Learning Patterns, Personality Traits and Motivational Profile of Students of Dual Learning Modality

Personality traits

Different researchers have studied personality traits, and proposed diverse descriptions. Even though, the dominant paradigm on personality is based on a construct which consists of big five factors (Saucier and Goldberg, 1996). The Big Five Factors Inventory is suitable for the university population (Rammstedt, et al., 2013), as well as for professionals (Soto et al., 2008).

The following are the personality traits used in our research:

• » Emotional Adjustment. It measures tranquility to face everyday sit uations, stability and impulse control

• » Extraversion. It measures courtesy and sincerity, preference for company as opposed to solitude, assertiveness, and an active and optimistic attitude

• » Agreeableness. It measures amiability and confidence in others as well as a sincere, altruistic, and sensitive attitude towards others.

• » Conscientiousness. It measures confidence in one's own capaci ties, order, and self-discipline as well as a reflective, decisive, and goal-oriented attitude towards objectives.

• » Openness to Experience: Measures imagination, interest, and sen sitivity to art, receptivity to one's own feelings and emotions, intel -lectual curiosity, and a critical attitude with a tendency to seek out new sensations.

Thus, personality traits are elements that allow us to visualize the level of affinity students have with reality. Hence, they might be decisive in choosing a learning modality over another.

There is a wide terminological variety in the literature to describe the way people learn (Biggs, 1993; Entwistle, 1988; Kolb, 1984; Marton & Sãljõ, 1976; Prins, et al., 1998; Schmeck, 1983). Learning patterns is a stable variable that can explain the essence of how students learn (Cela-Ranilla and Gisbert, 2013; Martínez-Fernández and García-Ravidá, 2012; Vermunt and Vermetten, 2004). By knowing how students learn, teachers can help them to adjust their learning process by recommending a specific learning modality.

Although the term learning styles could be considered the umbrella of this conception and is the most used in the literature, we framed our study in Johnston and Dainton's (1996) theory of learning patterns, in keeping with the Interactive Learning Model (ILM). This theoretical learning approach consists of four patterns of learning behavior (Cela-Ranilla and Gisbert, 2013):

• » Sequential. In this pattern, learners follow a plan and seek step-by-step directions. They organize, plan work carefully and like to finish assignments from beginning to end without interruptions.

• » Precise. In this pattern, learners look for and retain detailed informa tion. They read and write in a highly specific way, and ask questions to find out more information.

• » Technical. Technical learners like working autonomously at hands-on activities. Paper and pencil tasks are very often avoided and the learner reasons out technical ways to do things. They work alone with out interference and show their knowledge by physically demonstrating skills. The technical learner likes to learn from real world experiences.

• » Confluent. In this pattern, learners avoid conventional approaches and seek unique ways to complete any learning task. The learner is ready to take risks, to fail and to start again. More often than not, a confluent learner starts before all directions are given and likes to improvise.

Motivational Orientation

Literature offers a broad framework of definitions and conceptualizations about motivational orientation and, starting from different perspectives, leads to very different results among them. Several authors have tried to classify the various theories of motivation in relation to their characteristics: theories of content and process (Campbell and Pritchard, 1976), cognitive models (Vroom, 1964), hierarchy of needs model (Maslow, 1943), theory of needs (McClelland, 1985) and self-regulation approaches (Kanfer, 1990).

By focusing on Steers and Porter's perspective (1987), motivational orientation is understood as the emphasis that drives people to action and explains why they take or choose certain decisions or activities. They refer to the specific elements that constitute or integrate a reality and the phenomenon beginning, direction, intensity, expectations, needs, etc. As long as students focus on their formative objective, they will know how to choose the modality that best fits their interest.

In keeping with McClelland's conceptual model (1985), Borgogni et al. (2004) developed a tool that measures four Motivational Orientation that guide behavior organization and preferences in the workplace:

• » Focus on Objectives. People are attracted to difficult and challeng ing activities, and achieve excellence for the pleasure of maximizing their own possibilities.

• » Focus on Innovation. People like to experience new things, exploit unfamiliar situations and work on several activities at the same time. These people like to modify consolidated solutions, change often and think creatively and divergently with respect to others.

• » Focus on Leadership. They assume influential and control positions; they are driven to impose their choices and to remain in the center of attention. They like to make decisions even on behalf of others and involve them in their initiatives

• » Focus on Relationship. They can work as a team and facilitate a good environment. They like to receive emotional support from others. They are driven to collaborate, to avoid any kind of conflict and to care for their colleagues.

Study Design and Procedure

The study uses a non-equivalent groups, quasi-experimental design (two groups), in which we only develop the pre-test. The intervention of the quasi-experimental design refers to the degree they were just starting when the pre-test was applied.

The study started at the beginning of the 2012-2013 academic term (September and October, 2012). At that time, data was collected to avoid the interference of variables as a pre-test measure. The study was conducted by the research team, using three instruments: the Learning Combination Inventory questionnaire; the Big-Five Personality Inventory and the Moti vational Profile Inventory.

Participants

A total of 212 students participated in the study, 97 in the experimental group and 115 in the control group. Both groups consisted of students pur suing a university degree in Primary Education at the Faculty of Education, Psychology and Social Work of the UdL (Spain). The sample was based on naturally formed groups, with the experimental group consisting of dual learning model students and the control group consisting of standard learning model students. The sample was 70 % female and 30 % male. Students' qualifications during secondary school or previous education are slightly higher among the students who chose the dual learning (M = 9.15, SD = 1.21 versus standard learning, M = 8.53, SD = 1.14). Nonetheless, there is no information about the influence of other factors that may deter mine the election of a specific learning option. The participants enrolled in voluntarily, they could withdraw from the study at any time without further explanation, and no partial responses were collected. Finally, the number of dropouts did not exceed the 10 per cent.

The Big-five Personality Inventory (Capraraet al. 1993; Spanish validation: Bermúdez, 1995)

This instrument measures 5 dimensions and 10 sub-dimensions of per sonality, including a distortion scale (D). The survey consists of 132 items, each one consisting of five points Likert-scale questions (from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5= Strongly agree). When students complete the survey it is possible to analyze the dimensions and five scale factors: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, emotion and conscientiousness. Bermúdez (2007) adapted the instrument into Spanish; this process was followed by both construct and discriminant validation processes as well as reliability analyses. Alpha coefficients of the five sub-dimensions ranged from .73 to .87.

The Learning Combination Inventory questionnaire (Johnston and Dainton, 1996; Spanish version: Cela-Ranilla et al., 2011)

This instrument is used to determine students' learning patterns; learning is the result of the temporal interplay between personal and contextual influences. Referring to the theoretical learning approach, the Learning Combination Inventory scale can be considered as a multidimensional formative scale; it consists of four patterns of learning behavior: sequential, precise, technical, and confluent. Each subscale contains seven items. The questionnaire is composed of 28 items on which respondents answer using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Never ever to 5 = Always). These scores are used to establish how often students use each learning patterns: Frequently (35 to 25), Sometimes (24 to 17), and Almost never (16 to 7). Cela-Ranilla and Gisbert (2013) achieved good levels of internal consistency in their Spanish version considering that it is a multidimensional formative scale (Cela-Ranilla et al., 2011; Villamizar, 2007).

The Motivational Profile Inventory (Borgogni et al., 2004; Spanish version: Corral et al., 2010)

This scale identifies the students' motivational profile through four moti vational orientations: focus on Objectives, Innovation, Leadership, and Relationship. In the scale, there are 70 items assessed as a seven-point Likert scale (from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree). Corral et al. (2010) conducted both translation and validation processes into Spanish. The results of the validation confirmed its internal structure; reliability was also ensured obtaining alpha coefficients between .79 and .88.

Data analysis

Once data were collected, statistical analyses were conducted using spss v.20 according to the research goals and hypotheses. Descriptive analyses were used to describe the data and to ensure its normality. Reliability of the different scales was also tested with this specific sample using Cronbach's alpha. Furthermore, inferential analyses (Mann-Whitney test for non-para metric samples) and multiple regression models were performed.

In regression analysis, the stepwise method was used to conduct a multiple regression model because it accounts for the significance of each independent variable in the model after its predictive capacity is calculated -once the non-significant variables are removed-. The model was structured like this: the dependent variable is the learning model (y), being 0 = standard model and 1 = dual model; the independent variables are learning patterns: Sequential (x1), Precise (x2), Technical (x3) and Confluent (x4); the personality traits are: Extraversion (x5), Agreeableness (x6), Conscientious (x7), Emotional stability (x8) and Openness (x9); and the motivational profile focused on Objectives (x10), Innovation (x11), Leadership (x12), and Relationship (x13).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to identify the profile of students enrolled in the dual learning model versus those in the standard learning model based on personality traits, learning patterns, and motivational orientation. We wanted to know if these variables influenced students to enroll in dual or standard learning model programs at the UdL. To our knowledge, this is the first study where the students' profile in dual modality of learning is analyzed. So far, studies aimed to investigate the dual learning modality by its own: its importance based on the idea that learning from the workplace is more important and significant (Gijbels et al., 2017; Roure, 2011); the strategies of this learning modality as compared to the standard learning model; as well as the teacher teaching patterns involved in the dual learning modality (Coiduras et al., 2014; Good et al., 2006; Rendón, 2013). However there are not any published study focused on the students' profile in the dual learning system, and its impact for choosing this modality.

Coiduras et al. (2017) suggested that the dual learning model may not work for all students. For this reason, it is important to define what kind of student can benefit the most from it.

The standardized values shown in the model were used to verify our hypotheses: the results support H1 and H3, but they do not confirm H2. Students who enroll in the dual model training are less open and more emotionally stable, and they are focused on relationships. For the rest of the variables, we did not find any significant differences between students' characteristics in both groups.

In spite of the results of our study, we suggest that the students' profile in both modalities is similar. We can see but a little difference between groups. The students enrolled in the dual learning model show less openness, more emotional stability and respect the others and their demands, and they care about their relationships. That is to say, they tend to support traditional values and to maintain a fixed lifestyle; they are usually conventional, practical, conservative, uninformed and are not very curious (Bermúdez, 1995; Feist and Feis, 2007). Bermúdez (2007) indicates that this dimension comes to starting from the subdimensions of Openness to Culture (Ac) and Opening to experience (Ae). The first one measures the interest in staying informed, reading and acquiring knowledge. The second one measures aspects related to the favorable predisposition towards novelties, the ability to see things from different perspectives and an opening attitude towards values, styles, and different ways of life and cultures. This result contradicts what the authors sug gest concerning the characteristics of this modality (Boudjaoui et al., 2015; Kaddouri, 2008). Learners in dual learning must be more flexible, resilient, self-sufficient, and engaged or committed because they are constantly acting in different contexts, both professional and educational.

These students are emotionally stable, that is to say, if they have high values in this factor, they tend to be calm, peaceful, impassive, and satisfied with themselves. Finally, another explanatory sub-variable is the relation ship variable, belonging to the motivational orientation. It indicates that students of the dual model are attentive to interpersonal relationships and are interested in establishing peaceful and friendly relations in the workplace. They seek collaborative and cooperative work, and appreciate the opportu nity to work in a relaxed atmosphere; therefore, they devote time and attention to others. In short, these student respects the others and their demands, and care about their relationships. This variable is significantly different when we compare both groups, but when we analyze the profile, it is similar.

These characteristics are essential for the workplace context, as Coiduras et al. (2015; 2017) and Gijbels et al. (2017) remark in their last research. In fact, the evidence indicates that autonomy and social support were important qualities for in-service student teachers' learning in the workplace. Boudjaoui et al. (2015) suggest that students in the dual learning modality have to adjust their educational device, and these characteristics are related to the relationship variable. Moreover, emotional stability is essential if we consider that this modality deals with different contexts, and students need to know how to use the sources available both in college (training institute, theory, teachers' typology, and others) and in the workplace (job demands, peers, supervisors, other students, and so on).

Despite these differences, the research findings suggest that the students who enroll in different modalities of learning have a similar profile. Based on the results, this research provides different empirical questions about what variables influence the choice of learning modality, and whether it promotes any changes in the profile or increases the motivation to choose one or another modality.

For this reason, it is important to develop a longitudinal design study to conduct a second round of surveys at the end of the students' final year. This new data collection will provide us with information about whether or not the modality of learning alters their profile based on personality traits, learning patterns and motivational orientation.

One of the limitations arising from this study is the sample size and place of collection because, even though the entire population was involved, its findings cannot be generalized beyond our context. Therefore, future studies should be conducted with much larger samples, different aca demic degrees that use the dual learning system and different universities, so that the results can be generalized to the community population. Other future studies should focus on the students once they graduate in order to examine if their learning patterns, personality traits and motivational orientation are the same for both modalities, or if the university teachers and teaching patterns have an impact on the students' profiles and outcomes