good team work skills, it is negatively correlated with leadership skills. Those who voice out their opinion in a team environment tends

to move up the corporate rankings, whereas the ones that don't remain in the same position usually labeled as the followers of the team. Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others well-being, and are less likely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative. A person with a high level of agreeableness in a personality test is usually warm, friendly, and tactful. They generally have an optimistic view of human nature and get along well with others. A person who scores low on agreeableness may put their own interests above those of others. They tend to be distant, unfriendly, and uncooperative. Agreeableness is one of the five personality traits of the Big Five personality theory. A person with a high level of agreeableness in a personality test is usually warm, friendly, and tactful. They generally have an optimistic view of human nature and get along well with others. A person who scores low on agreeableness may put their own interests above those of others. They tend to be distant, unfriendly, and uncooperative. Person high in agreeableness is friendly and helpful. Social harmony is an important goal for individuals that score high on agreeableness in a career test. Agreeable individuals find it important to get along with others. They are willing to put aside their interests for other people. These individuals are helpful, friendly, considerate, and generous. Their basic belief is that people are usually decent, honest, and trustworthy. Take a free personality test to find out more about your other Big Five characteristics and to test personality. Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident). Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression. It is sometimes called emotional instability, or is reversed and referred to as emotional stability. According to Eysencks (1967) theory of personality, neuroticism is interlinked with low tolerance for stress or aversive stimuli. Those who score high in neuroticism are emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional

reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in a bad mood. For instance, neuroticism is connected to a pessimistic approach toward work, confidence that work impedes with personal relationships, and apparent anxiety linked with work. Furthermore, those who score high on neuroticism may display more skin conductance reactivity than those who score low on neuroticism. These problems in emotional regulation can diminish the ability of a person scoring high on neuroticism to think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress. Lacking contentment in one's life achievements can correlate to high Neuroticism scores and increase a person's likelihood of falling into clinical depression. At the other end of the scale, individuals who score low in neuroticism are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low scorers experience a lot of positive feelings. Dolan,S.L. (2006). Research suggests extraversion and neuroticism are negatively correlated. Emotional stability refers to a person's ability to remain stable and balanced. At the other end of the scale, a person who is high in neuroticism has a tendency to easily experience negative emotions. Neuroticism is similar but not identical to being neurotic in the Freudian sense. Some psychologists prefer to call neuroticism by the term emotional stability to differentiate it from the term neurotic in a career test. The lexical hypothesis is the idea that the most salient and socially relevant personality differences in peoples lives will eventually become encoded into language. The hypothesis further suggests that by sampling language, it is possible to derive a comprehensive taxonomy of human personality traits. The first major inquiry into the lexical hypothesis was made by Sir Francis Galton. Patrick E. Shrout, Susan T. Fiske (1995). "Personality research, methods, and theory". Psychology Press. In 1936, Gordon Allport and H. S. Odbert put this hypothesis into practice. They worked through two of the most comprehensive dictionaries of the English language available at the time and extracted 17,953 personality-describing words. Raymond Cattell obtained the Allport-Odbert list in the 1940s, added terms obtained from psychological research, and then eliminated synonyms to reduce the total to 171. He then asked subjects to rate people whom they knew by the adjectives on the list and analyzed their ratings. Cattell identified 35 major clusters of personality traits which Emotional stability or neuroticism is one of the five

personality traits of the Big Five personality theory. Emotional stability refers to a person's ability to remain stable and balanced. At the other end of the scale, a person who is high in neuroticism has a tendency to easily experience negative emotions. Neuroticism is similar but not identical to being neurotic in the Freudian sense. Some psychologists prefer to call neuroticism by the term emotional stability to differentiate it from the term neurotic in a career test. Individual high in emotional stability is stable and calm. People who score high in emotional stability (low in neuroticism) on a career test react less emotionally and are less easily upset. They tend to be emotionally stable, calm, and do not constantly experience negative feelings. The fact that these individuals are free from experiencing negative feelings does not mean that they experience a lot of positive feelings. The latter is a trait of the extraversion trait. Individual high in neuroticism is emotionally reactive People who score high in neuroticism are very emotionally reactive. They will have an emotional response to events that would not affect most people. A high scorer in neuroticism on a personality test has a greater chance of feeling threatened or being in a bad mood in a normal situation. They may find it difficult to think clearly and cope with stress. Take a free personality test to learn more about your career strengths and to test personality. Openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious). Openness is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, when compared to closed people, more creative and more aware of their feelings. They are more likely to hold unconventional beliefs. There is a strong connection between liberal ethics and openness to experience such as support for policies endorsing racial tolerance. Another characteristic of the open cognitive style is a facility for thinking in symbols and abstractions far removed from concrete experience. People with low scores on openness tend to have more conventional, traditional interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion or view these endeavors as uninteresting. Closed people prefer familiarity over novelty; they are conservative and resistant to change.

Appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience.Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety. It is also described as the extent to which a person is imaginative or independent, and depicts a personal preference for a variety of activities over a strict routine. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret the openness factor, which is sometimes called "intellect" rather than openness to experience. Extraversion (outgoing/energetic. solitary/reserved). Energy,positive emotions, surgency, assertiveness, sociability and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others, and talkativeness. For at least 2500 years, some people have been described as more bold, assertive and talkative than others. For almost equally long, this set of behaviors has been thought to have a biological basis and be socially important. Although our taximetrics techniques have changed and our theories of biology are more advanced, the question of the causal basis as well as the behavioral consequences of the trait dimension that has come to be called extraversion-introversion remains vitally important. Extraversion is one of the five personality traits of the Big Five personality theory. It indicates how outgoing and social a person is. A person who scores high in extraversion on a personality test is the life of the party. They enjoy being with people, participating in social gatherings, and are full of energy. A person low in extraversion is less outgoing and is more comfortable working by himself. Person high in extraversion is outgoing and enthusiastic Individuals high in extraversion on a career test have a tendency to seek out the company and stimulation of other people. They enjoy engaging with the external world. These individuals thrive on excitement, and are enthusiastic, action-oriented people. They like to be the center of attention in groups. On the other side of the coin are introverts. These people have less exuberance and energy than extraverts. They are less involved in social activities, and tend to be quiet and keep to themselves. An introvert does not require the external stimulation that extraverts do. Find out more about your other Big Five characteristics and test personality by taking a free personality test.

10

Introvert/E-: If youre an introvert, you prefer working alone. Typically, you are a serious, quiet, private person who may opt to write or email instead of talking to others. Others may consider you a loner.

Ambivert/E=: If you fall in the mid-range on the E scale, you tend to move easily from working with others to working alone. You have a moderate threshold for sensory stimulation and may tire of it after a while.

Extravert/E+: You prefer to be around other people and are talkative, enthusiastic, sociable and fun-loving. You often become the formal or informal leader. You may not be a good listener because you tend to dominate the conversation.

Extraversion is characterized by positive emotions, surgency, and the tendency to seek out stimulation and the company of others. The trait is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy interacting with people, and are often perceived as full of energy. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals. They possess high group visibility, like to talk, and assert themselves. Introverts have lower social engagement and activity levels than extraverts. They tend to seem quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less involved in the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression. Introverts simply need less stimulation than extraverts and more time alone. They may be very active and energetic, simply not socially. Extraversion indicates how outgoing and social a person is. A person who scores high in extraversion on a personality test is the life of the party. They enjoy being with people, participating in social gatherings, and are full of energy. A person low in extraversion is less outgoing and is more comfortable working by himself. All five factors show an influence from both heredity and environment. Studies of twins suggest that these effects contribute in roughly equal proportion. Of four recent twin studies, the mean estimated broad heritabilitys on self-report measures for the Big Five traits were as follows:

11

Age differences Many studies of longitudinal data, which correlate people's test scores over time, and cross sectional data, which compare personality levels across different age groups, show a high degree of stability in personality traits during adulthood. McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P. T. (1990) Personality in adulthood. New York: The Guildford Press. It is shown that the personality stabilizes for working-age individuals within about 4 years after starting working. There is also little correlation that adverse life events can have any significant impact on the personality of individuals. More recent research and meta-analyses of previous studies, however, indicate that change occurs in all five traits at various points in the lifespan. The new research shows evidence for a maturation effect. On average, levels of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness typically increase with time, whereas Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness tend to decrease. Research has also demonstrated that changes in Big Five personality traits depend on the individual's current stage of development. For example, levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness demonstrate a negative trend during childhood and early adolescence before trending upwards during late adolescence and into adulthood. In addition to these group effects, there are individual differences: different people demonstrate unique patterns of change at all stages of life. Brain structures Some research has been done to look into the structures of the brain and their connections to personality traits of the FFM. Two main studies were done by Sato et al. (2012) et al. (2009) Gender differences Cross-cultural research has shown some patterns of gender differences on responses to the NEO-PI-R and the Big Five Inventory. For example, women consistently report higher Neuroticism, Agreeableness, warmth (an extraversion facet) and openness to feelings, and men often report higher assertiveness (a facet of extraversion) and openness to ideas as assessed by the NEO-PI-R. A study of gender differences in 55 nations using the Big Five Inventory found that women tended to be somewhat higher than men in neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The difference in neuroticism was the most prominent and consistent, with significant differences found in 49 of the 55 nations surveyed. Gender differences in

12

personality traits are largest in prosperous, healthy, and more gender-egalitarian cultures. Differences in the magnitude of sex differences between more or less developed world regions were due to differences between men, not women, in these respective regions. That is, men in highly developed world regions were less neurotic, extraverted, conscientious and agreeable compared to men in less developed world regions. Women, on the other hand tended not to differ in personality traits across regions. The authors of this study speculated that resource-poor environments (that is, countries with low levels of development) may inhibit the development of gender differences, whereas resource-rich environments facilitate them. This may be because males require more resources than females in order to reach their full developmental potential. The authors also argued that due to different evolutionary pressures, men may have evolved to be more risk taking and socially dominant, whereas women evolved to be more cautious and nurturing. Ancient huntergatherer societies may have been more egalitarian than later agriculturally oriented societies. Hence, the development of gender inequalities may have acted to constrain the development of gender differences in personality that originally evolved in hunter-gatherer societies. As modern societies have become more egalitarian, again, it may be that innate sex differences are no longer constrained and hence manifest more fully than in less-developed cultures. Currently, this hypothesis remains untested, as gender differences in modern societies have not been compared with those in hunter-gatherer societies. Birth-order differences Frank Sulloway argues that firstborns are more conscientious, more socially dominant, less agreeable, and less open to new ideas compared to later born. Large scale studies using random samples and self-report personality tests like the NEO PI-R, however, have found milder effects than Sulloway claimed, or no significant effects of birth order on personality. Harris, J. R. (2006). Cultural differences The Big Five have been replicated in a variety of different languages and cultures, such as German, Ostendorf, F. (1990The Five-Factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 227248) Further Intercultural comparisons. The Five-Factor model of personality across cultures (pp.

13

105125). New York: Kluwer Academic Publisher. For example, Thompson has demonstrated the Big Five structure across several cultures using an international English language scale. Cheung, van de Vijver, and Leong (2011) suggest, however, that the Openness factor is particularly unsupported in Asian countries and that a different fifth factor is sometimes identified. Recent work has found relationships between Geert Hofstedes cultural factors, Individualism, Power Distance, Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance, with the average Big Five scores in a country.McCrae R. R., Terracciano, A., & 79 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Personality Profiles of Cultures: Aggregate Personality Traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89, No.3, 407425. For instance, the degree to which a country values individualism correlates with its average Extraversion, while people living in cultures which are accepting of large inequalities in their power structures tend to score somewhat higher on Conscientiousness Academic achievement The Personality plays an important role that effect academic achievement. 308 undergraduates who completed the Five Factor Inventory Processes and offered their GPA implied that the two of traits therein, conscientiousness and agreeableness, have positive relationship with all learning styles (synthesis analysis, methodical study, fact retention, and elaborative processing), whereas neuroticism has an inverse relationship with them all. Moreover, extraversion and openness were proportional to elaborative processing. The Big Five together explained 14% of the variance in GPA, suggesting that personality traits make great contributions to academic performance. Furthermore, reflective learning styles (synthesisanalysis and elaborative processing)was able to mediate the relationship between openness and GPA. These results indicate that intellectual curiousness has significant enhancement in academic performance if students can combine the scholarly interest with thoughtful information processing. Recent studies suggest that Big Five personality traits combined with learning styles can help predict some variations in the academic performance and the academic motivation of an individual which can then influence their academic achievements. This may be seen because

14

individual differences in personality represent stable approaches to information processing. For instance, conscientiousness has consistently emerged as a stable predictor of success in exam performance, largely because conscientious students experiences fewer study delays. The reason conscientiousness shows a positive association with the four learning styles is because students with high levels of conscientiousness develop focused learning strategies and appear to be more disciplined and achievement-oriented. Academic achievement is one of the important goals of education. In case of students, we judge their knowledge, attainment and skills acquired in school subjects which are assessed by the authorities with the help of examination, which can be teacher made or standardized tests. Academic achievement is the accomplishment or acquired proficiency in the performance of an individual in a given skill or body of a knowledge. Achievement can be measured with the help of tests, verbal or written. Since Academic achievement is a criterion for selection, promotion or recognition in various walks of life, Improvement of academic achievement cannot be ignored. There are several factors that influence the academic achievement of an individual like his personality, intellectual ability and environment etc. Academic achievement is also influenced by demographic, cultural and environmental factors, which are of crucial importance. The word academic achievement has been derived from two words, Academic and Achievement. a) Academics It means any activity or action that is scholastic in nature and meaning of academy in school where special types of instructions are imparted. b) Achievement Achievement means the level of proficiency attained. It is the end product of all educational endeavors. The main corner of all educational efforts is to see what the learners achieve. Achievement is one of the most important goals of education. The outcomes of education are usually characterized as the achievement of those who have been educated. These may be expressed in terms of whether or not the aims of education were fulfilled in relation to those individuals and to that degree.

15

c) Academic Achievement Academic Achievement is the case of a wider term i.e. educational growth and plays an important role in the life of a child. High academic achievement in schools builds selfesteem and self confidence which lead to better adjustment with the group. It is a unique prime responsibility of a school or any other educational institution established by the society to promote a wholesome scholastic growth and development of a child. The greatness of it depends upon the quality of scholars and intellectual robots it produces. Brilliant academic records of are supposed to be the most widely accepted index of its worth and success. Academic achievement plays an important role in working and development of mankind with the growing knowledge and scientific study. A good academic record opens favoring door on the part of students in future prospect. It always speaks out the time of admission and recruitment. It definitely works out and counts. It can be said that academic achievement is a portrait of an individual which frames out its personality. In other words academic achievement may be defined as an amount of knowledge gained by students in different subjects of study.

It is a unique, prime and perennial responsibility of a school or any other educational institution established by the society to promote a wholesome academic growth and development of the child. It is the common observation that success in the academics serves as an emotional tonic and any damage done to a child in the home or neighborhood may be partially repaired by the success in the school. High achievement in school builds self esteem and self-confidence which leads to better adjustment with the group.

Besides scholastic achievement plays a very important role in the attainment of the harmonious development of the child. In this rapidly changing world and the growing advancement in science and technology, the place of education has become so vital that every parent today sets high goals for his child. Today at the time of admission, for entrance in job, for scholarships, for future studies, good academic record is the only yardstick.

The concept of achievement involves the interaction of the actors such as 1) Aptitude of learning 2) Readiness of learning3) Opportunity for learning

16

Achievement means the extent to which the learner is profiting from instruction from a given area of learning (crow and Crow, 1956).

In the process of educating the young ones, the success and focus have come to the measurement and evaluation of student's achievement in school and college subjects. The outcomes of education are usually characterized as the achievement of those who have been educated. These may be expressed in terms of whether or not the aims of the education were fulfilled the relation to those individuals and to that degree were (Winch and Gingell , 1999).

Good's dictionary of education (1973) defines, Achievement is knowledge obtained or skills developed in school subjects usually by test scores or by marks assigned by the teachers or by both.

Academic achievement may be defined as competency of students shown in school subjects for which they have taken Achievement is knowledge obtained or skills developed in school subjects usually by test scores or by marks assigned by the teachers or by both instructions. The test scores or grades assigned to the students on the basis of their performance in the achievement test determine the status of pupil in the classroom (Singh and Kaur, 2OO3).

Mangal (2000) said in order to succeed in a given activity a person must have the aptitude for it. The opposite is also true. However to achieve the desired success in a given task, one must have both interest as well as aptitude. Only interest and only aptitude cannot fulfill the task.

Christian (1980) uses the term performance, indicate the learning of students, learning affects and which brings changes in three major areas of the students i.e. cognitive, affective and psychomotor.

Hawes and Hawes (1982) defined achievement a s successful accomplishment of performance in particular subject, area of course, usually by reason of skill, hard work and interest, typically summarized in various types of grades, marks, scores of descriptive commentary.

17

Academic achievement is the level of attainment of a word in school as per its progress report at the end of examination. Academic achievement is a complex phenomenon. It depends upon number of factors, which affects the child's overall development e.g. intelligence, motivation, personality, aptitude etc. that leads to success or low achievement of the achievers. In recent years academic achievement has come occupy the central position. It can be matched with the pillar which the entire future structure of the personality stands. On the basis of achievement the individuals can be broadly designated into three categories(a) Over Achievers: The over achievers are defined as those who achieve higher than what is expected to their intellectual level. (b) Average Achievers: The average achievers are defined as those who achieve normal or what is expected to their intellectual level. (c) Under Achievers: The under achievers are defined as those who achieve low than what is expected of their intellectual level. Factors affecting academic achievement (1) Personal or Individual Factors: There are in numerable factors, which affect academic achievement viz. Intelligence, personality, motivation, school environment, heredity, home environment, learning experiences of the school and class in particular. 2) Environment or Social Factors: the factors like interests, aptitude, family background and socio-economic status of the parent also influence the academic achievement. Assessment of academic achievement The assessment of the academic achievement has two purposes1. Specifying and verifying the problems and 2. Making decisions about students. Methods of assessing academic achievement Achievement can be assessed in the following way: 1) Norm-Referenced: Norm -referenced tests determine are designed to the students, standing relative to peers. The results of the measures are usually reported in form of standard score and can be helpful in establishing a students achievement against a sample drawn from a target population. 2) criterion-Referenced Tests: criterion-referenced designed to tests are determine the acquisition of specific skills against a pre-established standard.

18

3) Curriculum Based Assessment: Curriculum based assessment represents attempts to assesses students performance using expected curriculum objective as the data for evaluation. 4)Performance Based Assessment: performance based assessment measures are designed to provide indications of a students learned skills and demonstrated through material that proceed under conditions that simulate events occurring in environment where the skill needs to be produced. Included among these measures would be laboratory demonstrations, artistic performance, writing samples, job evaluation systems and other and other types of skills. Rationale Even after implication of CCE (continues comprehensive evaluation ) by central board of secondary education CBSE and PSEB Academic achievement remain main focus of Indian education system. Even now students of secondary and senior secondary level receive presser from parents, teachers, principle and management to score higher in all academic subjects. Keeping in mind this importance the investigator selects the academic achievement. As dependent variable in present study. As the investigator was interested in the study examination in relation to academic achievement. Previous literature was received and it was found that large number of studies Griffin (2012), Moharib (2012), MacCann (2012), Bullock (2011), Strambler (2013) are conducted on academic achievement and personality. But most of the studies are measure personality through modulslay personality inventory. The investigator found dearth in studies regarding relationship or influence of Big five factors of personality on academic achievement. On Indian learner with special reference to Punjab. Keeping in mind this gap the investigator select present problem. Further gender and location of residence were taken else classifying variable as well as and moderator variable. Statement of Problem Study of academic achievement in relation to big five factor of personality of senior secondary school students.

19

Operational definitions of the problem Academic achievement a) Academic achievement generally refers to how well a student is accomplishing his or her tasks and studies. The most well-known indicator of academic achievement, grades are the student's 'score' for their classes and overall tenure. b) Academic achievement means how a student performs in school. Some schools define this as a certain G.P.A, or ranking in class. Other schools define this as any special projects, or competitions the student has been in. Basically it can be considered anything you have done as a student,that is outstanding. c) The definition of academic achievement refers to the level of schooling you have successfully completed and the ability to attain success in your studies. Big five factors of personality The Big Five factors were discovered through a statistical procedure called factor analysis, which was used to analyze how ratings of various personality traits are correlated in humans. The Big Five factors of personality are five broad domains which define human personality and account for individual differences.
(OCEAN, or NEOAC)

Each Super trait is measured by 6 facets (or subordinate traits). These are: N Anxiety Angry hostility Depression Selfconsciousness Impulsiveness E Warmth Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitementseeking Positive emotion O Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Actions Trust Straightforwardness Altruism Compliance A C Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement striving Self Discipline Deliberation

Ideas

Modesty Tendermindedness

Vulnerability

Values

20

Objectives (1) To compare the personality (total and factor wise) of students on the basis of Gender Location of residence, Type of institute Type of family Category, Generation (2) To compare the academic achievement of students on the basis of Gender Location of residence, Type of institute Type of family Category, Generation (3) To study the relationship between academic achievement and personality of students.

21

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter deals with review of literature of various aspects and effects of Big five factor. Followings are the studies and reports of Big five factors of personality and academic achievement. Griffin et al. (2012) reported that the accumulating evidence that performance in medical school and beyond is related to personality, it is important for research to consider how personality assessment can be included as part of the process of selecting medical students. Interviews are one way of measuring personality and this study extends prior research investigating whether the multiple mini interviews (MMI) is related to the five factor model of personality. In contrast to prior results examination of MMI scores for 868 applicants to an Australian medical school over 3 years showed significant uncorrected correlations every year with extraversion and conscientiousness and with agreeableness in 2 years. Investigation of personality at a facet-level revealed differing relationships with the MMI within the five factors of personality. MMI scores were also correlated in 2 years with a situational judgment test of interpersonal understanding (UMAT Section 2) but were unrelated to tests of logical reasoning ability (UMAT Section 1), non-verbal reasoning, or past academic performance (Higher School Certificate results). Costa (2012) reported that the Five-Factor Model of Personality (The Big 5) is explored against Kolb Learning Styles. The Big 5 factors are extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness, whereas Kolb Learning Styles are divergers, assimilators, converges, and accommodators. Discussion includes descriptions of the Big 5 factors and Kolb Learning Styles, issues relating to personality and learning styles, and critical review of affect of the big 5factors and Kolb Learning Styles. It is concluded that personality does has an affect towards learning styles when it comes to the Big 5 factors and Kolb Learning Styles. Future research is recommended to test the hypothesis found in this review. Pertinent information is repeated in the summary section for readers' convenience. Al Otaibi (2012) reported that the aim of this study is to try to determine the relationship between the cognitive dissonance, the Big-Five Factors (neuroticism, extroversion, openness,

22

agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and the academic achievement. The study also aim to identify differences between female students with high cognitive dissonance and students with low cognitive dissonance in each of the big five factors and academic achievement for a sample of (253) female students from Umm Al-Qura University. The scales used in this study were the cognitive dissonance scale (Cassel, Chow & Reiger, 2001) and the Big-Five Factors scale (Abdullah Al-Roait'e, 2007), together with the academic achievement scores. The main results of the study were the existence of direct correlation between the cognitive dissonance and neuroticism and the overall score of the Big-five factors scale. There also found an inverse relationship between the overall cognitive dissonance and two of the dissonance dimensions (internal personal & external social) and two of the Big Five factors; dimensions (conscientiousness and extroversion). Also, the overall cognitive dissonance and its different dimensions and the academic achievement were correlated in a statistical function inverse relationship. Russo.et al. (2012) reported that Trait emotional intelligence (EI) is a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies. This article examines the validity of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Form and investigates its relationships with Big Five factors and cognitive ability. A total of 690 children (317 Males; M Age = 10.25 years; SD = 1.58 years) completed the TEIQue-CF, the Raven Progressive, Matrices and the Big Five Questionnaire; in addition, a subsample of 136 participants answered to Depression and Anxiety scales. Results evidenced that TEIQue-CF is a reliable measure of Trait EI that is partially determined by all of the Big Five factors but independent of cognitive ability. Trait EI predicts depression and anxiety scores over and above the five higher order per An Affective Dimension within Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms among Boys. Vanhalst et al. (2012) says that based on current theories of depression, reciprocal links between loneliness and depressive symptoms are expected to occur. However, longitudinal studies on adolescent samples are scarce and have yielded conflicting results. The present fivewave longitudinal study from mid- to late adolescence (N = 428, M age at T1 = 15.22 years; 47% female) examined the direction of effect between loneliness and depressive symptoms, using cross-lagged path analysis. In addition, the robustness of these prospective associations

23

was tested by examining the role of the Big Five personality traits (i.e., extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness) as explaining factors and moderators. Results indicated that loneliness and depressive symptoms influenced one another reciprocally, and these reciprocal associations were not attributable to their mutual overlap with personality traits. In addition, neuroticism was found to be a moderator, in that the bidirectional effects between loneliness and depressive symptoms were only found in adolescents high in neuroticism. Practical implications are discussed, and suggestions for future research are outlined. Ortet et al. (2012) presented the development of a junior version of the Spanish (Castilian) NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (JS NEO) suitable for adolescents aged 12 to 18 years. The psychometric properties of the new JS NEO were investigated using two samples of 2,733 and 983 adolescents in Spain. The results showed that the adult NEO-PI-R factor structure was replicated with the junior version of the inventory and that the reliabilities of the scales were adequate. The cross-form correlations between the junior and the adult versions of the questionnaires indicated good equivalence indices. Furthermore, a joint factor analysis of the JS NEO and the Big Five Questionnaire-Children (BFQ-C) provided additional evidence for the construct validity of the JS NEO. Neal et al. (2011) reported that the impact of measurement invariance and the provision for partial invariance in confirmatory factor analytic models on factor inter correlations, latent mean differences, and estimates of relations with external variables is investigated for measures of two sets of widely assessed constructs: Big Five personality and the six Holland interests (RIASEC). In comparing models that include provisions for partial invariance with models that do not, the results indicate quite small differences in parameter estimates involving the relations between factors, one relatively large standardized mean difference in factors between the subgroups compared and relatively small differences in the regression coefficients when the factors are used to predict external variables. The results provide support for the use of partially invariant models, but there does not seem to be a great deal of difference between structural coefficients when the measurement model does or does not include separate estimates of subgroup parameters that differ across subgroups. Future research should include simulations in which the impact of various factors related to invariance is estimated.

24

Marsh et al. (2009) presented the NEO instruments are widely used to assess Big Five personality factors, but confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) conducted at the item level do not support their a priori structure due, in part, to the overly restrictive CFA assumptions. We demonstrate that exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), an integration of CFA and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), overcomes these problems with responses (N = 3,390) to the 60-item NEO-Five-Factor Inventory: (a) ESEM fits the data better and results in substantially more differentiated (less correlated) factors than does CFA; (b) tests of gender invariance with the 13-model ESEM taxonomy of full measurement invariance of factor loadings, factor variances-covariances, item uniquenesss, correlated uniquenesss, item intercepts, differential item functioning, and latent means show that women score higher on all NEO Big Five factors; (c) longitudinal analyses support measurement invariance over time and the maturity principle (decreases in Neuroticism and increases in Agreeableness, Openness, and Conscientiousness). Using ESEM, we addressed substantively important questions with broad applicability to personality research that could not be appropriately addressed with the traditional approaches of either EFA or CFA. McCann et al. (2012) examined whether problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidant coping strategies predict key outcomes in a sample of 354 high school students. The four outcomes considered are: academic achievement, life satisfaction, positive feelings towards school, and negative feelings towards school. Results demonstrate that coping incrementally predicts all four outcomes above and beyond the effects of the Big Five personality factors, vocabulary, and demographic variables. Incremental prediction is strongest for school feeling variables, where coping predicts 17.4% of the variance in positive feelings, and 15.9% of the variance in negative feelings. All three coping styles are important in predicting different outcomes: problem-focused coping predicts grades, life satisfaction, and positive feelings about school; emotion-focused coping predicts negative feelings only; and avoidant-focused coping predicts both positive and negative feelings about school. Results suggest that coping styles are an important variable for school outcomes, and that the effectiveness of different strategies differs depending on the outcome considered. Bullock et al. (2011) explored the hypothesis that career decision-making self-efficacy could be affected by negative career thoughts, Big Five personality factors, and cultural mistrust in a

25

sample of African American and Caucasian college students. Findings demonstrated that negative career thinking, openness, and conscientiousness explained a significant amount of variance in career decision-making self-efficacy in a general sample of college students, but no unique variance was explained by cultural mistrust in a sample of African American college students. Silvia (2012) reported that the relationship between intelligence and creativity remains controversial. The present research explored this issue by studying the role of fluid intelligence (Gf) in the generation of creative metaphors. Participants (n = 132 young adults) completed six nonverbal tests of Gf (primarily tests of inductive reasoning) and were then asked to create metaphors that described a past emotional experience. The metaphors were rated for creative quality. Latent variable models found that Gf explained approximately 24% of the variance in metaphor quality (standardized beta = 0.49), consistent with the view that creative ideation engages executive processes and abilities. The effect of Gf remained substantial after including personality (the Big Five factors) in the model. The discussion considers implications for the debate over intelligence and creativity as well as for the cognitive abilities involved in metaphor production. Ray (2011) presented the intent of this research was to describe school-based physical therapists in North Carolina (NC) and examine relationships between personality traits of this group, their job satisfaction and their perception of actors that influence decisions to remain at or leave their jobs. School-based physical therapists across NC (n=97) anonymously completed a web-based survey. The web-based survey was comprised of three separate survey instruments: (1) Big Five Factors Mini-Markers, a personality assessment, (2) Measure of Job Satisfaction, a job satisfaction assessment and (3) a demographic questionnaire asking about participants their work environments, personal and professional lives. Results suggested that school-based physical therapists want to stay on the job and are motivated by: the meaningfulness of the work, making a difference, the schedule, autonomy and teamwork. Poor opportunity for career development and advancement along with paperwork, inadequate salary and inadequate administrative support encourages them to consider leaving. Small administrative adjustments can improve job satisfaction and may ensure students with disabilities have access to these professionals in every school.

26

Woods (2010) reported that to test aspects of a theory of the role of personality and gender on the development of vocational interests and their subsequent effects on adult occupational choices, the authors of this study examined associations among childhood personality traits, gender, and occupational environments more than 40 years later. Participants (N = 587) were assessed on the Big Five by their teachers when the participants were between 6 and 12 years old. In middle-age (late 40s), the participants reported their occupation. Holland's (1997) RIASEC vocational types (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, Conventional) were used to characterize the job environments of reported occupations. Childhood Openness/Intellect and Conscientiousness, but no other Big Five traits, were associated with occupational environments. For the most strongly sex-typed work environments, associations with Openness/Intellect were moderated by gender. These findings suggest that the roots of the strongest gender-stereotyping effects in occupations may be found not only in the social factors associated with gender but also in the individual differences of children related to Openness/Intellect. Michael et al. (2013) examined whether academic identification, or one's psychological and emotional investment in academics, mediates the association between child-reported parental educational socialization and standardized achievement test scores among a predominantly ethnic minority sample of 367 urban middle school students. We predicted that academic identification would mediate the relationship between five forms of perceived parental academic socialization (future-oriented, teaching-oriented, effort-oriented, shame-oriented, and guiltoriented) and achievement when controlling for prior achievement. We found confirmation for this effect among analyses involving "teaching," "future," and "guilt" forms of socialization. For "teaching," this effect was not present for Black boys. Direct effects indicated that "teaching" and "future" socialization was inversely related to student achievement, but when mediated by academic identification it was positive. "Guilt" was only related to achievement through academic identification. Results suggest the importance of the manner in which parental educational socialization is engaged. Paulick et al. (2013) reported that during the transition from elementary school to secondary school, in Germany, students are assigned to different school tracks, academic or non-academic, that differ markedly in compositional and institutional characteristics, e.g., the level of cognitive

27

activation and performance standards are higher in academic tracks than in non-academic tracks. Currently, there is a lack of research examining the changes in achievement goals (masteryapproach, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals) and in the association between achievement goals and school achievement during the transition to these different school tracks. There were 1646 students who participated in a large-scale, three-wave longitudinal study from Grade 4 to Grade 6. While results revealed only slight differences between the two school tracks, the three types of achievement goals declined over time. In elementary school mastery-approach goals were positively and performance-approach goals negatively associated with school grades. After the transition to secondary school masteryapproach goals predicted school grades positively, whereas performance-approach goals negatively influenced achievement (academic track). Overall, the results indicate that betweenschool-tracking plays a minor role for the development of achievement goals and the relation between goals and achievement. Shin (2012) reduced class size cause higher academic achievement for both Black and other students in reading, mathematics, listening, and word recognition skills? Do Black students benefit more than other students from reduced class size? Does the magnitude of the minority advantages vary significantly across schools? This article addresses the causal questions via analysis of experimental data from Tennessee's Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio study where students and teachers are randomly assigned to small or regular class type. Causal inference is based on a three-level multivariate simultaneous equation model (SM) where the class type as an instrumental variable (IV) and class size as an endogenous regressor interact with a Black student indicator. The randomized IV causes class size to vary which, by hypothesis, influences academic achievement overall and moderates a disparity in academic achievement between Black and other students. Within each subpopulation characterized by the ethnicity, the effect of reduced class size on academic achievement is the average causal effect. The difference in the average causal effects between the race ethnic groups yields the causal disparity in academic achievement. The SM efficiently handles ignorable missing data with a general missing pattern and is estimated by maximum likelihood. This approach extends Rubin's causal model to a threelevel SM with cross-level causal interaction effects, requiring intact schools and no interference between classrooms as a modified Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption. The results show that, for Black students, reduced class size causes higher academic achievement in the four

28

domains each year from kindergarten to third grade, while for other students, it improves the four outcomes except for first-grade listening in kindergarten and first grade only. Evidence shows that Black students benefit more than others from reduced class size in first-, second-, and thirdgrade academic achievement. This article does not find evidence that the causal minority disparities are heterogeneous across schools in any given year. Tuttle et al. (2013) reported that the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) is a rapidly expanding network of public charter schools whose mission is to improve the education of lowincome children. As of the 2012-2013 school year, 125 KIPP schools are in operation in 20 different states and the District of Columbia (DC). Ultimately, KIPP's goal is to prepare students to enroll and succeed in college. Prior research has suggested that KIPP schools have positive impacts on student achievement, but most of the studies have included only a few KIPP schools or have had methodological limitations. This is the second report of a national evaluation of KIPP middle schools being conducted by Mathematical Policy Research. The evaluation uses experimental and quasi-experimental methods to produce rigorous and comprehensive evidence on the effects of KIPP middle schools across the country. The study's first report, released in 2010, described strong positive achievement impacts in math and reading for the 22 KIPP middle schools for which data were available at the time. For this phase of the study, the authors nearly doubled the size of the sample, to 43 KIPP middle schools, including all KIPP middle schools that were open at the start of the study in 2010 for which they were able to acquire relevant data from local districts or states. The average impact of KIPP on student achievement is positive, statistically significant, and educationally substantial. KIPP impact estimates are consistently positive across the four academic subjects examined, in each of the first four years after enrollment in a KIPP school, and for all measurable student subgroups. A large majority of the individual KIPP schools in the study show positive impacts on student achievement as measured by scores on state-mandated assessments. KIPP produces similar positive impacts on the normreferenced test, which includes items assessing higher-order thinking. Estimated impacts on measures of student attitudes and behavior are less frequently positive, but the authors found evidence that KIPP leads students to spend significantly more time on homework, and that KIPP increases levels of student and parent satisfaction with school. On the negative side, the findings suggest that enrollment in a KIPP school leads to an increase in the likelihood that students report engaging in undesirable behavior such as lying to or arguing with parents. These findings

29

are described in this report. The following appendixes are included: (1) Sample selection and baseline characteristics; (2) Constructing survey outcomes; (3) Schools attended by lottery winners and lottery non-winners; (4) Analytic methods for the matched comparison group analysis; (5) Analytic methods for lottery-based analysis; and (6) Validation of matching methods using lottery-based impact estimates. Lynch et al. (2013) reported that during adolescence, peer groups present an important venue for socializing school-related behaviors such as academic achievement and school engagement. While a significant body of research emphasizes the link between a youth's immediate peer group and academic outcomes, the current manuscript expands on this idea, proposing that, in addition to smaller peer groups, within each school exists a school-wide peer culture that is comprised of two components (a relational and a behavioral component), each of which is related to individual academic outcomes. The relational component describes the aggregate of students' perceptions of the quality of peer relationships within each school. The behavioral component is an aggregate representation of students' actual behaviors in regard to academic tasks. We used data from the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development, which surveyed 1,718 5th grade students (45.9% male, 51.4% White, 17.8% Hispanic, 7.6% African American) in 30 schools, to explore the idea that, during adolescence, the relational and behavioral components of a school's peer culture are related to students' academic achievement and school engagement. Results suggested that above and beyond a variety of individual, familial, peer, and school characteristics that have previously been associated with academic outcomes, aspects of behavioral peer culture are associated with individual achievement while components of both relational and behavioral peer culture are related to school engagement. Implications for future research are discussed. Bowers (2013) reported that historically, the relationship between student academic achievement and use of computers for fun and video gaming has been described from a multitude of perspectives, from positive, to negative, to neutral. However, recent research has indicated that computer use and video gaming may be positively associated with achievement, yet these studies have focused on small intact and qualitative samples. The purpose of the present study is to examine the association between academic achievement in high school and student use of computers for fun and video gaming using the large nationally representative ELS:2002

30

sample of students in grade 10 in 2002 and an independent effects two-level hierarchical linear model. Our results indicate that both student use of computers for fun and moderate levels of video gaming were positive and significant on cross-sectional reading and mathematics achievement assessments in high school, controlling for multiple covariates of achievement, but were not related to growth in mathematics from grade 10 to grade 12. Whaley (2013) tested the model minority and inferior minority assumptions by examining the relationship between academic performance and measures of behavioral health in a subsample of 3,008 (22%) participants in a nationally representative, multicultural sample of 13,601 students in the 2001 Youth Risk Behavioral Survey, comparing Asian Americans (N = 408) and African Americans (N = 2,600). Specifically, the study examined associations of students' self-reported grades with suicide risk, substance abuse, and violent behaviors. The findings revealed that high academic performance is a protective factor against behavioral health problems for both ethnic groups. The results raise questions about the focus on high achievement among Asian Americans versus academic underachievement among African Americans. Implications for theory, research, training and practice in addressing the mental health implications of achievement behavior in Asian American and African American youth are discussed. McInerney et al. (2012) examined the prediction of academic self-concept (English and Mathematics) and learning strategies (deep and surface), and their direction of effect, on academic achievement (English and Mathematics) of 8,354 students from 16 secondary schools in Hong Kong. Two competing models were tested to ascertain the direction of effect: Model A posited the effect of academic self-concept on learning strategies, whereas Model B posited the effect of learning strategies on academic self-concept. Structural equation modeling indicated that the data fit both models adequately, although Model B was found to have more applied heuristic value for practitioners than Model A because intervention is easier for learning strategies than self-concept. Further investigation also supported the reciprocal relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement. The findings suggest that academic self-concept, learning strategies, and academic achievement have reciprocal relationships with each other.

31

De Feyter et al. (2012) studied the impact of the Big Five personality factors on academic performance. We propose a theoretical model with conditional indirect effects of the Big Five personality factors on academic performance through their impact upon academic motivation. To clarify the mixed results of previous studies concerning the impact of neuroticism, we suggest a moderating role of self-efficacy. Hierarchical, moderated mediation and mediated moderation regression analyses were performed on longitudinal data collected from 375 students of a University college in Belgium. The findings revealed a positive indirect effect of neuroticism on academic performance at higher levels of self-efficacy, complemented by a positive direct effect of neuroticism at lower levels of self-efficacy. Finally, this study showed that conscientiousness positively affected academic performance indirectly through academic motivation, but also that it is a condition for the indirect impact of extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Junkman et al. (2012) presented that the equally able students have lower academic selfconcepts in high-achieving classrooms than in low-achieving classrooms. This highly general and robust frame of reference effect is widely known as the Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect (BFLPE; Marsh, 1987). This study contributes to research aiming to identify moderators of the BFLPE by investigating the effects of students' personality (i.e. Big Five traits and narcissism). Multilevel structural equation modeling was used to test the moderator hypotheses, drawing on data from a large sample of N = 4973 upper secondary track students (M age = 19.57). Consistent with a priori predictions, the negative effect of school-average achievement (the BFLPE) interacted significantly with narcissism. Students high in narcissism experienced smaller BFLPEs than did students with low or average levels of narcissism. The statistically significant effect for neuroticism acted in the opposite direction. The study illustrates how personality moderates frame of reference effects that are central to self-concept formation. Aturupane et al (2013) this study tells us one of the eight Millennium Development Goals is that all children in developing countries should complete primary education. Much progress has been made toward this goal, but completing primary school does not ensure that students attain basic literacy and numeracy skills. Indeed, there is ample evidence that many children in developing countries are not learning these basic skills. This raises the question: What can schools and communities do to increase the learning that takes place in schools? Sri Lanka exemplifies these issues. It has achieved universal primary completion, but many Sri Lankan

32

primary school students perform poorly on academic tests. This paper uses unusually rich data from Sri Lanka to investigate the determinants of academic performance, as measured by achievement tests, of Grade 4 students. At the child and household level, educated parents, better nutrition, high daily attendance, enrollment in private tutoring classes, exercise books, electric lighting, and children's books at home all appear to increase learning, while hearing problems have a strong negative effect. Among school variables, principals' and teachers' years of experience, collaborating with other schools in a "school family," and meetings between parents and teachers all appear to have positive impacts on students' scores. Estimates that exclude some of the variables available in the unusually rich data yield different results, which suggests that results based on less complete data are likely to suffer from omitted variable bias. A final section provides recommendations for education policies in Sri Lanka. Lounsbury et al. (2004) examined the Big Five personality traits of Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and Openness, as well as four narrower traits of Aggression, Optimism, Tough-Mindedness, and Work Drive in relation to absences from school for middle- and high-school students. Participants were 248 seventh grade students, 321 tenth grade students, and 282 twelfth grade students. Most of the Big Five absence correlations were significant in the expected direction at all 3 grade levels. While Aggression, Optimism, Work Drive were significantly related to absences, only Work Drive added incremental variance to the prediction of absences beyond the Big Five traits. Study results were generally similar across grade levels. Findings were discussed in terms of dispositional absenteeism, the generalize ability of the Big Five trait model, and the utility of more narrowband traits. Implications were drawn for early identification of absence-prone students and the precedent role of personality variables in school absence research on the effects of other variables, programs, and interventions. Ridgell (2004) presented the General Intelligence, Big Five personality traits, and the construct Work Drive were studied in relation to two measures of collegiate academic performance: a single course grade received by undergraduate students in an introductory psychology course, and self-reported GPA. General intelligence and Work Drive were found to be significantly positively related to both course grade and GPA, while one Big Five trait (Emotional Stability) was related to course grade only. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis

33

revealed the incremental validity of Work Drive beyond Emotional Stability and over and above general intelligence: Work Drive accounted for 7% and 14% of unique course grade and GPA variance, respectively, when Emotional Stability was entered last; and Work Drive accounted for 6% and 13% of unique course grade and GPA variance, respectively, when Work Drive was entered last. In both cases, Emotional Stability did not provide significant unique variance. Findings are presented and discussed in the context of examining how cognitive and noncognitive variables predict academic performance, and in terms of implications for using course grade versus GPA as a criterion for collegiate academic performance. Graham et al. (2011) reported that study given the complex role of school psychologists, it is in the interest of stakeholders to identify characteristics related to student success in graduate training, which is suggestive of their effectiveness as practitioners. This study explores the relationship of personality traits and Emotional Intelligence (EI) to graduate students' performance in the classroom and the field. Participants were 63 school psychology students who completed measures of EI and Big Five personality traits. These measures were compared with two outcomes that can be indicators of success: Graduate grade point average (GGPA) and supervisor ratings of student performance at internship upon completion of their studies. EI was significantly correlated with GGPA; personality traits were not. The personality trait Conscientiousness and EI were significantly correlated with internship ratings. The implications and limitations of this preliminary data set for school psychology training programs are discussed. Steinmayr et al. (2011) this study tells the goal orientations are thought to be an important predictor of scholastic achievement. The present paper investigated the joint influence of goal orientations, intelligence, and personality on school performance in a sample of N=520 11th and 12th graders (303 female; mean age M=16.94 years). Intelligence, the Big Five factors of personality (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) as well as goal orientations (learning, performance-approach, -avoidance, and work-avoidance goals) were assessed. When school performance was regressed on all variables simultaneously, intelligence, Openness to Experience, Conscientious, and learning goals predicted school performance. Learning goals additionally partially mediated the

34

association of Openness to Experience and Conscientious, respectively, with GPA. Results are discussed with regard to the importance of goal orientations in academic settings. Van Bragt et al. (2011) reported that the central goal of this study is to clarify to what degree former education and students' personal characteristics (the "Big Five personality characteristics", personal orientations on learning and students' study approach) may predict study outcome (required credits and study continuance). Analysis of the data gathered through questionnaires of 1,471 Universities of Applied Sciences students make clear that former Education did not come forth as a powerful predictor for Credits or Study Continuance. Significant predictors are Conscientiousness and Ambivalence and Lack of Regulation. The higher the scores on Conscientiousness the more credits students are bound to obtain and the more likely they will continue their education. On the other hand students with high scores on Ambivalence and Lack of Regulation will most likely obtain fewer Credits or drop out more easily. The question arises what these results mean for the present knowledge economy which demands an increase of inhabitants with an advanced level of education. Finally, implications and recommendations for future research are suggested. Armstrong (2009) examinind links between personality and interest have typically focused on links between measures of the five factor model and Holland's RIASEC types. However, the five factor model of personality can be divided in to a larger set of narrow domain personality scales measuring facets of the "big five" traits. Research in a number of fields indicates that facet scales are effective for clarifying the relationship between personality and other broad constructs, including academic achievement, job performance, stress and coping, and achievement motivation. In the present study links between personality facets and the RIASEC model were examined using property vector fitting. Obtained results are consistent with previous research suggesting that the use of facet-level personality measures can clarify relations between personality and other constructs, and provides new information linking personality facets and interests. The use of facet-level measures of personality expands the range of personality concepts that can be presented to individuals who are exploring career options. Komarraju et al. (2009) reported that college students (308 undergraduates) completed the Five Factor Inventory and the Academic Motivations Scale, and reported their college grade point average (GPA). A correlation analysis revealed an interesting pattern of significant

35

relationships. Further, regression analyses indicated that conscientiousness and openness explained 17% of the variance in intrinsic motivation; conscientiousness and extraversion explained 13% of the variance in extrinsic motivation; and conscientiousness and agreeableness explained 11% of the variance in a motivation. Further, four personality traits (conscientiousness, openness, neuroticism, and agreeableness) explained 14% of the variance in GPA; and intrinsic motivation to accomplish things explained 5% of the variance in GPA. Finally, conscientiousness emerged as a partial mediator of the relationship between intrinsic motivation to accomplish and GPA. These results are interpreted within the context of what educators could do to encourage and nurture student motivation and achievement. Bidjerano (2007) examined the relationship between the big-five model of personality and the use of self-regulated learning strategies. Measures of self-regulated learning strategies and bigfive personality traits were administered to a sample of undergraduate students. Results from canonical correlation analysis indicated an overlap between the big-five personality factors and the set of self-regulatory learning strategies. The study also compared the relative contributions of the personality factors and the self-regulated learning strategies in predicting academic achievement. The results from hierarchical multiple regressions suggest that the personality trait of Intellect made an independent contribution to the variance in student GPA, whereas effort regulation mediated the effects of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. The relevance of personality constructs in the learning context is discussed in terms of dispositions for active learning. Steca et al. (2007) explored the utility of the resilient, over controlled, and under controlled personality prototypes in discriminating adolescents with respect to their academic and social functioning and success. One-hundred and twelve male and 95 female Italian adolescents (mean age = 17 years old) participated in the study and filled out a number of self-report questionnaires aimed at assessing the Big Five personality traits, academic and social functioning indicators, and internalizing and externalizing problems. Prototype membership, corresponding to the resilient, over controlled and under controlled types, was derived from cluster analysis of the Big Five self-ratings. The three prototypes clearly differed in terms of their academic and interpersonal functioning and problem behavior. Resilient adolescents showed higher academic success and better relationships with peers; whereas under controllers and over controllers both

36

reported more internalizing and externalizing problems, as well as having more deviant friends who both are drug addicts and steal. Logue et al. (2007) based on 164 undergraduate business majors, examined the relationship between satisfaction with major and Holland's vocational interests and with the Big Five and narrow personality traits. Contrary to our hypothesis, enterprising scores were unrelated to major satisfaction. As hypothesized, using impassive and normative scores, investigative, artistic, and realistic interests were negatively related to major satisfaction. As hypothesized,

conscientiousness, emotional stability, and optimism were positively related to major satisfaction, as were extra-version and assertiveness. A stepwise multiple regression analysis indicated that 49% of the variance in major satisfaction could be accounted for by a combination of vocational interest themes and personality traits. Implications were drawn for theory and practice, including support for Holland's continuity principle, adding personality traits to Holland's vocational theory, and using vocational interest and normal personality trait measures in student advising and career counseling. Study limitations and implications for future research were noted. Lounsbury et al. (2005) based on a sample of 532 undergraduates at a Southeastern U.S. university, Big Five and narrow personality traits were examined in relation to a measure of satisfaction with specific domains of college experience (College Satisfaction) and a measure of General Life Satisfaction. Four of the Big Five traits--Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and Extraversion--as well as the narrow traits of Aggression, Career Decidedness, Optimism, Self-Directed Learning, Sense of Identity, and Work Drive were positively, significantly related to both satisfaction measures. Results of hierarchical regression analyses showed that the Big Five traits accounted for 45% of Life Satisfaction variance with Sense of Identity contributing an additional 7%, and College Satisfaction, 6%. It was suggested that who students become in college and how satisfied they are with different aspects of collegiate experience may be primarily determined by who they are when they enter college. Similarities were noted to findings of personality traits and academic performance, job performance, and adult career and life satisfaction. Implications were discussed in terms of Chickering and Reisser's major vectors for college development as well as for admissions

37

decisions and enhancing student-environment fit in advising, orientation, counseling, and career planning, among others. Oswald et al. (2004) this article describes the development and validation of a biographical data (bio data) measure and situational judgment inventory (SJI) as useful predictors of broadly defined college student performance outcomes. These measures provided incremental validity when considered in combination with standardized college-entrance tests (i.e., SAT/ACT) and a measure of Big Five personality constructs. Racial subgroup mean differences were much smaller on the biodata and SJI measures than on the standardized tests and college grade point average. Female students tended to outperform male students on most predictors and outcomes with the exception of the SAT/ACT. The biodata and SJI measures show promise for student development contexts and for selecting students on a wide range of outcomes with reduced adverse impact. MacCann et al. (2009) reported that conscientiousness is often found to predict academic outcomes, but is defined differently by different models of personality. High school students (N = 291) completed a large number of Conscientiousness items from different models and the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the items uncovered eight facets: Industriousness, Perfectionism, Tidiness, Procrastination Refrainment, Control, Cautiousness, Task Planning, and Perseverance. Correlations between these facets and the BFI revealed that all facets related strongly to Conscientiousness. Criterion-related validity was demonstrated by relationships between facets and academic outcomes such as grade-pointaverage, disciplinary infractions, and attainment of academic honors. Compared to BFI Conscientiousness, Industriousness and Perfectionism showed significantly stronger prediction of absenteeism and cognitive test scores, respectively. Results are discussed in terms of the usefulness of facet scores, the interpretation of personality scores for selection, and the development of intervention programs. Hypotheses (1) There is no significant difference in personality (total and factor wise) of students on the basis of Gender

38

Location of residence, Type of institute Type of family Category, Generation (2) There is no significant difference in academic achievement of students on the basis of Gender Location of residence, Type of institute Type of family Category, (3) There is no significant correlation in big five factors and academic achievement. Delimitation The Present Study was delimited to students studying in +1 class of senior secondary school affiliated to PSEB Mohali, Situated in sangrur District.

39

CHAPTER III METHOD AND PROCEDURE This chapter deals with methods and procedure of the present study. Specifically in this chapter method, sample, sample design, tool, data analysis or statistical techniques is discussed as follows: Method Descriptive survey method of research was employed for the present study. Sample The population the present study was defined as all students of class 10+1 studying in different schools of sangrur district affiliated to Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, Punjab. The schools were selected by stratified random sampling technique. Further, from each selected school all the students of available intact class were taken as sample. Initially, the data was collected from total 205 students. But later at the time of tabulation it was found that the data of 5 students were not completed. That is why; the data of those 5 students were not taken for the final analysis. Hence, the final sample consisted of 200 senior secondary school students from barnala district. The sample structure is given the table 3.1 Table 3.1 Structure of the Sample Variable Gender Category N Males Females Location Urban Rural Total 50 50 50 50 200

Tools The Big Five Inventory was developed by Oliver P. John, Ph.D. (Martinez and John). The test consists of 44 brief personality descriptors to which the test-taker responds with degree of agreement or disagreement on a 5-point Likert scale. The test has been normed on several

40

hundred thousand adult and teenagers by Sam Gosling, Ph.D. and J. Potter at the University of Texas (Gosling). Slight variations by age from scale to scale are present. Reliability Data Reliability for the five traits of the BFI are is adequate. For example, consider the data presented below on data for 166,579 Caucasian females. Scores are mean item scores. Trait Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Neuroticism Openness Mean 3.13 3.44 3.66 3.23 3.92 Standard Deviation .89 .75 .72 .84 .66 K-R 21 Reliability .90 .85 .85 .88 .84

The present study has found the BFI to be quick to administer and score, as valid as or more valid than other brief measures of the Big Five traits. Before using this inventory on present sample a try out was conducted on small sample in order to ensure the communication. During tryout it was found that students feel difficulty in English language. That is why it was translated into mother tongue of sample. This inventory was again tried out on representative sample and inter dimension co-relation was found. Data Collection The data for the present study was collected through personal visits by the investigator from schools included in the sample. Prior permission from the Principals of respective schools was taken for data collection. Before administering tools, the investigator told the purpose of the tools to the students. They were requested to give their true and free responses. It was also made clear to them that their responses would be kept strictly confidential. They were also assured that the information collected would be used only for research purpose. After establishing rapport

41

with students, test booklet were distributed and asked them to write personal information on the title page and then instructions were given to them as given in the manual of the test. They were also requested to go through the instructions printed at the cover page of the booklet. There was no time limit to complete the test but students were asked to respond as quickly as possible. On completion of the test, the booklets as well as response sheets were collected. The same class was visited next day and the next test was administered on them in the same way. The same procedure was repeated for all the tests for all the schools selected for the sample. After that scoring was done according to the instructions given in respective manual and then tabulation and analysis of the data was done in the light of framed objectives. Statistical Techniques In order to analyses the obtained data suitable statistical technique were employed in accordance with objectives as given in table 3.4 Table no 3.4 t-test One Way ANOVA followed by t-test Product moment correlation

Besides, this descriptive analysis of the obtained data was done that is mean and SD of each variable included in the study.

42

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION The present chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the data collected. The data collected was scored according to the scoring given in respective manuals of tools and then tabulated along with other demographical variables. This tabulation was transferred to SPSS spreadsheet for further analysis. The chapter is divided into two sections namely: 4.1 Descriptive Analysis 4.2 Inferential Analysis First section describes the sample statics categorized by demographical and categorical variables and the second section draws the inferences on the basis of statics Table 4.1 Gender wise mean and SD of Personality and Academic achievement

Gender Mean Female N Std. Deviation Mean Male N Std. Deviation Mean Total N Std. Deviation

E 26.19 100 3.760 27.07 100 4.154 26.63 200 3.976

A 31.92 100 4.748 32.40 100 4.175 32.16 200 4.466

C 30.01 100 4.294 30.62 100 5.069 30.32 200 4.695

N 26.24 100 4.751 24.29 100 5.441 25.26 200 5.187

O 36.34 100 4.374 35.99 100 4.890 36.17 200 4.631

AA 66.0523 100 8.61223 60.8038 100 8.19794 63.4281 200 8.78944

The mean score of extraversion of female students of +1 class is 26.19 with standard deviation 3.76. The mean score of agreeableness of female students of +1 class is 31.92 with standard deviation 4.74. The mean score of conscientiousness of male students of +1 class is

43

30.01 with standard deviation 4.29. The mean score of Neuroticism of male students of +1 class is 26.24 with standard deviation 4.75. The mean score of openness of male students of +1 class is 36.34 with standard deviation 4.37. The mean score of academic achievement of male students of +1 class is 66.05 with standard deviation 8.61.
40 36.34 35 31.92 30.01 30 26.19 25 26.24

20 Female Mean 15 Female Std. Deviation 10 3.76 4.74 4.29 4.75 4.37

Figure no 4.1 Mean and SD of female students The mean score of extraversion of male students is 27.07 with standard deviation 4.15.The mean score of agreeableness of male students is 27.07 with standard deviation 4.17. The mean score of conscientiousness of male students is 30.62 with standard deviation 5.06. The mean score of Neuroticism of male students is 24.29 with standard deviation 5.39. The mean score of openness of male students is 35.99 with standard deviation 4.89. The mean score of academic achievement of male students is 60.80 with standard deviation 8.19.

44

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 4.15 4.17 5.06 5.44 27.07 24.29 32.4 30.62

35.99

Male Mean 4.89 Male Std. Deviation

Figure no 4.2 Mean and SD of male students The mean score of extraversion of students is 26.63 with standard deviation 3.97. The mean score of agreeableness of female students is 32.16 with standard deviation 4.46. The mean score of conscientiousness of students is 30322 with standard deviation 4.69. The mean score of Neuroticism of students is 25.26 with standard deviation 5.18. The mean score of openness of students is 35.17 with standard deviation 4.63. The mean score of academic achievement of students is 63.42 with standard deviation 8.78.

45

70 63.42 60 50 40 32.16 30 20 10 0 E A C N O AA 8.78 3.97 4.46 4.69 5.18 4.63 26.63 30.32 25.26 36.17 Mean Std. Deviation

Figure no 4.3 Mean and SD of academic achievement of students Table no 4.2 Location wise mean and SD of personality and academic achievement

Lor Mean Rural N Std. Deviation Mean Urban N Std. Deviation Mean N Total Std. Deviation

E 26.72 116 3.835 26.51 84 4.184 26.63 200

A 32.49 116 4.573 31.70 84 4.298 32.16 200

C 31.40 116 4.493 28.82 84 4.582 30.32 200

N 24.84 116 5.695 25.85 84 4.359 25.26 200

O 36.36 116 4.624 35.89 84 4.654 36.17 200

AA 62.7752 116 9.35467 64.3297 84 7.90931 63.4281 200

3.976

4.466

4.695

5.187

4.631

8.78944

46

The mean score of extraversion of students residing in rural area is 26.72 with standard deviation 3.83. The mean score of agreeableness of students residing in rural area is 32.49standard deviation is 4.57. The mean score of conscientiousness of students residing in rural area is 31.40 with standard deviation 4.49. The mean score of Neuroticism of students residing in rural area is 24.84 with standard deviation 5.69. The mean score of openness of students residing in rural area is 36.36 with standard deviation4.62. The mean score of academic achievement students in rural area is 62.77 with standard deviation 9.35.
40 36.36 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 extraversion agreeableness . Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness 3.83 4.57 4.49 5.69 4.62 32.49 26.72 24.84 31.4

Figure no 4.4 Mean and SD of students residing in rural area The mean score of extraversion of students residing in urban area is 26.51 with standard deviation 4.18. The mean score of agreeableness of students residing in urban area is 31.70 with standard deviation 4.29. The mean score of conscientiousness of students residing in urban area is 28.82 with standard deviation 4.58. The mean score of Neuroticism of students residing in urban area is 25.85 with standard deviation 4.35.The mean score of openness of students residing in urban area is 35.89 with standard deviation 4.65. The mean score of academic achievement of students residing in urban area is 64.32 with standard deviation 7.90.

47

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 4.18 4.29 4.58 4.35 26.51 31.7 28.82 25.85

35.89

U Mean 4.65 U Std. Deviation

Figure no 4.5 Mean and SD of students residing in urban area Table 4.3 Type of Institute wise mean and SD of Personality and Academic achievement
Institute Mean Govt. N Std. Deviation Mean Private N Std. Deviation Mean Total N Std. Deviation E 26.50 168 3.866 27.31 32 4.518 26.63 200 3.976 A 32.08 168 4.397 32.56 32 4.866 32.16 200 4.466 C 30.14 168 4.670 31.25 32 4.792 30.32 200 4.695 N 25.90 168 4.913 21.91 32 5.372 25.26 200 5.187 O 36.21 168 4.706 35.91 32 4.276 36.17 200 4.631 AA 64.3494 168 8.43163 58.5913 32 9.17565 63.4281 200 8.78944

The mean score of extraversion of students studying in govt. schools is 26.50 with standard deviation 3.86. The mean score of agreeableness of students studying in govt. schools of +1 class is 32.08 with standard deviation 4.39.The mean score of conscientiousness of

48

students studying in govt. schools of +1 class is 30.14 with standard deviation 4.67. The mean score of Neuroticism of students studying in govt. schools of +1 class is 25.90 with standard deviation 4.91. The mean score of openness of students studying in govt. schools of +1 class is 36.21 with standard deviation 4.70. The mean score of academic achievement of male students studying in govt. schools of +1 class is 64.34 with standard deviation 8.43.
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 3.86 4.397 4.67 4.91 4.70 G Mean G Std. Deviation 26.50 32.08 30.14 25.9 36.21

Figure no 4.6 Mean and SD of students studying in govt. schools The mean score of extraversion of students studying in private schools is 27.31 with standard deviation 4.51. The mean score of agreeableness of students studying in private schools is 32.56 with standard deviation 4.86. The mean score of conscientiousness of male students studying in private schools is 31.25 with standard deviation 4.79.The mean score of Neuroticism of students studying in private. Schools are 21.91 with standard deviation 5.37. The mean score of openness of students studying in private schools is 35.91 with standard deviation 4.27. The mean score of academic achievement of students studying in private schools is 58.59 with standard deviation 9.17.

49

40 35.91 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 extraversion agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness 4.51 4.86 4.79 5.37 4.27 32.56 27.31 21.91 31.25

Figure no 4.7 Mean and SD of students studying in private schools Table 4.4 Nature of family wise mean and SD of Personality and Academic achievement
Family E A C N O AA

Mean Joint N Std. Deviation Mean Single N Std. Deviation Mean Total N Std. Deviation

26.93 46 3.76 26.54 154 4.046 26.63 200 3.976

31.61 46 5.306 32.32 154 4.188 32.16 200 4.466

30.11 46 5.083 30.38 154 4.589 30.32 200 4.695

24.52 46 5.640 25.49 154 5.043 25.26 200 5.187

36.09 46 4.231 36.19 154 4.757 36.17 200 4.631

63.0418 46 8.05169 63.5435 154 9.01972 63.4281 200 8.78944

50

The mean score of extraversion of students living in joint family is 26.93 with standard deviation 3.76. The mean score of agreeableness of students living in joint family is 31.61 with standard deviation 5.30.The mean score of conscientiousness of students living in joint family is 30.11 with standard deviation 5.08. The mean score of Neuroticism of students living in joint family is 24.52 with standard deviation 5.64. The mean score of openness of students living in joint family is 36.09 with standard deviation 4.23.The mean score of academic achievement of students living in joint family is 63.04 with standard deviation 8.05.
40 36.09 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 extraversion agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness 3.76 5.30 5.08 5.64 4.23 31.61 26.93 24.52

30.11

Figure no 4.8 Mean and SD of students living in joint family The mean score of extraversion of students living in single family is 26.54 with standard deviation 4.04. The mean score of agreeableness of students living in single family is 32.32 with standard deviation 4.18. The mean score of conscientiousness of students living in single family is 30.38 with standard deviation 4.58.The mean score of Neuroticism of students living in single family is 25.49 with standard deviation 5.04. The mean score of openness of students is 36.19 with standard deviation 4.75. The mean score of academic achievement of students living in single family is 63.54 with standard deviation 9.01.

51

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 4.04 4.18 4.58 5.04 26.54 32.32 30.38 25.49

36.19

S Mean S Std. Deviation 4.75

Figure no 4.8 Mean and SD of students living in single family Table 4.5 Category wise mean and SD of Personality and Academic achievement
Category Mean General N Std. Deviation Mean OBC N Std. Deviation Mean SC N Std. Deviation Mean Total N 200 200 200 200 200 200 E 26.75 65 4.691 26.68 60 3.520 26.48 75 3.685 26.63 A 32.02 65 4.823 31.82 60 4.440 32.56 75 4.186 32.16 C 30.91 65 4.534 29.23 60 4.952 30.67 75 4.536 30.32 N 24.12 65 5.653 25.88 60 4.826 25.76 75 4.945 25.26 O 35.32 65 5.050 35.70 60 4.447 37.27 75 4.221 36.17 AA 63.7408 65 9.24802 63.9064 60 7.80355 62.7744 75 9.19385 63.4281

52
Std. Deviation 3.976 4.466 4.695 5.187 4.631 8.78944

The mean score of extraversion of general category students belonging is 26.75 with standard deviation 4.69.The mean score of agreeableness of is general category students belonging 32.02 with standard deviation 4.82.The mean score of conscientiousness of students studying in govt. schools of +1 class is 30.91 with standard deviation 4.53. The mean score of Neuroticism of students studying in govt. schools of +1 class is 24.12 with standard deviation 5.65. The mean score of openness of students studying in govt. schools of +1 class is 35.32 with standard deviation 5.05. The mean score of academic achievement of male students studying in govt. schools of +1 class is 63.74 with standard deviation 8.43.
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 4.69 4.82 4.53 5.65 5.05 G Mean G Std. Deviation 26.75 32.02 30.91 24.12 35.32

Figure no 4.9 Mean and SD of students belonging in General category The mean score of extraversion of OBC category students belonging is 26.68 with standard deviation 3.52.The mean score of agreeableness of is OBC students belonging 31.82 with standard deviation 4.44.The mean score of conscientiousness of OBC category students belonging is 29.23 with standard deviation 4.95. The mean score of Neuroticism of OBC category students belonging is 25.88 with standard deviation 4.82. The mean score of openness of OBC category students belonging is 35.70 with standard deviation 4.44. The mean score of

53

academic achievement of OBC category students belonging is 63.90 with standard deviation 7.80.

40 35.7 35 30 26.68 25 20 15 10 5 0 3.52 4.44 4.95 4.82 4.44 31.82 29.23 25.88

Figure of 4.10 Mean and SD of students belonging to OBC category The mean score of extraversion of SC category students belonging is 26.48 with standard deviation 3.68.The mean score of agreeableness of is SC students belonging 32.56 with standard deviation 4.18.The mean score of conscientiousness of SC category students belonging is 30.67 with standard deviation 4.53. The mean score of Neuroticism of SC category students belonging is 25.76 with standard deviation 4.94. The mean score of openness of SC category students belonging is 37.27 with standard deviation 4.22. The mean score of academic achievement of SC category students belonging is 62.77 with standard deviation 9.19.

54

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 3.685 4.186 4.536 4.945 32.56 30.67 26.48 25.76

37.27

SC Mean SC Std. Deviation

4.221

Figure no 4.11 Mean and SD of students belonging to SC category Table 4.6 Generation wise mean and SD of Personality and Academic achievement
Generation Mean NO N Std. Deviation Mean YES N Std. Deviation Mean Total N Std. Deviation E 26.42 126 4.337 26.99 74 3.271 26.63 200 3.976 A 32.47 126 4.399 31.64 74 4.559 32.16 200 4.466 C 30.09 126 4.818 30.70 74 4.484 30.32 200 4.695 N 25.04 126 5.151 25.65 74 5.261 25.26 200 5.187 O 36.29 126 4.835 35.96 74 4.286 36.17 200 4.631 AA 63.2179 126 8.60183 63.7859 74 9.14842 63.4281 200 8.78944

55

The mean score of extraversion of students not with first generation in education is 26.42 with standard deviation 4.37. The mean score of agreeableness of students not with first generation in education is 32.47 with standard deviation 4.39. The mean score of conscientiousness of students not with first generation in education is 30.09 with standard deviation 4.81. The mean score of Neuroticism of students not with first generation in education is 25.04 with standard deviation 5.15. The mean score of openness of students not with first generation in education is 36.29 with standard deviation 4.83. The mean score of academic achievement of students not with first generation in education is 63.21 with standard deviation 8.60.
40 36.29 35 30 26.42 25 20 15 10 5 0 4.337 4.399 4.818 5.151 4.835 N Mean N Std. Deviation 25.04 32.47 30.09

Figure no 4.12 Mean and SD of students not with first generation The mean score of extraversion of students with first generation in education is 26.99 with standard deviation 3.27. The mean score of agreeableness of students with first generation in education is 32.64 with standard deviation 4.55. The mean score of conscientiousness of

56

students with first generation in education is 30.70 with standard deviation 4.48. The mean score of Neuroticism of students with first generation in education is 25.65 with standard deviation 5.26. The mean score of openness of students with first generation in education is 35.96 with standard deviation 4.28. The mean score of academic achievement of students with first generation in education is 63.78 with standard deviation 9.14.
40 35.96 35 32.64 30 26.99 25 20 Y Mean 15 10 5 0 4.559 4.484 5.261 4.286 Y Std. Deviation 25.65 30.70

3.271

Figure no 4.13 Mean and SD of students with first generation Table 4.7 Significance of gender difference in Big five factors and Academic achievement

Variable

Gender

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Difference

Sig.

57
M E F M A F M C F M N F M O F M AA F 100 66.0523 8.61223 100 100 36.34 60.8038 4.374 8.19794 1.18902 4.414 .000 100 100 26.24 35.99 4.751 4.890 .656 .533 .594 100 100 30.01 24.29 4.294 5.441 .722 2.700 .008 100 100 31.92 30.62 4.748 5.069 .664 .918 .360 100 100 26.19 32.40 3.760 4.175 .632 .759 .449 100 27.07 4.154 .560 1.571 .118

Table 4.7 describes that the t value for gender difference in mean score of dimension extraversion of personality is 1.571, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant gender difference in mean scores of dimension extraversion of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant gender difference in mean scores of dimension extraversion of personality, is not rejected. The t value for gender difference in mean score of dimension agreeableness of personality is .759, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant gender difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant gender difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality, is not rejected. The t value for gender difference in mean score of dimension consciences of personality is .918, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant gender difference in mean scores of dimension conscientiousness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that

58

there is no significant gender difference in mean scores of dimension conscientiousness of personality, is not rejected. The t value for gender difference in mean score of dimension neuroticism of personality is 2.70, which is significant at .01 level with difference 198. It means that there is significant gender difference in mean scores of dimension neuroticism of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant gender difference in mean scores of dimension extraversion of personality, is rejected. Further, mean score of neuroticism of female students (26.24) is more that mean score of males (24.29). It means that female students have higher level of neuroticism than male students. The t value for gender difference in mean score of dimension openness of personality.533, which is not significant .It means that there is no significant gender difference in mean scores of dimension openness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant gender difference in mean scores of dimension openness of personality, is not rejected The t value for gender difference in mean score of academic achievement of personality 4.41which is significant at .01level with difference 198. It means that there is significant gender difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant gender difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality, is rejected. Further, mean score of academic achievement of female students (66.05) is more that mean score of males (60.80). It means that female students have higher level of Academic achievement than male students. Table 4.8 Significance of Location of residence difference in Big five factors and Academic achievement.
LoR N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Difference R E U A R 84 116 26.51 32.49 4.184 4.573 .639 1.235 .218 116 26.72 3.835 .571 .357 .722 T Sig.

59
U R C U R N U R O U R AA U 84 64.3297 7.90931 84 116 35.89 62.7752 4.654 9.35467 1.25757 1.236 .218 84 116 25.85 36.36 4.359 4.624 .664 .706 .481 84 116 28.82 24.84 4.582 5.695 .742 1.349 .179 84 116 31.70 31.40 4.298 4.493 .649 3.967 .000

Table no. 4.8 describes that the t value for location of residence difference in mean score of dimension extraversion of personality is 0.357, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant location of residence difference in mean scores of dimension extraversion of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant location of residence difference in mean scores of dimension extraversion of personality, is not rejected. The t value for location of residence difference in mean score of dimension agreeableness of personality is 1.235, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant location of residence difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant location of residence difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality, is not rejected. The t value for location of residence difference in mean score of dimension conscientiousness of personality 3.967which is significant a0.1 level with difference 198. It means that there is significant location of residence difference in mean scores of dimension conscientiousness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant location of residence difference in mean scores of dimension conscientiousness of personality, is rejected. Further, mean score of conscientiousness of rural students (31.40) is

60

more that mean score of urban (28.82). It means that rural students have higher level of conscientiousness than urban students. The t value for location of residence difference in mean score of dimension neuroticism personality is 1.34, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant location of residence difference in mean scores of dimension neuroticism of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant location of residence difference in mean scores of dimension neuroticism of personality, is not rejected The t value for location of residence difference in mean score of dimension openness of personality is 0.70, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant location of residence difference in mean scores of dimension openness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant location of residence difference in mean scores of dimension openness of personality, is not rejected. The t value for location of residence difference in mean score of academic achievement of personality is 1.23, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant location of residence difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant location of residence difference in academic achievement of personality, is not rejected. Table4.9 Significance of Type of Institute difference in Big five factors and Academic achievement
Institute N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Difference G E P G A P G C P N G 32 168 31.25 25.90 4.792 4.913 .962 4.157 .000 32 168 32.56 30.14 4.866 4.670 .904 1.231 .220 32 168 27.31 32.08 4.518 4.397 .863 .555 .579 168 26.50 3.866 .767 1.060 .291 t Sig. (2-tailed)

61
P G O P AA G P 32 168 32 35.91 64.3494 58.5913 4.276 8.43163 9.17565 1.64958 3.491 .001 32 168 21.91 36.21 5.372 4.706 .895 .344 .731

Table no. 4.9 describes that the t value for type of school difference in means score of dimension extraversion of personality is 1.06, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant type of school difference in mean scores of dimension extraversion of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant type of school difference in mean scores of dimension extraversion of personality, is not rejected. The t value for type of school difference in mean score of dimension agreeableness of personality is 0.55, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant type of school difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant type of school difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality, is not rejected. The t value for type of school difference in mean score of dimension conscientiousness of personality is 1.23, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant type of school difference in mean scores of dimension conscientiousness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant type of school difference in mean scores of dimension conscientiousness of personality, is not rejected. The t value for type of school difference in mean score of dimension neuroticism of personality 4.15which is significant a0.1 level with difference 198.In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is significant school difference in mean scores of dimension neuroticism of personality, is rejected. Further, mean score of neuroticism of govt. students (25.90) is more that mean score of private (21.91). It means that govt. students have higher level of neuroticism than private students.

62

The t value for type of school difference in mean score of dimension openness of personality is 0.34, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant type of school difference in mean scores of dimension openness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant type of school difference in mean scores of dimension openness of personality, is not rejected. The t value for type of school difference in mean score of academic achievement of personality 3.49which is significant a0.1 level with difference 198. It means that there is significant type of school difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant school difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality, is rejected. Further, mean score of academic achievement of govt. students (64.34) is more that mean score of private (58.59). It means that govt. students have higher level of neuroticism than private students. Table 4.10 Significance of Type of family difference in Big five factors and Academic achievement
Family N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean t Sig. (2-tailed) Std. Error Difference S E J S A J S C J S N J S O J 46 36.09 4.231 .624 46 154 24.52 36.19 5.640 4.757 .832 .383 .130 .897 .780 46 154 30.11 25.49 5.083 5.043 .749 .406 1.108 .269 .871 46 154 31.61 30.38 5.306 4.589 .782 .370 .339 .735 .791 46 154 26.93 32.32 3.762 4.188 .555 .337 .954 .341 .751 154 26.54 4.046 .326 -.591 .555 .669

63
S AA J 46 63.0418 8.05169 1.18716 154 63.5435 9.01972 .72683 .339 .735 1.48015

Table no 4.10 describes that the t value for type of family difference in mean score of dimension Extraversion of personality is .55, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of dimension Extraversion of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of dimension Extraversion of personality, is not rejected. The t value for type of family difference in mean score of dimension agreeableness of personality is 0.34, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality, is not rejected. The t value for type of family difference in mean score of dimension conscientiousness of personality is .73, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of dimension conscientiousness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of dimension
conscientiousness of personality, is not rejected.

The t value for type of family difference in mean score of dimension neuroticism of personality is .26, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of dimension neuroticism of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of dimension neuroticism of personality, is not rejected. The t value for type of family difference in mean score of dimension openness of personality is .89, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of dimension openness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of dimension openness of personality, is not rejected.

64

The t value for type of family difference in mean score of academic achievement of personality is .73, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant family difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality, is not rejected. Table 4.11 Significance of Generation difference in Big five factors and Academic achievement
Generatio n Y E N Y A N Y C N Y N N Y O N Y AA N 126 63.2179 8.60183 .76631 126 74 36.29 63.7859 4.835 9.14842 .431 1.06348 .440 .66 1.28990 126 74 25.04 35.96 5.151 4.286 .459 .498 -.480 .63 .680 126 74 30.09 25.65 4.818 5.261 .429 .612 .801 .42 .760 126 74 32.47 30.70 4.399 4.484 .392 .521 .894 .37 .688 126 74 26.42 31.64 4.337 4.559 .386 .530 -1.276 .20 .653 74 26.99 N Mean Std. Deviation 3.271 Std. Error Mean .380 .971 t Sig. (2tailed) .33 Std. Error Difference .582

Table no 4.11 describes that the t value for education generation difference in means score of dimension Extraversion of personality is .33, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant generation difference in mean scores of dimension Extraversion of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant generation difference in mean scores of dimension Extraversion of personality, is not rejected.

65

The t value for education generation difference in mean score of dimension agreeableness of personality is .20, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant generation difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant generation difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality, is not rejected. The t value for education generation difference in mean score of dimension
conscientiousness of personality is .37, which is not significant. It means that there is no

significant generation difference in mean scores of dimension conscientiousness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant generation difference in mean scores of dimension conscientiousness of personality, is not rejected. The t value for education generation difference in mean score of dimension neuroticism of personality is .42, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant generation difference in mean scores of dimension neuroticism of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant generation difference in mean scores of dimension neuroticism of personality, is not rejected. The t value for education generation difference in mean score of dimension openness of personality is .63, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant generation difference in mean scores of dimension openness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant generation difference in mean scores of dimension openness of personality, is not rejected. The t value for education generation difference in mean score of academic achievement of personality is .66, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant generation difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant generation difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality, is not rejected. Table 4.12 Significance of Category difference in Big five factors and Academic achievement
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

66
Between Groups Within Groups 2.855 3143.765 2 197 1.428 15.958 .089 .914

Total Between Groups Within Groups

3146.620 20.432 3948.448

199 2 197 10.216 20.043 .510 .601

Total Between Groups Within Groups

3968.880 102.309 4284.846

199 2 197 51.154 21.750 2.352 .098

Total Between Groups Within Groups

4387.155 126.076 5228.879

199 2 197 63.038 26.543 2.375 .096

Total

5354.955

199 .029

Between Groups

150.073

75.036

3.590 S .05

O Within Groups 4117.482 197 20.901

Total Between Groups Within Groups

4267.555 52.137 15321.467

199 2 197 26.069 77.774 .335 .716

AA

Total

15373.604

199

Table no 4.12 describes that the F value for significance of category difference in mean scores of extraversion of senior secondary students is 0.89, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant category difference in mean scores of academic achievement of

67

personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant category difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality, is not rejected. The F value for significance of category difference in mean scores of agreeableness of senior secondary students is 0.510, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant category difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant category difference in mean scores of dimension agreeableness of personality is not rejected. The F value for significance of category difference in mean scores of conscientiousness senior secondary students is 2.35, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant category difference in mean scores of dimension conscientiousness of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant category difference in mean scores of dimension
conscientiousness of personality is not rejected.

The F value for significance of category difference in mean scores of neuroticism of senior secondary students is 2.37, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant category difference in mean scores of dimension neuroticism of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant category difference in mean scores of dimension neuroticism of personality is not rejected. The F value for significance of category difference in mean scores of openness of senior secondary students is 3.59, which is significant at .05 levels with degree of freedom 2/197. It means that there is significant category difference in mean scores of openness of senior secondary students. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is significant category difference in mean scores of openness of senior secondary students is rejected. The F value for significance of category difference in mean scores of academic achievement of senior secondary students is 0.335, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant category difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant category difference in mean scores of academic achievement of personality is not rejected.

68

Table 4.13 Coefficient of correlation between Big five factors and Academic Achievement
AA Pearson Correlation E A C N O -.057 .026 -.043 .121 -.012 .421 .716 .541 .089 .870 Sig. (2-tailed)

Table no 4.13 describes that the coefficient of correlation between dimension Extraversion of Big Five factor and Academic Achievement is -.057, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant correlation between dimension Extraversion of Big Five factor and Academic Achievement. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant correlation between dimension Extraversion of Big Five factor and Academic achievement is not rejected. The coefficient of correlation between dimension agreeableness of Big Five factor and Academic Achievement is .026, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant correlation between dimension agreeableness of Big Five factor and Academic Achievement. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant correlation between dimension agreeableness of Big Five factor and Academic achievement is not rejected. The coefficient of correlation between dimension conscientiousness of Big Five factor and Academic Achievement is 043, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant correlation between dimension conscientiousness of Big Five factor and Academic Achievement. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant correlation between dimension
conscientiousness of Big Five factor and Academic achievement, is not rejected

The coefficient of correlation between dimension neuroticism of Big Five factor and Academic Achievement is .121, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant

69

correlation between dimension neuroticism of Big Five factor and Academic achievement. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant correlation between dimension neuroticism of Big Five factor and Academic achievement, is not rejected The coefficient of correlation between dimension openness of Big Five factor and Academic Achievement is .012, which is not significant. It means that there is no significant correlation between dimension openness of Big Five factor and Academic Achievement. In the light of this, the null hypothesis that there is no significant correlation between dimension openness of Big Five factor and Academic achievement is not rejected.

70

CHAPTER V CONCUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Findings (1) There is no significant gender difference in dimension extraversion, agreeableness conscientiousness and openness of personality of students. (2) There is significant gender difference in dimension neuroticism of personality of students. Female students have higher level of neuroticism than male students. (3) There is significant gender difference in academic achievement of personality of students. Female students had higher level of Academic achievement than male students. (4) There is no significant location of residence difference in dimension extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness of personality of students. (5) There is significant location of residence difference in dimension conscientiousness of personality of students. Rural students had higher level of conscientiousness than urban students. (6) There is no significant location of residence difference in academic achievement of personality of students. (7) There is no significant type of school difference in dimension extraversion agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness of personality of students. (8) There is significant type of school difference in dimension neuroticism of personality of students. Govt. students had higher level of neuroticism than private students. (9) There is no significant type of school difference in academic achievement of personality of students (10) There is no significant family difference in dimension Extraversion agreeableness,

conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness of personality of students. (11) There is no significant family difference in academic achievement of personality

of students. (12) There is no significant category difference in dimension extraversion,

agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness personality of students.

71

(13)

There is no significant category difference in academic achievement of

personality of students. (14) There is no significant type of generation difference in of dimension Extraversion

agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness of personality of students. (15) There is no significant type of generation difference in academic achievement of

personality of students. (16) There is no significant correlation between dimension Extraversion,

agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, openness of Big Five factor and Academic Achievement of students. Educational implications for the study 1) As study shows that female students achieved higher than male students. This finding applies for teachers and parents to act for enhancement of male students. 2) There is significant location of residence difference in dimension conscientiousness of personality of students. Rural students had higher level of conscientiousness than urban students. This finding suggests to principal, teachers and parents to control the neuroticism behavior of govt. school students. 3) There is significant location of residence difference in dimension conscientiousness of personality of students. Rural students had higher level of conscientiousness than urban students. This finding suggests to teachers in urban schools to enhance conscientiousness level of urban students. 4) There was no significant co-relation between academic achievement and big five factor found in present study. There is need of comprehensive examination of relation of academic achievement with big five factor. The present study suggests no implication for teachers and parents. Suggestions for the further study (1) Study can be conducted by using academic achievement standardize academic achievement test.

72

(2) Same study can be conducted by taking sample from graduate class; post graduate classes professional courses etc. (3) Study of life skills in relation to BFI can be conducted on school students, college students, university students and teachers also etc.

73

SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Personality is a pretty important word in the English language. If you ask someone why they chose their spouse or what the most important quality the look for in a friend is, most people will say a good personality. But, what does that mean? The truth is, the meaning of a good personality is different for everyone. Some people like quiet people, while others want to hang out with the loudest person in the room. Some value humor, while others praise intellect. And, of course, many people can have both intellect and humor and these things are both part of their personalities. These different factors, in fact, are considered to be personality traits. Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless). Conscientiousness is a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement against measures or outside expectations. The trait shows a preference for planned rather than spontaneous behavior. It influences the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses. The average level of conscientiousness rises among young adult Conscientiousness is one of the five personality traits of the Big Five personality theory. A person scoring high in conscientiousness usually has a high level of self-discipline. These individuals prefer to follow a plan, rather than act spontaneously. Their methodic planning and perseverance usually makes them highly successful in their chosen occupation. High conscientiousness means a person is responsible and reliable. Conscientiousness is about how a person controls, regulates, and directs their impulses. Individuals with a high level of conscientiousness on a career test are good at formulating long-range goals, organizing and planning routes to these goals, and working consistently to achieve them. Despite short-term obstacles they may encounter. Other people usually perceive a conscientious personality type as a responsible and reliable person. Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. cold/unkind). Agreeableness is a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. The trait reflects individual differences in general concern for social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are generally considerate,

74

friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. Although agreeableness is positively correlated with good team work skills, it is negatively correlated with leadership skills. Those who voice out their opinion in a team environment tends to move up the corporate rankings, whereas the ones that don't remain in the same position usually labeled as the followers of the team. Neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident). Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression. It is sometimes called emotional instability, or is reversed and referred to as emotional stability. According to Eysencks (1967) theory of personality, neuroticism is interlinked with low tolerance for stress or aversive stimuli. Those who score high in neuroticism are emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in a bad mood. For instance, neuroticism is connected to a pessimistic approach toward work, confidence that work impedes with personal relationships, and apparent anxiety linked with work. Furthermore, those who score high on neuroticism may display more skin conductance reactivity than those who score low on neuroticism. These problems in emotional regulation can diminish the ability of a person scoring high on neuroticism to think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress. Lacking contentment in one's life achievements can correlate to high Neuroticism scores and increase a person's likelihood of falling into clinical depression Openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious). Openness is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, when compared to closed people, more creative and more aware of their feelings. They are more likely to hold unconventional beliefs. There is a strong connection between liberal ethics and openness to experience such as support for policies endorsing racial tolerance. Another characteristic of the open cognitive style is a facility for thinking in symbols and abstractions far removed from concrete experience.

75

People with low scores on openness tend to have more conventional, traditional interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion or view these endeavors as uninteresting. Closed people prefer familiarity over novelty; they are conservative and resistant to change. Extraversion (outgoing/energetic. solitary/reserved). Energy, positive emotions, surgency, assertiveness, sociability and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others, and talkativeness. For at least 2500 years, some people have been described as more bold, assertive and talkative than others. For almost equally long, this set of behaviors has been thought to have a biological basis and be socially important. Although our taximetrics techniques have changed and our theories of biology are more advanced, the question of the causal basis as well as the behavioral consequences of the trait dimension that has come to be called extraversion-introversion remains vitally important. Extraversion is one of the five personality traits of the Big Five personality theory. It indicates how outgoing and social a person is. A person who scores high in extraversion on a personality test is the life of the party. They enjoy being with people, participating in social gatherings, and are full of energy. A person low in extraversion is less outgoing and is more comfortable working by himself. Academic achievement The Personality plays an important role that effect academic achievement. 308 undergraduates who completed the Five Factor Inventory Processes and offered their GPA implied that the two of traits therein, conscientiousness and agreeableness, have positive relationship with all learning styles (synthesis analysis, methodical study, fact retention, and elaborative processing), whereas neuroticism has an inverse relationship with them all. Moreover, extraversion and openness were proportional to elaborative processing. The Big Five together explained 14% of the variance in GPA, suggesting that personality traits make great contributions to academic performance. Furthermore, reflective learning styles (synthesis-analysis and elaborative processing)was able to mediate the relationship between openness and GPA. These results indicate that intellectual curiousness has significant enhancement in academic performance if students can combine the scholarly interest with thoughtful information processing.

76

Academic achievement is one of the important goals of education. In case of students, we judge their knowledge, attainment and skills acquired in school subjects which are assessed by the authorities with the help of examination, which can be teacher made or standardized tests. Academic achievement is the accomplishment or acquired proficiency in the performance of an individual in a given skill or body of a knowledge. Achievement can be measured with the help of tests, verbal or written. Since Academic achievement is a criterion for selection, promotion or recognition in various walks of life, Improvement of academic achievement cannot be ignored. There are several factors that influence the academic achievement of an individual like his personality, intellectual ability and environment etc. Academic achievement is also influenced by demographic, cultural and environmental factors, which are of crucial importance. The word academic achievement has been derived from two words, Academic and Achievement. a) Academics It means any activity or action that is scholastic in nature and meaning of academy in school where special types of instructions are imparted. b) Achievement Achievement means the level of proficiency attained. It is the end product of all educational endeavors. The main corner of all educational efforts is to see what the learners achieve. c) Academic Achievement Academic Achievement is the case of a wider term i.e. educational growth and plays an important role in the life of a child. High academic achievement in schools builds self-esteem and self confidence which lead to better adjustment with the group. It is a unique prime responsibility of a school or any other educational institution established by the society to promote a wholesome scholastic growth and development of a child. The greatness of it depends upon the quality of scholars and intellectual robots it produces. Brilliant academic records of are supposed to be the most widely accepted index of its worth and success

77

Rationale Even after implication of CCE (Continues comprehensive evaluation) by central board of secondary education CBSE and PSEB Academic achievement remain main focus of Indian education system. Even now students of secondary and senior secondary level receive presser from parents, teachers, principle and management to score higher in all academic subjects. Keeping in mind this importance the investigator selects the academic achievement. As dependent variable in present study. As the investigator was interested in the study examination in relation to academic achievement. Previous literature was received and it was found that large number of studies Griffin (2012), Moharib (2012), MacCann (2012), Bullock (2011), Strambler (2013) are conducted on academic achievement and personality. But most of the studies are measure personality through models lay personality inventory. The investigator found dearth in studies regarding relationship or influence of Big five factors of personality on academic achievement. On Indian learner with special reference to Punjab. Keeping in mind this gap the investigator select present problem. Further gender and location of residence were taken else classifying variable as well as and moderator variable. Statement of Problem Study of academic achievement in relation to big five factors of personality of senior secondary school students. Operational definitions of the problem Academic achievement a) Academic achievement generally refers to how well a student is accomplishing his or her tasks and studies. The most well-known indicator of academic achievement, grades are the student's 'score' for their classes and overall tenure. b) Academic achievement means how a student performs in school. Some schools define this as a certain G.P.A, or ranking in class. Other schools define this as any special projects, or competitions the student has been in. Basically it can be considered anything you have done as a student,that is outstanding. c) The definition of academic achievement refers to the level of schooling you have successfully completed and the ability to attain success in your studies.

78

Big five factors of personality The Big Five factors were discovered through a statistical procedure called factor analysis, which was used to analyze how ratings of various personality traits are correlated in humans. The Big Five factors of personality are five broad domains which define human personality and account for individual differences. Objectives (1)To compare the personality (total and factor wise) of students on the basis of Gender Location of residence, Type of institute Type of family Category, Generation (2) To compare the academic achievement of students on the basis of Gender Location of residence, Type of institute Type of family Category, Generation (3) To study the relationship between academic achievement and personality of students. Hypotheses (1) There is no significant difference in personality (total and factor wise) of students on the basis of

79

Gender Location of residence, Type of institute Type of family Category, Generation (2) There is no significant difference in academic achievement of students on the basis of Gender Location of residence, Type of institute Type of family Category, (3) There is no significant correlation in big five factors and academic achievement. Delimitation The Present Study was delimited to students studying in +1 class of senior secondary school affiliated to PSEB Mohali, Situated in sangrur District. Method Descriptive survey method of research was employed for the present study. Sample The population the present study was defined as all students of class 10+1 studying in different schools of sangrur district affiliated to Punjab School Education Board, Mohali, Punjab. The schools were selected by stratified random sampling technique. Further, from each selected school all the students of available intact class were taken as sample. Initially, the data was collected from total 205 students. But later at the time of tabulation it was found that the data of 5 students were not completed. That is why; the data of those 5 students were not taken for the final analysis. Hence, the final sample consisted of 200 senior secondary school students from

80

barnala district. The sample structure is given the table 3.1 Table 3.1 Structure of the Sample Variable Category N Gender Males Females Location Urban Rural Total 50 50 50 50 200

Tools The Big Five Inventory was developed by Oliver P. John, Ph.D. (Martinez and John). The test consists of 44 brief personality descriptors to which the test-taker responds with degree of agreement or disagreement on a 5-point Likert scale. The test has been normed on several hundred thousand adult and teenagers by Sam Gosling, Ph.D. and J. Potter at the University of Texas (Gosling). Slight variations by age from scale to scale are present. Reliability Data Reliability for the five traits of the BFI are is adequate. For example, consider the data presented below on data for 166,579 Caucasian females. Scores are mean item scores. Trait Extraversion Mean 3.13 Standard Deviation .89 .75 .72 .84 .66 K-R 21 Reliability .90 .85 .85 .88 .84

Conscientiousness 3.44 Agreeableness Neuroticism Openness 3.66 3.23 3.92

81

The present study has found the BFI to be quick to administer and score, as valid as or more valid than other brief measures of the Big Five traits Before using this inventory on present sample a try out was conducted on small sample in order to ensure the communication. During tryout it was found that students feel difficulty in English language. That is why it was translated into mother tongue of sample. This inventory was again tried out on representative sample and inter dimension co-relation was found. Data Collection The data for the present study was collected through personal visits by the investigator from schools included in the sample. Prior permission from the Principals of respective schools was taken for data collection. Before administering tools, the investigator told the purpose of the tools to the students. They were requested to give their true and free responses. It was also made clear to them that their responses would be kept strictly confidential. They were also assured that the information collected would be used only for research purpose. After establishing rapport with students, test booklet were distributed and asked them to write personal information on the title page and then instructions were given to them as given in the manual of the test. They were also requested to go through the instructions printed at the cover page of the booklet. There was no time limit to complete the test but students were asked to respond as quickly as possible. On completion of the test, the booklets as well as response sheets were collected. The same class was visited next day and the next test was administered on them in the same way. The same procedure was repeated for all the tests for all the schools selected for the sample. After that scoring was done according to the instructions given in respective manual and then tabulation and analysis of the data was done in the light of framed objectives. Statistical Technique In order to analyses the obtained data suitable statistical technique were employed in accordance with objectives as given in table 3.4

T-test One Way ANOVA followed by t-test Product moment correlation

82

Besides, this descriptive analysis of the obtained data was done that is mean and SD of each variable included in the study. Findings (1) There is no significant gender difference in dimension extraversion, agreeableness conscientiousness and openness of personality of students. (2) There is significant gender difference in dimension neuroticism of personality of students. Female students have higher level of neuroticism than male students. (3) There is significant gender difference in academic achievement of personality of students. Female students had higher level of Academic achievement than male students. (4) There is no significant location of residence difference in dimension extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness of personality of students. (5) There is significant location of residence difference in dimension conscientiousness of personality of students. Rural students had higher level of conscientiousness than urban students. (6) There is no significant location of residence difference in academic achievement of personality of students. (7) There is no significant type of school difference in dimension extraversion agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness of personality of students. (8) There is significant type of school difference in dimension neuroticism of personality of students. Govt. students had higher level of neuroticism than private students. (9) There is no significant type of school difference in academic achievement of personality of students (10) There is no significant family difference in dimension Extraversion agreeableness,

conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness of personality of students. (11) There is no significant family difference in academic achievement of personality

of students. (12) There is no significant category difference in dimension extraversion,

agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness personality of students.

83

(13)

There is no significant category difference in academic achievement of

personality of students. (14) There is no significant type of generation difference in of dimension Extraversion

agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness of personality of students. (15) There is no significant type of generation difference in academic achievement of

personality of students. (16) There is no significant correlation between dimension Extraversion,

agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, openness of Big Five factor and Academic Achievement of students. Educational implications for the study 1) As study shows that female students achieved higher than male students. This finding applies for teachers and parents to act for enhancement of male students. 2) There is significant location of residence difference in dimension conscientiousness of personality of students. Rural students had higher level of conscientiousness than urban students. This finding suggests to principal, teachers and parents to control the neuroticism behavior of govt. school students. 3) There is significant location of residence difference in dimension conscientiousness of personality of students. Rural students had higher level of conscientiousness than urban students. This finding suggests to teachers in urban schools to enhance conscientiousness level of urban students. 4) There was no significant co-relation between academic achievement and big five factor found in present study. There is need of comprehensive examination of relation of academic achievement with big five factor. The present study suggests no implication for teachers and parents. Suggestions for the further study (1) Study can be conducted by using academic achievement standardize academic achievement test. (2) Same study can be conducted by taking sample from graduate class; post graduate classes professional courses etc.

84

(3) Study of life skills in relation to BFI can be conducted on school students, college students, university students and teachers also etc.

85

REFERENCES McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood, a five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Costa, P.T. Jr.; Terracciano, A.; McCrae, R.R. (2001). "Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81.doi10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322PMID 11519935. Schmitt, D. P.; Realo, A.; Voracek, M.; Allik, J. (2008). "Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94 (1): 168182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168.PMID 18179326. Griffin (2012). Associations between the Big Five Personality Factors and Multiple MiniInterviewsAdvances in Health Sciences Education, 17 3 (377-388) (EJ970604 ). Costa and McCrae's (2012). Critical Review on Affect of Personality on Learning Styles. Paper presented at the International Conference on Arts, Social Science & Technology (ED530903). 3Al Otaibi, Moharib,B. (2012) The Relationship between Cognitive Dissonance and the Big-5 Factors Model of the Personality and the Academic Achievement in a Sample of Female Stu dents at the University of Umm Al-Quart. Education. v132 n3 p607-624 (EJ991115). 4Russo, Paolo Maria; Mancini, Giacomo; Trombini, Elena; Baldaro, Bruno; Mavroveli, Stella; Petrides, K. V. (2012) Trait Emotional Intelligence and the Big Five: A Study on Italian Children and Preadolescents. Journal of Psycho educational Assessment, v30 n3 p274-283. (EJ989184). 5Vanhalst, Janne; Klimstra, Theo A.; Luyckx, Koen; Scholte, Ron H. J.; Engels, Rutger C. M. E.; Goossens, Luc.(2012)The Interplay of Loneliness and Depressive Symptoms across Adolescence: Exploring the Role of Personality Traits. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, v41 n6 p776-787. (EJ965676).. 7Ortet, B; Generos banez, Manuel I.; Moya, Jorge; Villa, Helena; Viruela, Ana; Mezquita, Laura.(2012). Assessing the Five Factors of Personality in Adolescents: The Junior Version of the Spanish NEO-PI-R. Assessment, v19 n1 p114-130. (EJ956929). Neal; Golubovich, Juliya; Leong, Frederick T. L.(2011-12) Impact of Measurement Invariance on Construct Correlations, Mean Differences, and Relations with External Correlates: An Illustrative Example Using Big Five and RIASEC Measure. Assessment v18 n4 p412427(EJ948417). MacCann, Carolyn; Lipnevich, Anastasiya A.; Burrus, Jeremy; Roberts, Richard D. (2012). The Best Years of Our Lives? Coping with Stress Predicts School Grades, Life Satisfaction, and

86

Feelings about High School. Learning and Individual Differences, v22 n2 p235-241. (EJ958391). Marsh, Herbert W.; Ludtke, Oliver; Muthen, Bengt; Asparouhov, Tihomir; Morin, Alexandre J. S.; Trautwein, Ulrich; Nagengast, Benjamin (2009-10).A New Look at the Big Five Factor Structure through Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling.Psychological Assessment, v22 n3 p471-491. .(EJ897253). Bullock-Yowell, Emily; Andrews, Lindsay; Buzzetta, Mary E.(2011). Explaining Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy: Personality, Cognitions, and Cultural Mistrust Career Development Quarterly, v59 n5 p400-411. (EJ937653) Silvia, Paul J.; Beaty, Roger E. (2012). Making Creative Metaphors: The Importance of Fluid Intelligence for Creative Though. Intelligence, v40 n4 p343-351( EJ968271). Ray, Laurie(2011) Retaining Physical Therapists in North Carolina Public Schools ProQuest LLC, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (ED534275). Woods, Stephen A.; Hampson, Sarah E.(2010) Predicting Adult Occupational Environments from Gender and Childhood Personality Traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, v95 n6 p10451057. (EJ931974) Strambler, Michael J.; Linke, Lance H.; Ward, Nadia L. (2013) Academic Identification as a Mediator of the Relationship between Parental Socialization and Academic Achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, v38 n1 p99-106. (EJ997881). Paulick, Isabell; Watermann, Rainer; Nuckles, Matthias(2013).Achievement Goals and School Achievement: The Transition to Different School Tracks in Secondary School Contemporary Educational Psychology, v38 n1 p75-86. (EJ997885). Shin, Yongyun (2012).Do Black Children Benefit More from Small Classes? Multivariate Instrumental Variable Estimators with Ignorable Missing Data Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, v37 n4 p543-574. (EJ973867). Tuttle, Christina Clark; Gill, Brian; Gleason, Philip; Knechtel, Virginia; Nichols-Barrer, Ira; Resch,(2013) Alexandra KIPP Middle Schools: Impacts on Achievement and Other Outcomes. Final Report Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (ED540912). Lynch, Alicia Doyle; Lerner, Richard M.; Leventhal,(2013).Tama Adolescent Academic Achievement and School Engagement: An Examination of the Role of School-Wide Peer Culture Journal of Youth and Adolescence, v42 n1 p6-19. (EJ996519). Bowers, Alex J.; Berland, Matthew(2013).Does Recreational Computer Use Affect High School Achievement.Educational Technology Research and Development, v61 n1 p51-69.(EJ996624).

87

Whaley, Arthur L.; Noel, La Tonya (2013).Academic Achievement and Behavioral Health among Asian American and African American Adolescents: Testing the Model Minority and Inferior Minority Assumptions Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, v16 n1 p23-43. (EJ995222). McInerney, Dennis M.; Cheng, Rebecca Wing-yi; Mok, Magdalena Mo Ching; Lam, Amy Kwok Hap (2012).Academic Self-Concept and Learning Strategies: Direction of Effect on Student Academic Achievement.Journal of Advanced Academics, v23 n3 p249-269. (EJ974070). De Feyter, Tim; Caers, Ralf; Vigna, Claudia; Berings, Dries(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, v22 n4 p439448(EJ971950). Junkman, Kathrin; Becker, Michael; Marsh, Herbert W.; Ludtke, Oliver; Trautwein, Ulrich(2012) Personality Traits Moderate the Big-Fish-Little--Pond Effect of Academic SelfConcept .Learning and Individual Differences, v22 n6 p736-746.(EJ985139).. Aturupane, Harsha; Glewwe, Paul; Wisniewski, Suzanne(2013) The Impact of School Quality, Socioeconomic Factors, and Child Health on Students' Academic Performance: Evidence from Sri Lankan Primary Schools.Education Economics, v21 n1 p2-37.(EJ994732). Lounsbury, John W.; Steel, Robert P.; Loveland, James M.; Gibson, Lucy W. (2004)An Investigation of Personality Traits in Relation to Adolescent School Absenteeism.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, v33 n5 p457. (EJ994732). Ridgell, Susan D.; Lounsbury, John W.(2004) Predicting Academic Success: General Intelligence, "Big Five" Personality Traits, and Work Drive. College Student Journal, v38 n4 p607.(EJ708804). Graham, Patrick M.; Flanagan, Rosemary; Malgady, Robert G. (2011)Successful Graduate Students: The Roles of Personality Traits and Emotional Intelligence Psychology in the Schools, v48 n4 p317-331. (EJ921358). Steinmayr, Ricarda; Bipp, Tanja; Spinath, Birgit.(2011) Goal Orientations Predict Academic Performance beyond Intelligence and Personality. Learning and Individual Differences, v21 n2 p196-200. (EJ917071). Van Bragt, Cyrille A. C.; Bakx, Anouke W. E. A.; Bergen, Theo C. M.; Croon, Marcel A.(2011) Looking for Students' Personal Characteristics Predicting Study Outcome Higher Education. The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, v61 n1 p59-75. (EJ907872).

88

Armstrong, Patrick Ian; Anthoney,(2009) Sarah Fetter Personality Facets and RIASEC Interests: An Integrated Model .Journal of Vocational Behavior, v75 n3 p346-359(EJ863574). Komarraju, Meera; Karau, Steven J.; Schmeck, Ronald R. (2009)Role of the Big Five Personality Traits in Predicting College Students' Academic Motivation and Achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, v19 n1 p47-52.(EJ821861). Steca, Patrizia; Alessandri, Guido; Vecchio, Giovanni Maria; Caprara, Gian Vittorio(2007). Being a Successful Adolescent at School and with Peers. The Discriminative Power of a Typological Approach. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, v12 n2 p147-162.(EJ763434). Bidjerano, Temi; Dai, David Yun (2007). The Relationship between the Big-Five Model of Personality and Self-Regulated Learning Strategies Learning and Individual Differences, v17 n1 p69-81. (EJ783188). Logue, Christen T.; Lounsbury, John W.; Gupta, Arpana; Leong, Frederick T. L.(2007) Vocational Interest Themes and Personality Traits in Relation to College Major Satisfaction of Business Students. Journal of Career Development, v33 n3 p269-295. (EJ804289). Lounsbury,a1 John W.; Saudargas, Richard A.; Gibson, Lucy W.; Leong, Frederick T.(2005) An Investigation of Broad and Narrow Personality Traits in Relation to General and DomainSpecific Life Satisfaction of College Students. Research in Higher Education, v46 n6 p707-729. (EJ735943). Oswald, Frederick L.; Schmitt, Neal; Kim, Brian H.; Ramsay, Lauren J.; Gillespie, Michael A.(2004) Developing a Biodata Measure and Situational Judgment Inventory as Predictors of College Student Performance .Journal of Applied Psychology, v89 n2 p187-207. (EJ962377). Lounsbury, John W.; Huffstetler, Beverly C.; Leong, Frederick T. L.; Gibson, Lucy W. (2004)Sense of Identity and Collegiate Academic Achievement. Journal of College Student Development, v46 n5 p501-514. (EJ743899). MacCann, Carolyn; Duckworth, Angela Lee; Roberts, Richard D.(2009) Empirical Identification of the Major Facets of Conscientiousness .Learning and Individual Differences, v19 n4 p451458. (EJ860372).