Research Paper on:
Divergent Learners and Alternative Assessment Methods

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
personality factors and learning styles may be related to academic achievement ( Johnson, Pitts & Lane, 2000) . In the final analysis, a set of descriptors had been developed  to more clearly delineate personalities of achievers and underachievers (Johnson, 1996 as cited in Johnson, Pitts & Lane, 2000). A summary of these descriptors found that achievers are more  introverted, abstract-thinking, and emotionally stable (2000). They tend to be more mature, serious, conscientious, moralistic, secure, self-satisfied, self-sufficient, and resourceful (2000). They also prefer their own decisions to decisions  others make, and are socially precise, relaxed, tranquil, and composed (2000). Underachievers appeared to be extroverted, warm, kind, and willing to participate (2000). They are concrete-thinking, enthusiastic,  spontaneous, expressive, cheerful, and expedient (2000). They also tend to be insecure, self-blaming, and group oriented (2000). They are willing to listen to others but are not bound by  social rules (2000). Achievers on the other hand are extremely flexible and they easily adapt to analytical situations whereas underachievers do not (2000). Subtle differences between these children  and the rest of society create a category of learners known as divergent learners. They do not learn exactly like everyone else and so are difficult to assess. Divergent learners  are endowed with a unique variety of personality traits and this is something that separates them from the general populous (Johnson, Pitts & Lane, 2000). Many of these traits  are related to academic achievement and effective leadership and because personality traits are expressed in learning styles and preferences, teacher education programs should concentrate on making sure that teachers  are aware of differentials in personality traits and global learning styles as well as to provide extensive training in how to best accommodate individual differences in students (2000). It is