I wrote my paper on the influence of personality on academic success. These sources range from information on personality, temperament, and effective learning, to curriculum and ways to incorporate activities that will enhance education based on individual personality traits. I am really interested in this topic (and personality traits in general); hence the long list of sources...


Bangstad, K. (2009). What personality type learns best. World Wide Learn. 62(2), 329-342.

Bäuml, K. and Kuhbandner C. (2007). Positive moods can eliminate intentional forgetting. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(1), 93-98.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. and Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 319-338.

Heinström, J. (2000). The impact of personality and approaches to learning on information behaviour. Information Research, 5(3).

Marano, H. (2008, March). The making of a perfectionist. Psychology Today, 41(2), 80-84.

(2009, Apr). MBTI basics. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from The Myers and Briggs Foundation Web site: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/
Nisbett, E. (2009, Feb). Intelligence and how you get it. Psychology Today, 42(1), 32-33.

Noftle and Robins. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93(1), 116-130.
Owens, T. (1994). Two dimensions of self-esteem. American Sociological Review, 59(3), 391-407.

Strelau, J. (1985). Temperamental Bases of Behavior. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Ofsetdrukkerij Kanters B.V.

Striner, R. (1971). Four Temperaments. New York: Anthroposophic Press, Inc.

Ziegert, A. (2000). The role of personality temperament and student learning in principles of economics. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(4), 307-322.

The list of features that differ between Finland and the U.S. was very surprising - not in that they would help improve the academic success of students, but because they are so much different from the norm in the U.S. Some of these things are extremely hard to picture the U.S. doing. Obviously, these approaches are working and I would be very interested to see some of them being implemented in our American education system. "Students are not sorted into different groups or schools but different types of learners are learning together." This quote sounds wonderful, but I can't help thinking about my high school and how I would have personally had a much less intense education if I had been placed in different classes. We have different levels of classes because of reasons such as students have different levels of personal dedication, learning styles, and some have more support from home than others. It seems to me that if America were to try to adapt only some of the same practices as Finland, it would be kayos since many of the features listed intertwine and support each other. Finland's whole entire system by which they educate their youth is different, making it hard for the U.S. to change it's ways unless EVERYONE is on board.

When read the statement by Richard Reiser, "…The question is not whether to include children, but how to do it effectively…", it made me wonder about the student who gets "included" in regular schools but still needs the special attention to be able to learn effectively. These children may not get the attention they require because a non-special needs teacher has many other things to concentrate on or the resources are simply not available at the regular school. In addition, as mentioned in the article, there are many different levels of disability. Where do you draw the line? Who gets "included" and who doesn't. I agree with the quote, "Some people gain enormously from having their needs met in a specialized environment" because I am thinking about the students worked with as a volunteer at a school for children and adolescents with developmental disabilities. The student's at that school fell into so many different ranges of disability; some a lot more disabled, and others much less. Either way, many of them have experienced tremendous leaps and gains from being able to go to a school in which the facilities and faculty are optimized with this certain population, and it's needs, in mind. I'm not saying all integration is negative. For example, this particular school I'm talking about enrolls preschoolers with no disabilities in the same classes as preschoolers with disabilities so that they are "included" and not so isolated at that level. The thing is, not all inclusion can be as clear-cut as some of the supporters in this article make it seem.