Research: Science and Education edited by
Chemical Education Research
Diane M. Bunce The Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. 20064
The Connection between Success in a Freshman Chemistry Class and a Student’s Jungian Personality Type Gale J. Clark Department of Chemistry, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132
Wayne D. Riley* Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409;
[email protected] Educators are well aware of the many complicated factors that must correctly be meshed together to create a positive learning experience for a student. Motivation, physical well being, and previous knowledge are highly significant to a successful learning experience. Yet each of these factors is an aid to a more fundamental process of learning; that of decision making. While engaged in learning the student decides from various possibilities which path may lead to the desired goal. The teacher is also active in making decisions related to methodology, homework, questions, demonstrations, and testing. The specific comprehension of scientific ideas may involve the bringing together of many layers of experiences stitched together by hard work, but it may be the art of decision making that is fundamental to understanding human learning behavior. While one article (1) has ranked what students consider important factors in the learning process and others (2, 3) have explained how students construct their knowledge base, a somewhat different approach—considering the influence of an individual’s psychological personality type on successful or unsuccessful learning—has been left virtually unexplored. We believe that the study of basic personality characteristics may provide some indication of the possible future success of students in a science curriculum. A group of psychological factors proposed by Carl G. Jung (4 ) is the basis for the Jungian theory of personality types. It is the interplay between sets of psychological factors that lead individuals to make certain decisions that can have a pronounced effect on learning. This paper describes the correlation between 407 Middle Tennessee State University students’ self-tested Jungian personality type and their level of performance in two beginning-level chemistry classes. Jung’s Personality Types Jung describes three essential factors utilized in making a decision: the gathering of pertinent data, the making of the decision, and the interaction with an object that the decision usually affects. Jung called the first category of collecting data the “perception function”, making the decision the “judging function”, and the involvement with the object as the “attitude”. Each category consists of bipolar modes. The perception function (data collection) consists of either a sensing mode or an intuitive mode. The sensing type (S) best relates to facts and observations, whereas the intuition type (N) prefers theory, imagination, and intuition. The decision-making or judging function consists of either a thinking or a feeling mode.
1406
The thinking type (T) likes rules, logic, and order whereas the feeling type (F) weighs the consequences with the action and considers priorities and importance. Extraversion and introversion describe the attitudes. Actions or decisions that primarily take into account the effects they have on surrounding objects define a person as displaying the extraverted (E) attitude. Individuals who reach decisions by looking inward and who try to understand the world and its workings demonstrate the introverted (I) attitude. The combination of the three categories (e.g. Extraverted, iNtuitive, Thinking) defines the personality type (ENT). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a selfevaluating survey of 126 questions used to identify the preferred characteristics of an individual. It adds a fourth category, which indicates the dominant function. The dominant function is defined as the function used by an individual when relating to the external world; in other words, when a person is exhibiting his or her extraverted mode. The functions are labeled judging (J) or perceiving (P). The fourth category is added to the end of the personality type acronym—for example, ISTJ. The author of the survey, Isabel Myers-Briggs, intended this fourth category to define a person’s dominant function; this was unnecessary in Jung’s proposed theory because Jung deduced a person’s dominant function through interpersonal analysis. The four bipolar categories (see Box 1) produce 16 personality-type combinations, which describe how people confront various situations and interact differently in the world about them. These are characterized in Box 2. It is extremely important to understand that no specific type judges an individual’s methods of interaction as either good or bad, intelligent or simpleminded, positive or negative. It is also important to realize that the 16 types do not label individuals, but only provide a basis for characterizing specific features that might influence a person’s preferred methods for accomplishing difficult tasks and handling frustrating situations.
Box 1. Personality Categories Categor y
Modes
Attitude
Extraverted or Introverted
Perception
Sensing or iNtuitive
Judging
Thinking or Feeling
Dominant
Judging or Perceiving
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 78 No. 10 October 2001 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Research: Science and Education
Many articles qualitatively describe relationships between chosen fields of study and students’ personality types (5–8). McCaulley found that NT types were significantly more attracted to engineering and the physical sciences while SF types tended more toward nursing and education (5). The humanities and behavioral sciences were typically favored by NF types, whereas ST types seemed to favor the biological sciences. Other typical favoritisms identified in studies based on pairings of the categories were a tendency of the “academic” IN types toward the humanities, physical sciences, and engineering and of the “pragmatic” ES types toward the physical education, nursing, and business disciplines. It was also evident that the IS types avoided the physical sciences, choosing more often the biological sciences, while the EN types found their way into the behavioral sciences. Although certain characteristic types may be identified as predominant in each discipline, McCaulley concludes “that some types are more likely to enter the sciences—are more ‘science-minded.’ However, Box 2. General Description of the 16 Personality Types ISTJ: Analytical manager of facts and details, dependable, decisive, painstaking, and systematic; concerned with systems and organization; stable and conservative
ISFJ: Sympathetic manager of facts and details, concerned with people’s welfare; dependable, painstaking, and systematic; stable and conservative
ISTP: Practical analyzer; values exactness; more interested in organizing data than situations or people; reflective, a cool and curious observer of life.
ISFP: Observant, loyal helper; reflective, realistic, empathic; patient with details, gentle, and retiring; shuns disagreements; enjoys the moment.
ESTP: Realistic adapter in the world of material things; good natured, tolerant, easy going; oriented to practical, first-hand experience, highly observant of details of things.
ESFP: Realistic adapter in human relationships; friendly and easy with people; highly observant of their feelings and needs; oriented to practical, first-hand experience.
ESTJ: Fact-minded, practical organizer; assertive, analytical, systematic; pushes to get things done and working smoothly and efficiently.
ESFJ: Practical harmonizer and worker-with-people; sociable, orderly, opinioned; conscientious, realistic, well tuned to the here and now.
INFJ: People-oriented innovator of ideas; serious, quietly forceful, and persevering; concerned with the common good, with helping others develop.
INTJ: Logical, critical, decisive innovator of ideas; serious, intent, highly independent, concerned with organization; determined and often stubborn.
INFP: Imaginative, independent helper; reflective, inquisitive, empathic, loyal to ideals; more interested in possibilities than practicalities.
INTP: Inquisitive analyzer; reflective, independent, curious, more interested in organizing ideas than situations or people.
ENFP: Warmly enthusiastic planner of change; imaginative, individualistic; pursues inspiration with impulsive energy; seeks to understand and inspire others.
ENTP: Inventive, analytical planner of change; enthusiastic and independent; pursues inspiration with impulsive energy; seeks to understand and inspire others.
ENFJ: Imaginative harmonizer and worker-with-people; sociable, expressive, orderly, opinioned, conscientious; curious about new ideas and possibilities.
ENTJ: Intuitive, innovative organizer; analytical, systematic, confident; pushes to get action on new ideas and challenges.
Gordon D. Lawrence, People Types and Tiger Stripes, 3rd edition. Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Gainesville, FL, 1993. Used with permission.
as far as we know, all types can and do learn science. It would also be going beyond our evidence to assume that persons of the types rarely becoming scientists are poor scientists.” Some workers describe the association between personality type and learning styles (9–11) and others hint at correlations between Jungian personality type and student performance in a college science classroom (12–14). Tharp’s studies of students in human physiology and general biology courses found that the combination of IJ and INJ factors showed significant differences in levels of performance when compared to the respective opposite types EP and ESP (13, 14 ). Our analysis in this work is different from Tharp’s, but the results paint a consistent picture. To our knowledge there are no other published studies of the influence of personality type on academic achievement in any other science curricula. Scope of Study The survey of personality types was accomplished using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Form G. All forms were computer scanned by the Center for the Applications of Personality Types (CAPT), Gainesville, FL. The study population comprised 407 students enrolled in a freshman sequence of General Chemistry 121 and 122 designed for science, engineering, and premedical students. The eight sections of courses used in the study were taught by seven different instructors. A standard score for each student, based on the average and standard deviation for each class, was calculated. All grades were then pooled into one class based on an average of 70 and a standard deviation of 10. Each student’s personality type and relative percent grade were entered into a statistics program called Stat View II. A twofactor ANOVA compared each type’s average grade to the overall class average and to averages of the other individual types. The 95 and 99% confidence intervals were determined. Comparisons of the personality-type distributions were performed using the Selection Ratio Type Table (SRTT) program for the Macintosh available from the Center for the Applications of Psychological Type (15). This program compares a sample group to a base group using a chi-square analysis on dependent groups. The analysis identifies types and individual functions that are statistically distinct from the base group at the .05, .01, and .001 levels. The base group used for the comparison was composed of all the 1085 Middle Tennessee State University students surveyed during the fall and spring semesters from September 1996 to December 1997. In addition to the 407 general chemistry students, 365 students were from a general physical science class, 241 were enrolled in the second semester of a two-semester chemistry class designed to be the terminal chemistry course for nursing, agricultural science, and human science students, 28 were drawn from an honors chemistry class, and 44 were enrolled in an astronomy class. The 23 faculty members of the MTSU Chemistry department also completed the survey. Results Figure 1 shows the distribution of Chemistry 121 and 122 students among the 16 personality types defined by the MBTI. The point to be taken from this figure is that the distribution of personality types for students in general chemistry is not
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 78 No. 10 October 2001 • Journal of Chemical Education
1407
Research: Science and Education
Figure 1. Distribution of 407 students in Chemistry 121 and 122 among the 16 types. The squares represent 1% increments and the bars are equal to 5%.
Figure 2. Distribution of the 1085 Middle Tennessee State University students surveyed. The squares represent 1% increments and the bars are equal to 5%
Table 1. Statistics for the 16 Personality Types in Chemistr y 121/122 Average
60
Figure 3. Distribution of the MTSU Chemistry professors among the 16 types. The data represent numbers of professors rather than percentages.
1408
70
80
MBTI Type
No. of Students
Av
ISTJ
38
70.7
ISTP
27
68.7
10.1
ISFJ
22
70.8
10.4
ISFP
13
69.5
INTJ
16
79.2
9.37
INTP
24
70.2
9.35
SD 9.59
9.78
INFJ
5
68.3
INFP
22
71.9
12.4 8.71
ESTJ
35
68.8
9.74
ESTP
11
69.6
ESFJ
20
69.7
10.1 9.95
ESFP
27
65.4
ENTJ
10
73.3
10.5
9.39
ENTP
22
69.0
10.0
ENFJ
12
69.0
11.2
ENFP
17
67.2
10.0
Total
321
70.0
10.0
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 78 No. 10 October 2001 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
Research: Science and Education Table 2. Significant Differences between Types in Averages for Chemistry 121/122 Comparison
p
Type (Av)
Vs. Type (Av)
INTJ (79.2)
ESTPi INFP INFJ ISTP ISTJ INTP ISFP ISFJ ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ
(69.6) (71.9) (68.3) (68.7) (70.7) (70.2) (69.5) (70.8) (65.4) (67.2) (69.0) (68.8) (69.7) (69.0)
