Title Learning profiles of students and teaching styles of teachers: To what

extent are they compatible? Author(s) Lim Tock Keng Source 8th Asian Workshop on Child and Adolescent Development, 7 – 9 June

1995, Singapore Copyright © 1995 The Author This document may be used for private study or research purpose only. This document or any part of it may not be duplicated and/or distributed without permission of the copyright owner. The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Citation: Lim, T. K. (1995, June). Learning profiles of students and teaching styles of teachers: To what extent are they compatible? Paper presented at the 8th Asian Workshop on Child and Adolescent Development, Singapore. This document was archived with permission from the copyright holder.

LEARNING PROFILES OF STUDENTS AND TEACHING STYLES OF TEACHERS: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THEY COMPATIBLE?

Lim Tock Keng

Paper presented at the 8th Asian Workshop on Child and Adolescent Development, held in Singapore, June 1995

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION L lBRARY. SINGAPORE

LEARNING PROFILES OF STUDENTS AND TEACIDNG STYLES OF TEACHERS:

TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THEY COMPATIBLE? 1

Lim Tock Keng

Nanyang Technological University

ABSTRACT

Teachers are accustomed to taking into account differences in age, gender, development and

ability of their students when they teach. Myers and Mccaulley (1985) suggested that

psychological type theory, which deals with fundamental mental processes in terms of

relatively stable patterns of preferences, may also affect the way that students learn. This

paper compares the MBTI types of Secondary Four students (N = 1733) and secondary/JC

teachers (N = 116). The common learning and teaching profiles of about half of the students

and teachers are the SJ learning profile and the ST teaching style respective) y. Both teachers

and students who are basically sensing are practical minded, careful about facts, precise in

their work and like established ways of doing things. SJ teachers would find it particularly

hard to comprehend students who are Ps, who like flexible spontaneous situations and who

leave decisions open for last minute changes. It is important for teachers to be aware of type

theory so that they can understand their students fully. Teachers who know type theory

would consider the MBTI learning profiles of their students when they teach.

INTRODUCTION

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a self report assessment inventory, provides a

personality assessment in Jungian preferences and types. It identifies the basic preferences of people

with regard to perception and judgement so that the effects of each preference, singly and in

combination, can be established by research and put to practical use. Its four major propositions are:

that people have different ways in which they relate with other people, different ways of gathering

1 Paper presented at the 8th Asian Workshop on Child and Adolescent Development, 7 - 9 June, 1995, Singapore.

2

information, different ways of making decisions and different orientations toward life styles that they

prefer (Myers and Mccaulley, 1985).

The MBTI assesses the attitudes of Extraversion (E) versus Introversion (I), the perceptual

styles of Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N), the judgemental styles of Thinking (f) versus Feeling (F)

and the orientations to the outer world of Judgement (J) versus Perception (P). A person's overall

psychological type is the result of scores received on each of the four bi-polar indices: E-I, S-N, T-F

and J-P. These four indices give rise to 16 possible 'types', denoted by the four letters of the

preferences e.g., ESTJ, INFP.

Teachers are accustomed to account for differences in age, gender, development and ability

of their students when they teach. Myers and Mccaulley (1985) suggested that psychological type

theory may also affect the way that students learn . Each preference or type involves different

motivations, values and ways of processing information resulting in eight main orientations towards

learning. This paper compares the MBTI types of secondary four students (N = 1733) and

secondary/JC teachers (N = 116) to identify the differences in students' learning profiles and

teachers' teaching styles.

METHOD AND FINDINGS

Data Source

The MBTI had been administered to a stratified sample of sixteen year old students to

examine the type distribution of students in Singapore. The sample of 1733 students, consisting of

47.3% males and 52.7% females, was drawn from Secondary four classes of good, average and

below average schools (Ditzig & Lim, 1992; Lim, 1994a). The sample of 165 teachers (35.2 % males

and 64.8% females) from two secondary schools and a junior college volunteered to do the

instrument.

Comparison between Students and Teachers

Insert Table 1 about here

3

The Selection Ratio Type Table (SRTT), developed by Mccaulley (1985), is used to compare

the type distribution of the students with the type distribution of the teachers. In the main panel of

Table 1 are the 16 MBTI types (e.g. ISTJ, ISFJ). The number of cases in each type is also shown.

The percentage is displayed by the vertical bars, with each bar indicating one percent. The selection

ratio index, I, compares the percentage of cases in the two groups, students and teachers. When I

is less than one, the proportion is smaller in the current group, students, than in the comparison

group, teachers.

Any ratio below 1.0 indicates under-representation in the type for students, while any ratio

above 1.0 (proportion comparatively bigger in the group of students) means an over-representation

of the type. Chi square statistics is used to denote the significance of the under- or over­

representation. The panel at the right shows the percentages of various combinations of preference

(E-I, S-N, T-F and J-P) and the paired preferences (e.g . U, IP) . The corresponding selection ratio

indices with chi-square statistics are also shown.

The SRTT in Table 1 summarizes concisely the similarities and differences between the

preferences and type distributions of the students and the teachers. There is a significant over­

representation of Es and Ps in the sample of students as compared to the teachers and subsequent! y,

a significant under-representation of Is and Js. Students are more extroverted than the teachers with

more than half the students (51.4%) being extroverted as compared with about 38% of teachers . The

extroverted students, as we can see in our schools today, tend to be outgoing, to be involved with the

outer world of people and things; the introverted teachers are more restrained, focusing mainly on

the inner world of concepts and ideas.

There are also about twice as many Ps in the students (39 .5 % ) as there are in the teachers

(21.2%). Students, who are Ps, tend to want choices and prefer to live in a flexible , spontaneous

way; they aim to understand events and adapting to them. On the other hand , the 80% of teachers

who are Js prefer living in a planned, orderly way; they seek to regulate and to control events.

With the significant over-representation of Es and Ps in the student sample as compared with

the teacher sample, it is not surprising that in the paired preferences and the types, the significant

over-representations in the students was mainly in the IP, EP, SP, NP and TP preferences and in the

4

ISTP, ESTP and ENFP types (see Table 1). The preferences in the student sample will be discussed

in the next section on learning profiles.

The most predominant type among the students (16.4%) is ISTJ; however it is still

significantly under-represented in the student sample as compared with the adult sample (32.1 % ).

Correspondingly, the proportion of STJs in the student sample (32.3 % ) is less than that in the teacher

sample (43.6%). This STJ profile, what Ditzig and You (1988) called the national personality type

of Singapore adults, is characterized by being factual, efficient, thorough, practical, organised and

structured. This STJ profile is also the predominant profile in school principals (Lim, 1994b).

Learning profiles

In trying to understand how students learn, Keirsey and Bates (1978) grouped the 16 MBTI

types into 4 main profiles on how students learn: NF (Intuitive Feeling type), NT (Intuitive Thinking

type), SJ (Sensing Judgement type) , and SP (Sensing Perception type). The NFs are conceptual

global learners, the NTs are conceptual specific learners, the SJs are routine learners and the SPs are

spontaneous learners.

Insert Table 2 about here

Both the main learning profile in the sample of students (45.0%) and teachers (55.2 % ) is SJ,

a combination of sensing and judgement preferences. The SJ students are routine learners, favouring

activities that involve step by step order, routines, rules and standards. They are often well

disciplined with good study habits . They want to be sure of achieving and thus would not break

rules. They do well on drill and facts repetition and would excel in the traditional type of teaching

in schools. The fact that more than half the teachers have this learning profile means that they would

tend to reinforce the profile in our schools.

Another 40% of the Singapore students is quite equally divided into two types, the SPs,

sensing perception type and the NTs , intuition thinking type. The SP students (20.5%) are

5

spontaneous learners, preferring physical involvement, excitement and risk taking. As such students

excel in hands-on activities, they do well in the kindergarten and the lower primary levels where the

curriculum is active. However as they move through the primary levels, they become uninterested.

The teacher sample from the secondary and post-secondary levels shows 10% of SPs only. SP

teachers would use more hands-on activities in their teaching.

The NT students (19.9%) and teachers (21.8%) are the conceptual and specific learners.

They have high standards, enjoy problem solving, exploration and impersonal analysis and are high

achievers. They tend to be somewhat impatient with rules, traditions or biases that limit production,

and bored with concrete information, routine and repetition. The rest of the sample of students (15 % )

are NFs (Intuition Feeling type), the conceptual and global learners. Often, they are high achievers ,

empathetic and cooperative. They are idealistic, imaginative, speculative and enjoy art and drama.

However, they are vulnerable to criticisms and conflicts. The NT and NF profiles of teachers are

dealt in the next section.

Teaching styles

Thompson (1984) conducted in-depth interviews of the school system using a naturalistic

paradigm design. Based on the wealth of details on the ways teachers experience their roles, plan

their work, teach their classes and evaluate their students, Thompson came up with representative

descriptions for four different teaching profiles or styles of teachers: the ST (Sensing Thinking), SF

(Sensing Feeling), NF (Intuitive Feeling) and NT (Intuitive Thinking) styles.

Insert Table 3 about here

Nearly half of the teachers (48.5%) and students (46.3%) have the ST teaching profile. ST

teachers are role models, setting examples for students . They share their knowledge and experience

with their students. They follow daily routine, direct activities accordingly and examine the students'

work systematically. As about half of the students share this teaching profile, prevalent in traditional

schools, they would like the routine and more structured way of teaching.

6

Somewhat similar proportions of teachers (17 .6%) and students (19.1 % ) have the SF teaching

profile. As with the ST teacher, the SF teacher, being more sensing, also serve as role models to

their students through instructing, disciplining, encouraging, and supporting them. Although they

follow ordered daily patterns, being feelers they do make adjustments for person-centred interactions.

The NF and the NT teachers encourage and inspire their students to develop, both using

flexible patterns for teaching that depends on the topic and the needs of the students. Being global

learners themselves, they can easily understand students with the NF and NT learning styles.

Furthermore, F teachers attend to their pupils closely; thus NF teachers can provide greater

opportunities for student participation and learning. Such teachers will also feel that they have

contributed to their students' learning.

DISCUSSION

The findings on the learning profiles of students and the teaching styles of teachers have

implications for teachers. The common learning and teaching profiles of about half of the students

and teachers in the study are the SJ learning profile and the ST teaching profile respectively. Both

teachers and students who are basically sensing are practical minded, careful about facts, precise in

their work and like established ways of doing things. SJ teachers would find it particularly hard to

understand students who are Ps, who like flexible spontaneous situations and who leave decisions

open for last minute changes.

There is also a high proportion of the structured J teachers (78 .8%) as compared with the

lower proportion of J students (60.5%). There are slightly less feeling teachers (29.7%) than

students (33.8%). Smith (1993) found that feeling teachers were more likely to praise and offer

suggestions than thinking teachers. They also appear to have different grading styles; the language

of teachers' written evaluative comments suggest that feeling and thinking types have different

conceptions of the teachers' role as evaluator of student writing. Similarly it would be difficult for

the introverted teachers (61. 8 % ) to understand their extroverted students (51. 4 % ) .

It is important for teachers to be aware of type theory so that they can understand their

7

students. Norton and Maclin (1993) suggest that the concepts of psychological type provide an

excellent framework for improving communication between students and teachers. The more that

teachers know about type, the better they would be able to use it to appreciate differences between

the students as well as differences between the teachers and the students. All this would enhance

learning. Murphy (1994) also pointed out that both students and teachers need to be aware of type

preferences and understand how these differences affect their learning and daily interactions.

Understanding preferences is particularly critical when learning is new and difficult. Teachers who

know type theory would consider the MBTI learning styles of their students when they teach.

Zweber (1993) believed that teachers should receive in-service training in specific assessment

and teaching strategies that closely reflect their learning profiles. Butt (1993) also suggested that

schools should use the learning profiles of teachers to plan their staff development activities. Butt

worked out the relationship between the MBTI types of teachers and their preferences in staff

development practices. Introverted teachers might prefer more reflection. Sensing teachers would

want more "hands-on" activities. Judging teachers would like precision and organization in their

workshops. In addition, teachers could learn from such experiences to plan activities that would be

more suitable for the learning profiles of the students in their classes.

8

REFERENCES

Butt, T. (1993) All together, one at a time: Staff development for educators, Proceedings of the 10th Biennial International Conference, Newport Beach, California.

Ditzig, H. & Lim, T. K. (1992) The Young Singaporeans, How They are Different: Implications for Training and Organisations, STADA News, 2, 5 - 11.

Ditzig, H. & You, P. S. (1988) In Search of the Singapore Managerial Style, Singapore Management Review, 35-51.

Jung, C. G. (1923) Psychological Types , London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Keirsey, D. & Bates, M. (1978) Please Understand Me, Del Mar, CA : Promethean Books.

Lim, T. K. (1994a) Personality Types among Singapore and American students, Journal of Psychological Type, 31, 10 - 15.

Lim, T. K. (1994b) School principals : Leadership and Type, Bulletin of Psychological Type, 17, 4, 20 - 22.

Mccaulley, M. H. (1985) The Selection Ratio Type Table: A research strategy for comparing type distributions. Journal of Psychological Type, 10, 46 - 56.

Murphy, E. (1994) Ideal learning environments, Bulletin of Psychological Type, 17, 1, 18 - 20.

Myers, I. B. (1980) Gifts Differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B. & Mccaulley, M. H. (1985) Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press .

Norton, S. & Maclin, W. (1993) What about the children? Proceedings of the 10th Biennial International Conference, Newport Beach, California.

Smith, J. B. (1993) Teachers, grading styles: The languages of feeling and thinking, Journal of Psychological Type, 26, 37 - 41.

9

Thompson, L. L. (1984) An investigation of the relationship of the personality theory of C. G. Jung and teachers' self-reported perceptions and decisions, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.

Zweber, A. B. (1993) Transforming the paradigm of leadership, teaching and learning using the MBTI and type concepts, Proceedings of the 10th Biennial International Conference, Newport Beach, California.

•

10

TABLE 1 Type Distributions of students and SRTI Comparison with teachers

N = 1733 I = 1 % of N I = Selection Ratio Index

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ E n= 890 (51.4%) I= 1.35 .. . n= 284 n= 117 n= 53 n= 73 I n= 843 (48.6%) I= .79"

(16.4%) (6.8%) (3.1 %) (4.2%) I= .51 ... I= .86 I= .28*** I= .53* s n= 1134 (65.4%) I= .99 Hill Hill Ill llll N n= 599 (34.6%) 1=1.02 lllH ll lllll T n= 1148 (66.2%) I= .94

F n= 585 (33.8%) I= 1.14

J n= 1048 (60.5%) I= .77 ... p n= 685 (39.5%) I= 1.86***

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP IJ n= 527 (30.4%) I= .58*" n= 118 n= 54 n= 61 n= 83 IP n= 316 (18.2%) 1=2.01" (6.8%) (3.1 %) (3.5%) (4.8%) EP n= 369 (21.3%) I= 1.76** 1=2.80* I= 1.70 I= 1.45 I= 1.97 EJ n= 521 (30.1%) 1=1.15 lllll Ill llll lllll ll ST n= 803 (46.3%) I= .96

SF n= 331 (19.1%) 1=1.09 NF n= 254 (14.7%) I= 1.21 NT n= 345 (19.9%) I= .91

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP SJ n= 779 (45.0%) I= .82* n= 126 n= 57 n= 94 n= 92 SP n= 355 (20.5%) 1=1.88** (7.3%) (3.3%) (5.4%) (5.3%) NP n= 330 (19.0%) I= 1.84** 1=2.99* I= .78 1=4.47* I= 1.25 NJ n= 269 (15.5%) I= .66** lllll Ill lllll lllll ll TJ n= 729 (42.1%) I= .12•••

TP n= 419 (24.2%) 1=2.10"* FP n= 266 (15.3%) I= 1.58 FJ n= 319 (18.4%) I= .92

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ n= 275 n= 103 n= 46 n= 97 (15.9%) (5.9%) (2.7%) (5.6%) I= 1.37 I= 1.63 I= .73 I= .77 lllll lllll lll 11111 Hill I I • lllll

• < .05 p .. p < .01 - p < .001

11

Table 2 Learning Profiles

NF NT SJ SP Total

Students 14.6% 19.9% 45.0% 20.5% 100.0%

Teachers 12.1 % 21.8% 55.2% 10.9% 100.0%

Table 3 Teaching Styles

ST SF NF NT Total

Teachers 48.5% 17.6% 12.1 % 21.8% 100.0%

Students 46.3% 19.1 % 14.6% 19.9% 99.9%