Premium
Student engagement with school and personality: a biopsychosocial and person‐centred approach
Author(s) -
Moreira Paulo A. S.,
Inman Richard A.,
Cloninger Kevin,
Cloninger C. Robert
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
british journal of educational psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.557
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 2044-8279
pISSN - 0007-0998
DOI - 10.1111/bjep.12388
Subject(s) - psychology , biopsychosocial model , personality , temperament , developmental psychology , temperament and character inventory , association (psychology) , big five personality traits , creativity , student engagement , prosocial behavior , social psychology , psychotherapist , pedagogy
Background Engagement with school is a key predictor of students’ academic outcomes, yet little is known about its association with personality. No research has considered this association using Cloninger’s biopsychosocial model of personality. This model may be particularly informative because it posits the structure of human personality corresponds to three systems of human learning and memory that regulate associative conditioning, intentionality, and self‐awareness, all of which are relevant for understanding engagement. Aims To test for defined personality phenotypes and describe how they relate to student engagement. Sample 469 adolescents (54.2% female) attending the eighth ( M age = 13.2, SD = .57) or 11 th ( M age = 16.5, SD = .84) grades. Methods Students completed self‐report measures of personality and engagement. We used mixture models to identify latent classes defined by common (1) temperament profiles, (2) character profiles, and (3) joint temperament–character networks, and then tested how these classes differed in engagement. Results Latent class analysis revealed three distinct joint temperament–character networks: Emotional‐Unreliable (emotionally reactive, low self‐control, and low creativity), Organized‐Reliable (self‐control but not creative), and Creative‐Reliable (highly creative and prosocial). These networks differed significantly in engagement, with the emotional‐unreliable network linked to lower engagement. However, the magnitudes of these differences across engagement dimensions did not appear to be uniform. Conclusions Different integrated configurations of the biopsychosocial systems for associative conditioning, intentionality, and self‐awareness (differences in personality) underlie student engagement. Our results offer a fine‐grained understanding of engagement dimensions in terms of their underlying personality networks, with implications for educational policies and practices.