You are on page 1of 29

MBTI and Learning Style

Valerie N. Williams Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs, College of Medicine Director, OUHSC Faculty Leadership Program

Learning style: e g s y e:
an individuals preferred way of g gathering, interpreting, organizing, and g p g g g thinking about information.
Davis, B.G., 1993, Tools for Teaching

Comparing Two Learning Style Models C i T L i St l M d l


Information p processing model g
Kolbs Learning Cycle Concrete Experience (feeling) Reflective Ob fl i bservation (watching) i ( hi ) Abstract Conceptualization
(thinking)

Personality model
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Four dichotomous preferences Extravert Introvert
INtuitive Sensing

Thinking Feeling Judging Perceiving 16-Types 16 Types


Briggs-Myers, I. 1942 Form A. 1998 Form M

Active Experimentation (doing)


Kolb,D. 1984

Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences


Concrete (Humanities important)
0 10 20 30
Law Psychology Education Medicine Nursing Philosophy Dramatic Arts

40 50 60 40 30 20 10

90

80

70

60
Business

Active (Faculty consulting)

Reflective (No consulting)


Physiology Biochemistry

70 80

Chemical Ch i l Engineering

Mechanical Engineering

Mathematics

90

Physics

Abstract (Mathematics important) ( p ) Adapted from: Kolb,DA 1981

Concrete-abstract and active-reflective orientations of selected academic fields derived d i fi ld d i d from Carnegie Commission Study of g graduate students and faculty. = Health & Biomed. education

MBTI
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Theory: Carl Jungs Psychological Type; normal personality differences (1923 Jungs book Psychological Types lit diff
translated to English)

Developers: Katherine Cook Briggs and Isabel BriggsMeyers (1923-41 begin study of Jungs work and people behavior) Application: Identify natural preferences Best use: understand self potential strengths/blind spots; appreciate differences, unique contributions offered by differences self/others Worst use: pigeon hole self or others

Mental Processing
Jung theorized preferences in how we use our minds by one of two mental activities:

Perceiving
Information intake

Judging
Information organization; drawing conclusions

Sensing

Intuition

Thinking Feeling

Attending to the World


We use the 4 essential mental processes daily though an internal or external focus on the world.
External focus on people, things, experience and external events is Extraversion Internal focus on inner processes, thoughts and processes reflections is Introversion

Four preferences

Extraverting or Introverting are the


ways we get our energy

Thinking or Feeling
are how we organize information and make judgments about that information are about our lifestyle and how we prefer to dh f organize and relate to the world around us

Sensing or INtuiting Judging or Perceiving


desc bes ow describes how we prefer to gather information

Considered together
Our mental processing preferences and attending to the world preferences include sixteen variations based on four dichotomies i t i ti b d f di h t i (E or I; S or N; T or F; J or P)

These variations are yp the 16 MBTI Types

Sixteen Variations
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

MBTI
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Strength of preference is indicated by a score on the MBTI instrument. Picture it this way for Extraversion and Introversion:

21

00

21

Strength of preference increases from 0 to 21 in both directions. The scales do not overlap but at p 0 differences are less distinct.

Extravert-Introvert E t tI t t
Extravert Preference
Communicate by talking Talk first, reflect later Initiative takers Sociable

Introvert Preference
Communicate by writing Reflect before talking Capacity for intense focus Private

Learn best by discussing or Learn best by building doing mental models


E-I: Focus on the world

Learning Implications?
Students Extravert Ex xtravert Introvert E-faculty/E-students E-faculty/I-students E faculty/E students E faculty/I students

Fac culty

Intro overt

I-faculty/E-students I faculty/E students

I-faculty/I-students I faculty/I students

E-I: Focus on the world

Learning ImplicationsExamples ea g p cat o s a p es


Students Extravert Ex xtravert
E-Prof & E-students = high energy; high chat environ. gy; g I-students input may be lost.

Introvert
E-Prof. fills in details, offers anecdotes. I-pref. student q p questions or comments unlikely to be offered unless adequate wait time.

E-faculty/E-students E-faculty/I-students E faculty/E students E faculty/I students

Fac culty

Intro overt

I-faculty/E-students If lt /E t d t
I-Prof. exhausted at the end of class. E-students class E students want to engage the material/professor actively; ask questions; repeat key points aloud. aloud

I-faculty/I-students If lt /I t d t
(+) May examine a topic in depth; deal with complex material ( ) May material. (-) explore minutia in detail. E-students may be lost.

E-I: Focus on the world

Sensing-Intuition S i I t iti
Sensing Preference
Value practical, realistic applications Concretenotice details Sequential memory Step-by-step Learn best by experience

Intuitive Preference
Value big picture Theoryinsight, potential Capacity for intense focus Z Jump-in

* Learn best by

seeing patterns; connecting meaning to facts f t

S-N: Information gathering

Learning Implications?
Students Sensing Se ensing g Intuition S-faculty/S-students S-faculty/N-students S faculty/S students S faculty/N students

Fac culty

Intuition

N-faculty/S-students N-faculty/N-students N faculty/S students N faculty/N students

S-N: Information gathering

Thinking-Feeling Thi ki F li
Thinking Preference
V l analytic approach Value l i h Use cause-and-effect reasoning Objective; impersonal F i Fair L Learn b t b l i best by logic, problem-solving

Feeling Preference
V l sympathetic Value h i approach Use value based reasoning value-based Harmonizing; supportive C Compassionate i t L Learn b t b personbest by centered understanding & acceptance

T-F: Decision-making

Learning Implications?
Students Thinking Th hinking Feeling T-faculty/T-students T-faculty/F-students T faculty/T students T faculty/F students

Fac culty

F-faculty/T-students F-faculty/F-students F faculty/T students F faculty/F students Feel ling

T-F: Decision-making

Judging-Perceiving Judging Perceiving


Judging Preference
Value organization Methodical; systematic Like l Lik closure Dislike last minute stresses

Perceiving Preference
Value spontaneity Casual; resourceful Like fl ibilit Lik flexibility Energized by last minute press

L Learn b b best by sticking to a plan

Learn best by adapting to demands of the situation


J-P: R l i J P Relating to outer world ld

Learning Implications?
Students Judging Perce eiving Ju g udging g J-faculty/J-students J faculty/J students Perceiving J-faculty/P-students J faculty/P students

Fac culty

P-faculty/J-students P-faculty/P-students P faculty/J students P faculty/P students

J-P: Relating to outer world

Fast T F t Tracking for Learning Enhancement ki f L i E h t Using Four Preference Themes Called Function Pairs Faculty can use Jungs perceiving (sensing and intuition) d judging (thinking f li ) i i i ) and j d i ( hi ki & feeling) functions as focus for core learning style. U id reduces variations from 16 to four. More Upside d i i f f M manageable for planning teaching approach and monitoring learning engagement engagement. Downside ignores energy source. May be important as resource for active learning. learning

Preference Theme ST Function ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

ST details and specific facts are important.

Like control. Understand hierarchy. Tough-minded. Realistic. Concentrate on the work. Pop. 29.9% (M 41.7%; F 18.5%) Engage STs with: charts, graphs, statistics. Documentation; g g ,g p , ; perfected methods.

Preference Theme SF Function ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

SF specific facts, details and interpersonal aspects of


learning environment are important. Like humane climate for learning; will foster if possible. People-oriented. P l i ill f t ibl P l i t d Pop. 43.4% 43 4% (M 30%; F 56.3%) Engage SFs with: what works practical results for patients; simulated patients.

Preference Theme NF Function ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

NF studentt d l t d development & growth, macro view, personal t th i l


and team goals are important. Like flexibility in climate for learning; teamwork among class members that benefits all. all Pop. 16.4% (M 13.5%; F 19.2%) Engage NF with: innovative exercises; research that provides E NFs ith i ti i h th t id insight about improving results for patients.

Preference Theme NT Function ISTJ ISTP ESTP ESTJ ISFJ ISFP ESFP ESFJ INFJ INFP ENFP ENFJ INTJ INTP ENTP ENTJ

Like impersonal climate for learning that structures problems, introduces innovations. P i ti Pop. 10.3% (M 14.8%; F 5.9%) 10 3% 14 8% 5 9%) Engage NTs with: strategies, models, systems approach; studies of complex problems; debate

NT macro view, efficiency in learning.

Summary & Questions

References & R R f Resources


Briggs-Myers, I. Introduction to Type, 5th Edition. Palo Alto: CA: Consulting Psychologists Press: 1993. Davis, BG. Tools for Teaching, p. 185, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 1993. , f g, p , y Jung, C.G., (1971). Psychological Types. A Revision by RFC Hull of the Translation by HG Baynes. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. Kolb, DA Kolb DA. Experiential Learning: Experiences as a Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984. Provost, J.A., and Anchors, S. (Eds.) (1987) Applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in Higher Education Palo Alto, CA: Davies Black Publishing. Alto Davies-Black Publishing Svinivki, MD, and Dixon, NM. Kolb Model Modified for Classroom Activities. College Teaching, 1987, 35(4), 141-146. Briggs Myers, I M C ll M.H., Q k N L H Bi M I., McCaulley, M H Quenk, N.L., Hammer, A L MBTI A.L. Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Third Edition (Form M). Palo Alto CA: CAPT

MBTI Breakdown by preferences (1998 Form M) (1998. Preference Extraversion Introversion Sensing iNtuition Thinking Feeling F li Judging Perceiving Males 45.9% 54.1% 54 1% 71.7% 28.3% 28 3% 56.5% 43.5% 43 5% 52.0% 48% Females 52.5% 47.5% 47 5% 74.9% 25.1% 25 1% 24.5% 75.5% 75 5% 56.2% 43.8% Total 49.3% 50.7% 50 7% 73.3% 26.7% 26 7% 40.2% 59.9% 59 9% 54.1% 45.9%

MBTI B kd Breakdown b F by Function P i (1998 Form M) ti Pairs (1998. F Function Pair ST SF NF NT Males 41.7% 30.0% 13.5% 14.8% Females 18.5% 56.3% 19.2% 5.9% Total 29.9% 43.4% 16.4% 10.3%