Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Relationship between personality type and

achievement in an undergraduate physiology


course.
G D Tharp

Advan in Physiol Edu 262:S1, 1992.


You might find this additional info useful...
Updated information and services including high resolution figures, can be found at:
/content/262/6/S1.citation
Additional material and information about Advances in Physiology Education can be found at:
http://www.the-aps.org/publications/advan

This information is current as of February 20, 2015.

Downloaded from on February 20, 2015

Advances in Physiology Education is dedicated to the improvement of teaching and learning physiology, both in
specialized courses and in the broader context of general biology education. It is published four times a year in March, June,
September and December by the American Physiological Society, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD 20814-3991.
Copyright 1992 by the American Physiological Society. ISSN: 1043-4046, ESSN: 1522-1229. Visit our website at
http://www.the-aps.org/.

Relationship
between personality type and achievement
in an undergraduate
physiology course
GERALD

D. THARP

School of Biological

Sciences,

University

of Nebraska,

Myers-Briggs
teaching

type indicator;

cognitive

learning

styles; science

MOST COLLEGE professors begin their teaching careers


with the idealistic notion that they can stimulate all
their students to love physiology, biology, etc., and to
learn a lot. After a few years of teaching, their idealism
fades when they realize that some students, for reasons
unknown, have great difficulty understanding
the subject matter presented in their course. This inability to
reach all students causes much frustration
and soulsearching as to the cause of student failure. One possibility is that an individuals
personality type can increase a students ability to succeed in one area of study
but push them toward failure in a different academic
area. This hypothesis was examined in the present study
by comparing achievement in an undergraduate Human
Physiology course with students personality types.
MYERS-BRIGGS

TYPE INDICATOR

(MBTI)

The MBTI is based on Carl Jungs theory of personality type and has been developed over the past 50 years
by Myers (6). It identifies individuals along four dichotomous scales. 1) E-I (extraversion-introversion):
Is the
person interested in the outer world of people and action
or the inner world of ideas and concepts? 2) S-N (sensingintuition):
Do they perceive the real, practical facts of life
with their senses or use intuition,
imagination,
and inspiration to see the possibilities and meanings beyond the
facts? 3) T-F (thinking-feeling):
Do they make judgments
or decisions objectively and impersonally based on facts
and logic or subjectively and personally, relying on empathy and feelings? 4) J-P (judgment-perception):
Does
the person prefer to live in a decisive, planned, and orderly way or in a spontaneous, flexible manner?
A persons MBTI profile consists of scores on each of
1043-4046/92

$2.00

Copyright

Nebraska

68588

the four two-part scales, thus yielding


ality types (e.g., ESTJ, INFP, etc.).
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
AND ACHIEVEMENT

16 possible person-

ON PERSONALITY

Schurr and Ruble (8) used the MBTI to examine the


achievement of 2,713 freshman college students, using
grades in courses that met the general studies
requirement. They found the IN students were best prepared, whereas the ES types were least prepared for
achievement in college. The combination
of the E-I and
S-N scales were most associated with achievement that
could be predicted from Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)
scores or high school percentile rank (HSPER).
Combinations of the E-I and J-P scales were most associated
with achievement that could not be predicted from the
SAT and HSPER. IJ achievement was highest, and EP
was lowest. J and P types are similar in aptitude (SAT
and HSPER), but the J types achieve more. These relationships were also found in a later study of 2,906 students (9), and the authors concluded that the J-P scale is
indicative of the personality characteristic that is most
uniquely associated with college instructors evaluation of
achievement. Thus the college learning environment appears better suited for students who are organized (J),
interested in abstract thinking (N), and work effectively
alone (I). Students who prefer to live spontaneously (P),
like to work with practical applications
(S), and enjoy
interpersonal interactions
(E) are less rewarded by the
college experience. The INJ students clearly have an advantage over ESP students in the college environment as
it is currently structured.
Only a few studies have examined the relationship of
personality type to science education. Two studies have
shown that the MBTI profile is related to the selection of
a college science major. McCaulley (4) followed college
freshman students for two years and found that for students interested in science the IN types outnumbered the
ES types, T types outnumbered F types in the physical
sciences, and F types outnumbered T types in the behavioral sciences. Rowe (7) reported similar findings when
the MBTI was given to 314 high school students in summer science research programs at the University of Florida and to 306 public high school students from a small
Florida school. The summer research students were predominantly
I types, whereas the public school students
were mainly S types. Melear (5) gave the MBTI to 673
nonmajor undergraduate students in an introductory biology course that used a structured learning environment
with defined goals and deadlines. Melear found the typical nonmajor could be described as an ESFP type: interested in working on real problems with other people
rather than on abstract problems in an impersonal
atmosphere. The EP students in this biology course had

0 1992 the American

Physiological

Society

Sl

Downloaded from on February 20, 2015

Tharp,
Gerald
D. Relationship
between personality
type
and achievement in an undergraduate
physiology class. Am. J.
Physiol. 262 (Adv. Physiol. Educ. 7): Sl-S3, 1992.-The
MyersBriggs type indicator (MBTI)
was given to 163 students in an
undergraduate
Human
Physiology
course at a large state
university. Selected MBTI personality types were compared for
achievement in the course using a t test to compare total points
earned. High grades were earned by students stronger in the
traits of introversion
(I) and judgment (J), whereas the extraverted (E) and perceptive (P) types had the lowest grades and
dropped out of the course in the largest numbers. When combinations
of MBTI
types were compared, the highest grades
were earned as follows: SJ > ST > IN > IJ > IS (S, sensing; T,
thinking;
N, intuitive).
This ranking indicates that a sensing
personality also has a strong relationship
to achievement in this
Human Physiology course when it is combined with judgment,
thinking,
or introversion.
Instructors
and students need to be
aware of the relationship
between personality and learning so
they can modify their teaching style and learning behavior to
enhance academic achievement.

Lincoln,

s2

PERSONALITY

TYPES

the lowest achievement of any personality type. This poor


performance is understandable, since the course structure
favored the IJ types who like to learn by themselves in an
orderly, planned environment.
The present study was designed to measure the relationship of personality type to achievement in a more
advanced undergraduate course (Human Physiology) that
had a mixture of science and nonscience majors, many of
whom were preparing for medically related professions.
METHODS

RESULTS

Comparisons of the total course points for selected personality type combinations are given in Table 2. Using a
probability
level of 0.05, significant differences were as
follows: I > E, IJ > EP, ST > SF, SJ > NT, INJ > ESP,
and J was almost significantly higher than P. If the probability is adjusted for running multiple t tests using the
Bonferroni equation (a! = O.O5/number of t tests), significant comparisons were I > E and IJ > EP.
Table 1. Professional

goals of the students in


human physiology class
Profession

Medicine
Physical
education
Physical
therapy
Biology
Nursing
Undecided
Exercise
science
Nutrition
Pharmacy
Speech pathology
Medical
technology
Education
Physicians
assistant
Veterinary
medicine
Microbiology
Occupational
therapy
Miscellaneous

No. of Students

60
18
17
15
13
11
10
8
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
20

ACHIEVEMENT

Table 2. t Test analysis of achievement between


different MBTI
Personality
Types
Compared

types
N

Total

Mean
Points

SD

Two-Tail
Probability

E
I

83
80

137.7
155.9

32.5
29.3

o.ooo*

S
N

88
75

147.4
145.7

33.2
31.1

0.741

T
F

98
65

150.0
141.5

33.0
30.4

0.099

J
P

90
73

151.0
141.2

31.5
32.4

0.052

ES
IN

29
35

147.9
158.1

35.4
27.2

0.201

ES
IS

29
45

147.9
154.2

35.4
31.1

0.428

EN
IN

15
35

143.6
158.1

25.1
27.2

0.084

EN
IS

15
45

143.6
154.2

25.1
31.1

0.239

NF
NT

31
44

147.5
144.4

30.7
31.7

0.675

SJ
NT

42
44

160.3
144.4

31.3
31.7

0.0227

NT
SF

44
27

144.4
139.9

31.7
29.5

0.235

SF
ST

27
47

139.9
158.5

NF
ST

31
47

147.5
158.5

30.7
32.8

0.182

EP
IJ

39
46

127.8
155.4

30.3
30.6

o.ooo*

0.017.f

INJ
10
154.1
33.2
0.023t
14
124.5
26.2
ESP
N, no. of subjects in each personality
type. E, extraversion;
F, feeling;
I, introversion;
J, judgment;
N, intuition;
P, perception;
S, sensing; T,
thinking.
* Significantly
different
at Bonferroni
cy <O.OO3 for multiple
t
tests. t Significantly
different
at cy ~0.05.

When the MBTI types of the top students are compared with the students who dropped the course, some
interesting differences are seen (Table 3). More of the
high-achievement
students were of the I, T, and J types,
whereas the students who dropped were higher in E and
P types. These differences also show up when combination types are examined; the top students being more the
IJ, IN, ST, and SJ types, whereas the students dropping
the course were more the EP and ES types.
DISCUSSION

The results of this study agree in many ways with


previous research on personality types and achievement
in college. As was found by Schurr and Ruble (8) for
achievement in general studies courses, in this Human
Physiology course the IJ students (154.1 points) were
significantly
higher achievers than the EP students
(127.8 points). The higher grades of the INJ (154.1
points) over the ESP students (124.5 points) indicate
that the course favors the person who can work well
alone, is interested in abstract thinking, and is well organized and motivated. The EP students had the lowest
total points (127.8) of any combination
of two types and
also dropped out of the course in the largest numbers. The

Downloaded from on February 20, 2015

The MBTI (form G) was administered to 206 students in the


introductory Human Physiology course (Bio-213) during the
first laboratory period of the spring semester. As can be seen in
Table 1, this course is taken by a wide variety of students but is
dominated by preprofessional students in medically related
fields. It is a fairly rigorous class taken by many students who
are testing their interest and ability in the medical areas. A total
of 43 students did not take all the lecture exams or lab quizzes.
Five dropped before taking any exams, seven dropped after the
first exam, 25 dropped after the second exam, and six dropped
after the third exam. Only the 163 students who completed all
the lab work and took all four lecture exams were used to analyze the relationship of personality types to achievement in the
course.
The data were analyzed using a Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSSX) t test program to compare the total
points (220 points maximum) earned in the course by different
combinations of MBTI personality types. The type combinations chosen for analysis were those previously reported as having some effect on academic achievement. The 43 students who
did not finish the course were compared with 41 students receiving 172 or higher total points (A+, A, B+ grades) as to the
number of persons in selected personality type categories.

AND

PERSONALITY

Table 3. Comparison

TYPES

of selected personality types

of top 41 students

to 43 students who did


not finish the course
Number
Personality
Types
Compared

E
I
S
N
T
F
J
P
EP
IJ
SF
ST
SJ
NT
ES
IN

Top students
in course

12
29
25
16
31
10

26
15
4
18
2
12
21
8
8
12

of Students
Students

dropping
course

25
18
27
16
21
22
15
28
17
7
14
13
13
8
18
9

s3

ACHIEVEMENT

level combines abstract concepts with many practical applications to our daily lives. This emphasis would appeal
to the S personality who prefers the immediate,
real,
practical facts of life.
In conclusion, what can we learn from the results of
this study? As currently taught, Human Physiology favors students who can work efficiently by themselves (I),
live in a planned, orderly way (J), and are interested in
the practical applications of science in their lives (S). The
EP types are especially prone to failure in this course.
Instructors and students should be made aware of the
impact of personality on learning so they can modify
teaching styles and learning behaviors. Science instructors can use a variety of teaching activities in their
courses to help motivate the different personality types
(3). The EP students especially will need to become more
organized in their study habits and develop their concentration and reasoning skills. As teachers we need to emphasize that all personality types are valuable, but the
learning environment in each course may favor one type
over another so that some students will have to modify
their attitudes and study skills if they are to succeed. It
must be noted that this study examined only the relationship between achievement in physiology and personality
type. The study did not take into account other variables
that could influence achievement, such as student background in the sciences or years of college completed. Variables in student academic background should be included
in future studies of personality type and achievement.
Received

19 September

1991; accepted

in final

form

2 December

1991.

REFERENCES
1. Charlton,
R. E. Cognitive
style considerations
for the improvement of biology education.
Am. BioZ. Teach. 42: 244,247,
1980.
2. Hoffman,
J. L., and K. Waters.
Some effects of student
personality
on success with computer-assisted
instruction.
E&K.
Technol.
22: 20-21,
1982.
G. A synthesis
of learning
style research
involving
3. Lawrence,
the MBTI.
J. Psychol.
Type 8: 2-15, 1984.
4. McCaulley,
M. H. Personality
variables:
modal profiles
that
characterize
the various
fields of science and what they mean for
education.
J. Coil. Sci. Teach. 7: 114-120,
1977.
5. Melear,
C. T. Cognitive
processes
in the Curry
learning
style
framework
as measured
by the learning
style profile and the Myers-Briggs
type indicator
among
non-majors
in biology.
Diss.
Abstr. Int. 51-1: 127-A, 1990.
I. B., and M. H. McCaulley.
Manual:
A Guide to the
6. Myers,
Development
and Use of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator.
Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists,
1985, p. 94-139.
M. B. Who chooses science?
A profile.
Sci. Teach. 45:
7. Rowe,
25-28, 1978.
K. T., and V. E. Ruble.
The Myers-Briggs
Type In8. Schurr,
dicator and first-year
college achievement:
a look beyond aptitude
test results. J. Psychol.
Type 12: 25-37, 1986.
9. Schurr,
K. T., and V. Ruble.
Psychological
type and the second
year of college achievement:
survival
and the gravitation
toward
appropriate
and manageable
major fields. J. Psych&.
Type 14:
57-59, 1988.

Downloaded from on February 20, 2015

low achievement of the EP types agrees with Melear (5),


who studied college biology students and concluded that
the EP students not only achieve the lowest, but are
twice as likely to be the lowest achievers. A large number
of EP dropouts has also been reported for the Naval
computer-assisted
instruction
(CAI) programs (2). Success in CA1 courses favor those who can concentrate by
themselves, pay attention to details, and stay with a single task until completion, which favors the IJ over the EP
personality type.
Not all of our findings agree with those of prior studies.
Whereas Rowe (7) found summer science research students to be more N than S, the S and N types in this
study earned nearly equal grades. Studies by McCaulley
(4), Schurr and Ruble (8), and Charlton (1) emphasize the
importance of combinations
of the E-I and S-N scales,
ranking success in science in this order: IN > EN > IS >
ES. In this Human Physiology course, the ranking for
these combinations
was IN > IS > ES > EN, with no
significant difference found between IN and EN.
Whereas previous research emphasized N over S for
success in science, this study found no difference in
grades between N and S. In fact, when S is combined with
certain other types, it seems to enhance achievement in
Human Physiology. For instance, significant differences
were found for SJ > NT and ST > SF. When total points
are examined for combinations
of two MBTI types the
ranking for the top five was SJ > ST > IN > IJ > IS. This
ranking suggests that S has a strong influence on achievement when it is linked with J, T, or I. S may be more
important in a Human Physiology course compared with
other sciences, because physiology at the introductory

AND

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi