66Journal of Psychological Type®

Over twenty-five years of publishing research articles related to the theory andapplications of psychological type and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® instrument.

Published by the Center for Applications of Psychological TypeThomas G. Carskadon, Ph.D., Editor

Issue 4 APR 06

C A P T ®

“

ABSTRACTThirty-nine school district-level Teacher of the Year(ToY) recipients completed the Myers-Briggs TypeIndicator (MBTI) instrument. Descriptive data includedfrequency and percentage of response for each type and for combinations of types. Furthermore, a chi-square statistic was used to compare the sample of 39 ToY recipients to two groups (n = 804, n = 189) ofelementary teachers. Significant differences occurred in the paired attributes of EP, SF, NF, SJ, and NP.

Additionally, a significant difference also occurred forthe combined ENFP type, not for the ISFJ type typicalof elementary educators. The personality types of teach-ers identified as effective through ToY nominations mayassist educators in identifying specific characteristics ofeffective teachers.

INTRODUCTIONExtensive research on personality characteristics andteacher effectiveness has been conducted for over 40

”Thirty-nine candidates selected for Teacher of the Year (ToY) at thedistrict level were given the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®)in order to see if a particular type was being selected for thisdistinguished award. Unlike the typical elementary educator’sprofile (ISFJ), the most frequent ToY profile was ENFP.

Teacher of the Year Award Recipients’ Myers-BriggsPersonality Profiles: Identifying Teacher EffectivenessProfiles Toward Improved Student OutcomesStephen RushtonUniversity of South Florida

Tanice Y. KnoppUniversity of South Florida

R. Lee SmithIndiana University South Bend

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 66, April 2006

years (Gage, 1963; Rushton & Murray, 1985; Ryan,1960; Sears, Kennedy, Kaye, & Gail, 1997) in a varietyof contexts. Early research efforts were brought intoquestion in 1963 when Getzels and Jackson reviewedover 800 studies dating back to the early 1950s andbranded that research as generally “unproductive andchaotic” (as cited in Gage). Getzels and Jacksonreasoned that because the standard psychological testsused at that time dealt primarily withpsychopathological conditions, thetests were inadequate to addressteacher effectiveness. The long-termeffect of Getzels and Jackson’s findingswas articulated by Flaitz (1987), whoconcluded, “The regrettable result ofthe rather final-sounding pronounce-ment of irrelevance found in Getzelsand Jackson was to virtually endresearch in teacher personality traits”(p. 5). However, researchers againhave begun to examine teacher per-sonality characteristics or traits, someusing the MBTI measure in order toexplore (a) the relationship betweenclassroom mentoring teachers andpreservice teachers (Grindler & Stratton, 1990;Sprague, 1997), (b) the effect of teachers’ specificteaching styles on students’ learning styles (Fairhurst &Fairhurst, 1995; Pankratius, 1997), (c) the relationshipbetween the teacher’s personality and the learningenvironment (Barrett, 1991; Kent & Fisher, 1997), and (d) personality types of interns in an alternativecertification program (Meisgeier & Richardson, 1996).

Given the demand for effective public educationand improved student outcomes, the ability to identifyeffective teachers might assist educators in meeting thatdemand. In many school systems around the country,teachers deemed effective are recognized through aselective process and awarded a title of “Teacher of theYear.” We believe that this readily available pool ofteachers can provide a rich resource for the identifica-tion and study of personality characteristics of teachersconsidered highly effective by administrators, peers andcolleagues, parents, and community members.Therefore, when we define effective teachers as teachersselected for “Teacher of the Year,” study of their person-ality types may help identify specific characteristics ofeffective teachers.

Although the MBTI instrument does not measure

a person’s skill level in teaching or in other occupations,it does measure one’s preferences. Consequently, it maybe assumed that each of the types exhibits commoncharacteristics or personality references. These charac-teristics may be a factor in the development of a teach-ing philosophy or way of teaching. We, therefore,suggest that a particular philosophical orientation may affect the type of (a) instructional strategies the

teacher adopts, (b) interactions theteacher has with students, and (c)classroom environment the teachercreates, which, in turn, may result ina particular personality type having agreater positive effect on the students’learning.

The learning environment canreflect the teachers’ personality andpersonal philosophy toward educa-tion, which some researchers believehave a bearing on teacher effective-ness (Rushton, 2001; Sergiovanni & Starrett, 1988). Barrett (1991)specifically examined the impact ofteacher personality on classroomenvironment by assessing vocational

students’ perceptions of their public high schoolteachers. Barrett administered the MBTI instrument and a classroom environment index to 34 teachers and622 9th and 10th graders in seven randomly selectedhigh schools. He determined that teachers with apreference for Extraversion (E), Sensing (S), Feeling (F),and Perceiving (P) on the MBTI instrument createdmore positive (warm and friendly) and autonomous(nonthreatening and self-reliant) classrooms. Theselearning environments were perceived by the studentsas enjoyable places to learn. Teachers with a preferencefor Introversion (I), Thinking (T), and Judging (J)tended to create classrooms in which “the teachers may convey some messages to students that may have anegative effect on the classroom climate” (p. 56).

Similarly, Fisher and Kent (1998) studied collegestudents in education to investigate the connectionbetween the teachers’ personalities and the perceptionsof both the students and teachers in the learningenvironment of the classroom. These researchersmodified the Learning Environment Inventory, origi-nally developed by Fraser, Anderson, and Walberg(1982), to create a more specific tool for measuring thelearning environment of college classrooms. The

24

”“The learning

environment can reflectthe teachers’ personalityand personal philosophy

toward education,which some researchers

believe have a bearing on teacher

effectiveness.

Teacher of the Year Award Recipients’ Myers Briggs Personality Profiles

Secondary Colleges Classroom EnvironmentalInventory and the MBTI instrument were given to 116teachers and 1,883 college students. Fisher and Kent’sfindings suggested that both extraverted teachers and“their students perceived their classrooms as character-ized by high levels of Student Cohesion (p < .05)” (p. 7).Teachers with a sensing preference viewed theirclassrooms as nurturing, highly personalized, and taskoriented. In addition, teachers whoremain open and delay coming toclosure (Perceiving types) had class-room environments characterized byinformality and individualization.Neither Fisher and Kent nor Barrett(1991) attempted to connect theteachers’ personalities to students’academic achievement scores in orderto determine teacher effectiveness.

Using the MBTI instrument asone means of determining personalitypreferences, Sears et al. (1997)attempted to determine if certainteacher characteristics were linked toeffective teaching at both the elemen-tary and secondary levels. Theyexamined the MBTI instrument responses from 1,281students in teacher education programs and noted thatthree of the scales predominated for elementary majors:S, F, and J. They also noticed that these scales wereunderrepresented in secondary-level majors. The bi-polar E–I personality dimension was not significant.Sears et al. suggested that the SFJ teacher would beunlikely to be the teacher leading the reform movementor to be a future leader in the field of education. Instead,SFJ teachers tend to have a high respect for order, theconcrete, and the status quo, and they “likely will not becomfortable with the disorder, ambiguity, and confusionthat inevitably accompanies change” (p. 6). However,the researchers also posited that SFJ teachers bringseveral strengths to the elementary classroom—namely,their need to create order that allows them to makesense of the numerous demands placed on their time.Sears et al. speculated that NTJs probably were attractedto secondary teaching because they are “more orientedto theoretical; disposed to investigate possibilities andrelationships; and drawn to complexity, innovation, andchange. Their intuitive and thinking nature inspiresthem to seek solutions to complex problems” (p. 6).Sears et al. also concluded that NTJs appear to be the

25

best sources of change and leadership among practicingteachers.

Meisgeier and Richardson (1996) examined thepersonality types of incoming teacher-preparationstudents who were out-of-field teachers because of achange from their previous noneducation careers. Theseresearchers compared the MBTI instrument responsesfrom 91 interns in alternative certification programs

(ACP) to data from the MBTI Atlas ofType Tables compiled by Macdaid,McCaulley, and Kainz (1986). TheACP interns had a high preference forsensing and judging and, thus, tendedto be more realistic, factual, detail-oriented, and well organized. In astudy of vocational teacher-prepara-tion students, Rojewski and Holder(1990) found that 58% preferred SJ.

Teachers of the Year Person-ality Traits and Effective TeacherCharacteristics. Many school sys-tems around the country recognizeindividual teachers as outstandingand honor them with the title“Teacher of the Year.” The Florida

Department of Education has honored such “outstand-ing teachers” since 1967 and, today, implements a rigor-ous process to select one teacher to represent the state.According to the Florida Department of Education(Florida DOE) 2000–01 ToY selection document, themission of both the state and local school systems is “tofocus attention on the contributions of the classroomteacher and recognize and honor those who have asuperior capacity to inspire a love of learning in studentsof all backgrounds and abilities” (p. 26). According toFrank Brogan, the former Florida Commissioner ofEducation, “The Florida Teacher of the Year Programrecognizes the contributions of exemplary teachers whoset high expectations for their students and inspire themto excel” (p. 27). To participate in the program, eachteacher is required to submit a comprehensive writtenapplication and to take part in an extensive interview atboth the local and state levels. Florida DOE staff providethe following criteria to guide local school districts innominating their ToY recipient:

1. a superior ability to foster excellence in educationand contribute to the continuous improvement ofstudent learning and the school environment;

”“. . . SFJ teachers bring

several strengths to theelementary classroom—

namely, their need to create order

that allows them tomake sense of the

numerous demandsplaced on their time.

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 66, April 2006

26

2. knowledge of the subject taught and the ability toeffectively use materials relating to the subject;

3. leadership in educational activities at the school,district, and/or state and national level, such as a member of an advisory council, task force, orprofessional organization;

4. use of original or innovative instructional meth-ods, such as cooperative learning and interdiscipli-nary instruction, the development and/or use ofexperimental programs, development of newinstructional materials, and the use of technologyin instruction;

5. a record of superior teaching as evidenced bystudent performance, honors, awards, or otherkinds of recognitions;

6. continued professional development as evidencedby participation in workshops, in-service training,conferences, and/or advanced degrees;

7. demonstration of exemplary interpersonal skills in communicating with students, parents, and the community and in collaboration with otherprofessionals; and

8. strong commitment to creating a climate of caringand respect conductive to effective teaching andlearning.

The subjects of our study were selected as ToY byschool-based peers, the principal, parents and students(in some instances), and a panel of school district andcommunity representatives—all of whom followed theFlorida DOE criteria listed above. Therefore, it is rea-sonable to assume that the ToY is an effective instructor.

In this study, we compared the MBTI preferencesof 39 elementary school teachers from a mid-sizeFlorida city who were selected for the district-level ToYinterviews to the MBTI preferences of other elementary-level teachers. The purpose of this study was to deter-mine if those elementary teachers selected as ToY attheir respective schools and considered for the ToYaward at the district level share common traits, as deter-mined by the MBTI instrument, with each other morethan with other elementary school teachers.

METHODWe used the MBTI instrument to examine the personal-ity profiles of 39 candidates for ToY in a Southwestern

Florida school district. As professors in the elementaryeducation and special education teacher preparationprograms at the local university, we were asked toparticipate in a 5-day interviewing process to select thebest candidate to represent the district as ToY. The firstauthor served on this committee for 2 consecutiveyears, and the second author served the year following.

Data Collection. We compiled the followingthree separate sources of data during the selectionprocess: (a) MBTI measure results for each candidate;(b) written narratives to five questions on the candi-dates’ applications that centered on philosophy ofeducation, factors that influenced their choosing tobecome a teacher, major issues facing educators, andwhat they saw as their contribution to the district if theybecame ToY; and (c) the candidates’ verbal responsesduring a 45-minute interview. These interviews wereconducted by a team of school district and communityrepresentatives including several district-level staff, a school principal, two of the previous year’s ToY candi-dates, the executive director of the district’s educationfoundation, a local business person, and the twoauthors. The team used the information from theinterviews and written narratives to select the district’sToY who then became a candidate for the state ToY. The MBTI instrument (Form G) was administered aspart of this study and had no bearing on the district ToYselection process.

Participants. The original number of participantsinterviewed for the district ToY was greater than thenumber of subjects in this study. Upon completion of the interviews, we asked the candidates teachingelementary education (K–6) to complete the MBTIinstrument. In this study, we used the data from thedistrict-level ToY candidates who had been selected asToY at their particular school, who had completed theMBTI instrument, and who had taught at the elemen-tary level only—39 teachers. Subjects ranged in teach-ing experience from 4 to 39 years and included 4 menand 35 women. Thirty-six of the teachers were white, 3 were Hispanic, and none was African American.

Comparison of Participants. We compared thesample in this study to two separate sources of data. Thefirst consisted of 804 elementary school teachers from across the United States, as described by theMBTI® Manual (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). The secondcomparison group consisted of 189 female generaleducation teachers in Florida elementary schools (Reid,1999).

Teacher of the Year Award Recipients’ Myers Briggs Personality Profiles

27

RESULTSWe analyzed the MBTI results with the Selection RatioType Table PC Software Version 1. Descriptive dataincluded frequency and percentage of response for each type and for each combination of type preferences.Furthermore, chi-square analysis was used to comparethe ToY sample to the two other groups. The first com-parison group was a sample of 804 nationwide elemen-tary education teachers who showed a preference for teaching as an occupational choice and who hadcompleted the MBTI instrument (Macdaid et al., 1986).The second was a sample of 189 Florida elementaryteachers who also had completed the MBTI instrument(Reid, 1999).

When we compared the ToY scores to the largersample (n = 804) of elementary education teachers, we found a significant difference between groups (p <.01) for the MBTI preference of Sensing (S); Intuition(N); and the combination of traits Intuition–Feeling(NF), Intuition–Perceiving (NP), and Extraversion–Intuition (EN). More importantly, data analysis alsorevealed that the most common type was ENFP (28%).

Chi-square analysis revealed that ENFP and INFJ weresignificantly overrepresented (p < .001 and p < .01,respectively).

When we compared the ToY scores to the smallersample of Florida teachers, the results were the same asin the larger sample for the single-letter type indicators(S and N). Data analysis again showed that pairedattributes of IP, SF, NF, SJ, and NP were significantlyoverrepresented (p < .01). In addition, the ENFP typewas the single most preferred type of ToY candidates (p < .001).

Limitations. With a sample size of only 39, it isdifficult to draw any substantial conclusions regardingtype selection and ToY candidates. This was a smallsample taken from a medium-size school district, andgeneralizations of typology to other districts’ ToY candi-dates should not be inferred. Unpublished research hasbeen completed that examined the Florida League ofTeachers and their MBTI types. The Florida Departmentof Education (2000) is unique in that it has created anorganization of 148 “outstanding practicing educatorsdedicated to assisting the Florida Department of

Table 1. Comparison of Study Samples With Other Samples and Percentage of MBTI Types.

Type Study Samplen = 39

National Samplen = 804

Florida Samplen = 189

ISTJISTPESTPESTJISFJISFPESFPESFJINFJINFPENFPENFJINTJINTPENTPENTJ

10.260.000.007.695.130.000.005.13

15.380.00

28.2112.80

5.135.135.130.00

10.701.740.878.46

17.914.735.72

12.445.104.60

10.207.212.111.491.495.22

10.103.201.105.30

29.604.807.90

12.704.204.805.306.402.101.100.501.10

*Underlined percentages indicate a significant difference (p < .001) between the study sample and the identified sample.

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 66, April 2006

The Sixteen Complete Types

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJn = 4 n = 2 n = 6 n = 2(10.26%) (5.13%) (15.38%) (5.13%)I = 0.96 I = 0.29 I = 3.02* I = 2.43+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + +

ISTP ISFP INFP INTPn = 0 n = 0 n = 0 n = 2(0.00%) (0.00%) (0.00%) (5.13%)I = 0.00 I = 0.00 I = 0.00 I = 3.44

+ + + + +

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTPn = 0 n = 0 n = 11 n = 2(0.00%) (0.00%) (28.21%) (5.13%)I = 0.00 I = 0.00 I = 2.77*** I = 3.44

+ + + + + + + + + ++ + + + ++ + + + ++ + + + ++ + + + ++ + +

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJn = 3 n = 2 n = 5 n = 0(7.69%) (5.13%) (12.82%) (0.00%)I = 0.91 I = 0.41 I = 1.78 I = 0.00+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + +

+ + +

Dichotomous Preferences

E 23 (58.97%) I = 1.14I 16 (41.03%) I = 0.85

S 11 (28.21%) ***I = 0.45N 28 (71.79%) ***I = 1.92

T 13 (33.33%) I = 1.04F 26 (66.67%) I = 0.98

J 24 (61.54%) I = 0.89P 15 (38.46%) I = 1.25

Pairs and Temperaments

IJ 14 (35.90%) I = 1.00IP 2 (5.13%) I = 0.41EP 13 (33.33%) I = 1.82EJ 10 (25.64%) I = 0.77

ST 7 (17.95%) I = 0.82SF 4 (10.26%) ***I = 0.25NF 22 (56.41%) ***I = 2.08NT 6 (15.38%) I = 1.49

SJ 11 (28.21%) **I = 0.57SP 0 (0.00%) *I = 0.00NP 15 (38.46%) ***I = 2.16NJ 13 (33.33%) *I = 1.70

TJ 9 (23.08%) I = 0.87TP 4 (10.26%) I = 1.83FP 11 (28.21%) I = 1.12FJ 15 (38.46%) I = 0.90

IN 10 (25.64%) *I = 1.93EN 18 (46.15%) ***I = 1.91IS 6 (15.38%) **I = 0.44ES 5 (12.82%) *I = 0.47

ET 5 (12.82%) *I = 0.47EF 18 (46.15%) ***I = 1.91IF 8 (20.57%) I = 1.20IT 8 (20.57%) I = 1.20

MBTI Differences between Teacher of the Year Recipients and Elementary School Teachers

Jungian Types (E) Jungian Types (I) Dominant Typesn % Index n % Index n % Index

E–TJ 3 7.69 n.a. I–TP 2 5.13 n.a. Dt. T 5 12.82 n.a.E–FJ 7 17.95 n.a. I–FP 0 0.00 n.a. Dt. F 7 17.95 n.a.ES–P 0 0.0 n.a. IS–J 6 15.38 n.a. Dt. S 6 15.38 n.a.EN–P 13 33.33 n.a. IN–J 8 20.51 n.a. Dt. N 21 53.85 n.a.

Table 2. Type Distribution of Florida’s Teacher of the Year Recipients and SRTT Comparison With 804 Elementary School Teachers Taken From Atlas of Type Tables.

N = 39 + = 1% of N *p < .01 **p < .01 ***p < .001

28

Teacher of the Year Award Recipients’ Myers Briggs Personality Profiles

Education and public schools throughout the state withschool improvement” (p. 8). The Florida League ofTeachers (FLoT) was founded in 1993 and wasdesigned primarily to support educational reform byidentifying the most effective teachers in the state. Theseteachers help to coordinate professional development,become model teachers, provide training, and help inthe facilitating and coaching of other teachers’ profes-sional development.

When the MBTI types of Florida League ofTeachers members (n = 58) were com-pared to the national random sample(n = 804), overrepresentations ofENFP and ENTP were revealed, simi-lar to the results of the present study.

A second possible limitation tothis study may be in the selectionprocess of the ToY candidate and the assumption, albeit reasonable,that the ToY selection process trulydesignates the most effective teachers.Although open to all teachers within aschool, the process may favor theextraverted personalities, particularlythe ENFPs, who tend to be more forthcoming, enter-prising, and articulate in expressing their personal andeducational views. Additionally, the NF teachers tend tobe warm and compassionate educators whose intuitiveprocessing also may aid them in the selection process.Also, effective teaching is a complex and multidimen-sional issue. Work by Murray, Rushton, and Paunonem(1990) and Feldman (1986) suggests that other factorsmay be involved, such as the interactive nature of theteachers and students’ personality types and the instruc-tional content.

DISCUSSIONLawrence (1979) first reported on teachers’ MBTI typesby examining 5,366 teachers. Although he did notspecify the level of teaching (i.e., elementary, middle, orsecondary), he did report that the most commonpersonality type was ESFJ. Later, Macdaid et al. (1986)reported that of 804 teachers, nearly 50% had acombined preference for S and J. The second mostfavored combination was SF (40.8%) and thus the themost common type was ISFJ (17.9%). Of four possiblecombinations, the third least likely to be found inelementary school teachers was NP (17.8%). In theMacdaid et al. sample, only 10.2% were ENFPs. These

researchers also sampled 100 preschool teachers,obtaining similar results. Forty-one percent of thesample preferred S and J and, again, the ISFJ profileaccounted for the largest (20%) percentage of all types.The NP combination was the third least observed.

Similar results occurred in other studies using theMBTI instrument. Although smaller samples were used(n = 122 and n = 153), Hinton and Stockburger (1991)and Marso and Pigge (1990) reported that the mostcommon type among preservice teachers was ESFJ.

More recently, Reid (1999) sampled189 Florida elementary teachers andconcluded that 57.7% preferred bothS and J. And, similar to the largersample discussed above, the secondmost favored combination in Reid’sstudy was SF at 55.0%. The ISFJ pro-file, therefore, accounted for 29.6% ofthe total teachers. In contrast, theleast preferred, at 11.6%, was the NPcombination, with the ENFP typeaccounting for only 5.3% of the sam-ple. Therefore, it appears that thetypical elementary teacher has a

preference for both S and J and a combined ISFJ profile,not the ENFP type observed in our sample of district-level ToY candidates.

As we stated previously, we believe that this read-ily available ToY pool can provide a rich resource for theidentification and study of personality characteristics ofteachers considered highly effective. Therefore, in orderto relate our findings to the identification of effectiveteaching practices, we now discuss the ISFJ and ENFPpersonality types in more detail and how these typesmay differently approach teaching and the learningprocess. We follow this discussion with possibleexplanations, grounded in current research on brain-based learning, for why ENFPs seem to be over-represented in the ToY sample.

ISFJ Teachers. As mentioned above, almost athird of elementary school teachers fit the ISFJ profile,and over 57% of elementary teachers have a preferencefor S and J. The ISFJs have been described as peoplewho have an “abiding respect and sense of personalresponsibility for doing what needs to be done in thehere and now” (Martin, 1997, p. 18). Martin furtherstated that ISFJs often have a realistic approach to life,are well organized, and have a respect and command ofthe facts leading to thorough attention in completing

29

”“Team building,

class discussion, andsupporting of divergent

thinking would betypical classroom

strategies seen in anENFP teacher.

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 66, April 2006

tasks. Hirsh and Kummerow (1997) described ISFJs aspragmatic, conscientious, and sympathetic individualswho operate well when rules are well defined.

Fairhurst and Fairhurst (1995) suggested that the ISFJ teacher is considerate, dedicated, and service-minded. They indicated that the ISFJ teacher prefers acalm atmosphere to work in and would have a tendencyto use pencil and paper drills, workbook assignments,and a “quiet desk work approach” to learning as theirmain means of teaching. Further, ISFJ teachers prefernot to have surprises in their classrooms and will createa protective environment in which change is kept to aminimum; they have a strong need tokeep things under control and do notbelieve that things need to be changedif they work. “Preservation, preven-tion, and protection is a natural way oflife for them” (p. 61).

ENFP Teachers. In contrast,research on ENFPs indicates thatteachers with a preference forExtraversion, Intuition, Feeling, andPerceiving are typically energetic,enthusiastic people who lead sponta-neous and adaptable lives (Martin,1997). They have an orientation to theouter world of possibilities, and theirintuition often draws them to newways of doing things, even if it meansdoing some old things in a new way.ENFPs also tend to be creative, active,and imaginative, with an optimistic eye to the future.Hirsh and Kummerow (1997) suggested that these indi-viduals bring “zest, joy, liveliness, and fun to all aspectsof their living. They are at their best in situations that arefluid and changing, and that allow them to express theircreativity and use their charisma” (p. 195).

As a whole, ENFPs tend to be “concerned withpersonal growth, identity and authenticity, both forthemselves and for others” (Martin, 1997, p. 36).Possibly viewed as gregarious in nature, they often areperformers, seen as catalysts for change and generatorsof enthusiasm. Although independent-minded andintolerant of routine, they are often viewed as warm,charming, and friendly. Fairhurst and Fairhurst (1995)suggested that as teachers, those with the ENFP orien-tation would have a dramatic flair to their lectures, andyet, allow for student interruptions and individuality.Team building, class discussion, and supporting of

divergent thinking would be typical classroom strategiesseen in an ENFP teacher. Fairhurst and Fairhurst foundthat ENFP teachers often are

warm and enthusiastic teachers who can beinspirational for their students. They are able tocast new light on the unnoticed aspects of every-day life. They are excellent at building new sets of cultural expectation with students who havediverse backgrounds. Their avid curiosity adds aspark of life to the classroom. (p. 10)

How the Brain Learns. The past decade has seena substantial increase in seminars,conferences, and published researchrelated to how the brain best learns.Cognitive psychologists (Gardner,1993; Goleman, 1995), neuroscien-tists (Diamond & Hopson, 1998;Sylwester, 1997), and educators(Caine & Caine, 1991, 1997a;Jensen, 1998) are contributing newinsights as to strategies to help thedeveloping mind learn more effec-tively. Undergirding many of thesefindings is the important role ofemotions and the delicate balancethat exists in the learning processbetween perceived stress and creatinga positive challenge for students.Professional educators are beginningto link these findings to classroom

management and learning environments as well as todevelopmentally appropriate practices of youngchildren (Rushton & Larkin, 2001).

Some of the recent findings in brain research arebeginning to provide specific implications for teachingmore effectively and creating classroom environmentsthat support the child’s natural capacity to learn.Rushton and Larkin (2001) proposed that brainresearch will “help provide educators with strategiesthat can stimulate specific areas of the brain (i.e., thethalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and the frontalcortex) in order to gain the learner’s attention, fostermeaningful connections with prior understanding, andmaximize both short and long-term memory” (p. 26).Caine and Caine (1997b) hypothesized that memory is affected by attention, which is driven by emotion. We suggest that those students who are “emotionallyinvested” in the learning process, when provided

30

”“. . . students who are

‘emotionally invested’ in the learning process,

when providedreasonable choices

and given importantresponsibilities in theday-to-day routines

and expectations of theclassroom, learn best.

Teacher of the Year Award Recipients’ Myers Briggs Personality Profiles

31

reasonable choices and given important responsibilitiesin the day-to-day routines and expectations of the class-room, learn best. At a neurophysiological level, thebrain releases various steroids, hormones, and neuro-transmitters that create within the child/learner/adultpositive emotions, which, in turn, help focus attentionand ultimately aid in long-term memory.

The brain’s emotional center, the amygdala, is tiedto the ability to learn. Emotions, learning, and memoryare closely linked as different parts of the brain are acti-vated in the learning process (Jensen, 1998). Caine andCaine, (1997b) believe that positive emotions driveattention, which, in turn, promotes both learning andmemory and that high levels of stress, or a perceivedthreat, will inhibit learning.

Sears et al. (1997) suggested that it is unlikely thatthe sensing, feeling, judging teacher (the most typicalpreference type for elementary school teachers) wouldlead the next reform movement or be tomorrow’s leaderin the field of education. The SFJ teacher is noted fororder and step-by-step delivery of information and con-tent. The familiar adage that “if something works, thenthere’s no need to change or adapt it” appropriately fitsteachers with SFJ preferences. These teachers do have ahigh degree of respect for order, the concrete, and thestatus quo and can become uncomfortable with the dis-order, uncertainty, and confusion that often accompanychange (Fairhurst & Fairhurst, 1995). The questionthen arises as to the “atmosphere” these teachers createin their learning environment. Do these teachers createa challenging environment with many possibilities andstimulating changes to entice, enhance, and keep stu-dents with various learning styles motivated? Or, dothey continue to teach in a manner that works best forthe teachers themselves?

We speculate that ENFP teachers are more likely tocreate an atmosphere that is challenging, exciting, andstimulating—one in which students’ emotions areheightened and learning is perceived as fun, exciting,and challenging. Creating unique and challenging situ-ations—ones in which the students take responsibilityfor their learning—is critical. We know that learning isa whole process and that stimulating the various por-tions of the brain helps to foster long-term memory.ENFP teachers are typically more open to change, opento possibilities, willing to relinquish control, and oftenare perceived as being exciting, open, and clearlyexpressive in their actions. ENFPs are more likely tohave children engage in hands-on projects than ISFJ

teachers. It seems plausible that because of their uniquepreferences, ENFP teachers are capable of creating alearning environment that offers opportunities, chal-lenge, and a strong emotional support system, all ofwhich are identified in the brain literature as importantto how the brain best learns.

We are not suggesting that teachers who have apreference for ISFJ are not excellent teachers. All of the16 types bring their unique strengths with them to theclassroom. In this study, only 2 of the 39 ToY recipientswere ISFJs. In speculating as to why a large percentageof ENFPs emerged in this study and in the FloridaLeague of Teachers study, we suggest that the personal-ity preferences of the ENFPs may lead to implementa-tions of teaching techniques identified as effective in thebrain research literature. Such effective practice is morelikely to attract the attention of pleased parents, admin-istrators, and other teachers who then nominate theseteachers for ToY. Also, the dynamic personality prefer-ences of the ENFP may result in the willingness of theseteachers to step forward, be recognized, and take on ToYresponsibilities (speeches, trainings, conferences, etc.).

Sanders and Horn (1998) indicated that the singlemost important factor in determining student academicsuccess is the classroom teacher. Using mixed-modelmethodologies, these researchers conducted a multi-variate, longitudinal analysis linking students and stu-dent outcomes to the schools and systems in which theywere enrolled. Also included in the analysis were theteachers to whom they were assigned as they advancedfrom grade to grade. The analysis simultaneously con-sidered the influences of intraclassroom heterogeneity,student achievement level, and class size on academicgrowth. Sanders and Horn concluded:

Teacher effects are dominant factors affectingstudent academic gain and that the classroomcontext variables of heterogeneity among studentsand class sizes have relatively little influence on academic gain. The teacher effects on studentachievement have been found to be both additiveand cumulative with little evidence that subse-quent effective teachers can offset the effects ofineffective ones. (p. 254)

CONCLUSIONSGiven the importance the classroom teacher plays in therole of student success, it is surprising that little researchhas been conducted on local, state, or national ToYaward recipients—teachers deemed highly effective.

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 66, April 2006

Shanoski and Hranitz (1991) analyzed the responses of 48 National ToY recipients from 35 states. Theyfound that the teachers had 16–20 years of teachingexperience; achieved educational levels equal to orbeyond a master’s degree; combined coursework withclassroom demands; gave teacher education programsbelow average to good ratings; supported the use ofmentors; and considered subject matter knowledge,love of children, and excellent communication skills as the most important teacher characteristics. Theoutstanding teachers also identified the five mostimportant tasks for teachers as (a) challenging andmotivating students, (b) affirming and supportingstudents in their learning efforts, (c) checking forstudent comprehension and providing feedback, (d)selecting appropriate learning activities, and (e) activelylistening to students. Other than Shanoski and Hranitz’sstudy, no research has attempted to classify the person-ality characteristics of ToY recipients and to describetheir views of teaching effectiveness.

The results of our study suggest that ENFPteachers are more likely to be chosen as Teacher of the Year award recipients. Obviously, the study waslimited by the small sample size (39). Also, this studywas restricted to recipients at the district level. Inaddition to the need to conduct similar research at boththe state and national levels, further research in this areamight be designed to explore the personality types ofteachers deemed “District Teacher of the Year” with theachievement gains of their students.

Although generalizations are not possible giventhe small sample size, our findings do indicate a signif-icant difference between the MBTI preferences of ele-mentary school teachers as a whole and teachersselected as ToY. As educators and communities strive toimprove student outcomes, perhaps efforts to identifyteacher effectiveness can be assisted through study of the personality types of a readily available pool of teachers publicly identified as effective—Teachers of the Year.

32

REFERENCES

Barrett, L. A. (1991). Impact of teacher personality on classroomenvironment. Journal of Psychological Type, 18, 50–56.

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1991). Teaching the human brain.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment Press.

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997a). Education on the edge of possi-bility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development Press.

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997b). Unleashing the power of percep-tual change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development Press.

Diamond, M., & Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind: How tonurture your child’s intelligence, creativity, and healthy emotionsfrom birth through adolescence. New York: Penguin Putman.

Fairhurst, A. M., & Fairhurst, L. L. (1995). Effective teaching effec-tive learning: Making the personality connection in your class-room. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Feldman, K. A. (1986). The perceived instructional effectiveness ofcollege teachers as related to their personality and attitudinalcharacteristics: A review and synthesis. Research in HigherEducation, 24(2), 139–213.

Fisher, D. L., & Kent, H. B. (1998). Association between teacherpersonality and classroom environment. Journal of ClassroomInteraction, 33(1), 5–13.

Flaitz, J. (1987, November). Non-academic indicators of teachereffectiveness: A review of the literature. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational ResearchAssociation, Mobile, AL.

Florida Department of Education. (2000). Teacher of the Year selec-tion guidelines. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Fraser, B. J., Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Assessmentof learning environments: Manual for Learning EnvironmentInventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI) (3rd ed.). Perth, Western Australia: Western Australian Institute ofTechnology.

Gage, N. L. (Ed.). (1963). Handbook of research on teaching.Chicago: Rand McNally.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice.New York: Basic Books.

Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1963). The teacher’s personality. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching(pp. 506–581). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter morethan I.Q. New York: Bantam.

Grindler, M. C., & Stratton, B. D. (1990). The Myers-Briggs TypeIndicator and its relationship to teaching and learning styles.Action in Teacher Education, 12(1), 31–34.

Hinton, S., & Stockburger, M. (1991). Personality trait and profes-sional choice among preservice teachers in eastern Kentucky(Research paper presented at Eastern Kentucky University).(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341672)

Hirsh, S. K., & Kummerow, J. M. (1997). LIFETypes. New York:Warner Books.

Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelopmentPress.

Kent, H. B., & Fisher, D. L. (1997, March). Associations betweenteacher personality and classroom environment. Paper pre-sented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document

Teacher of the Year Award Recipients’ Myers Briggs Personality Profiles

33

Reproduction Service No. ED 407395)

Lawrence, G. (1979). People types and tiger stripes: A practical guideto learning styles. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications ofPsychological Type.

Macdaid, G. P., McCaulley, M. H., & Kainz, R. I. (1986). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator atlas of type tables. Gainesville, FL:Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

Marso, R. N., & Pigge, F. L. (1990, October). The identification ofacademic, personal, and affective predictors of student teachingperformance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theMidwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341651)

Martin, C. R. (1997). Looking at type: The fundamentals. Gainesville,FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

Meisgeier, C. H., & Richardson, R. C. (1996). Personality types ofinterns in alternative teacher certification programs. TheEducational Forum, 60, 350–360.

Murray, H. G., Rushton, J. P., & Paunonem, S. V. (1990). Teacherpersonality traits and student instructional ratings in sixtypes of university courses. Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 250–261.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to thedevelopment and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. PaloAlto, CA: CPP, Inc.

Pankratius, W. J. (1997). Preservice teachers construct a view onteaching and learning styles. Action in Teacher Education, 18,68–76.

Reid, J. B. (1999). The relationship among personality type, cop-ing strategies, and burnout in elementary teachers. Journal ofPsychological Type, 51, 22–33.

Rojewski, J. W. & Holder, B. H. (1990). Personality type profiles ofstudents in vocational education teacher preparationprograms. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 15(2),77–91.

Rushton, J. P., & Murray, H. G. (1985). On assessment of teachingeffectiveness in British universities. Bulletin of the BritishPsychological Society, 38, 361–365.

Rushton, S. (2001). Applying brain research to create developmen-tally appropriate learning environments. Young Children, 56,76–82.

Rushton, S., & Larkin, L. (2001). Shaping the learning environ-ment: Connecting brain research to developmentally appro-priate practices. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 25–33.

Ryan, D. G. (1960). Characteristics of teachers. Washington, DC:American Council on Education.

Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1998). Research findings from theTennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) data-base: Implications for educational evaluation and research.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256.

Sears, S. J., Kennedy, J. J., Kaye, G. L. (1997). Myers-Briggs person-ality profiles of prospective educators. The Journal ofEducational Research, 90(4), 195–202.

Sergiovanni, T., & Starrett, R. (1988). Supervision human perspec-tives (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shanoski, L. A., & Hranitz, J. R. (1991, February). A foundation forexcellence in teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 356212)

Sprague, M. M. (1997). Personality type matching and studentteacher evaluation. Contemporary Education, 69, 54–57.

Sylwester, R. (1997). The neurobiology of self-esteem and aggres-sion. Educational Leadership, 54(5), 75–79.

C O N TA C T

Stephen Rushton received his Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He supervises student teachers and teaches courses in research, elementary education methods, and the writing process. He is presently working with two Professional Development Schools in Sarasota County while working with Masters of Education students.Dr. Rushton was previously a public school elementary teacher for 12 years in Ontario, Canada and Oakridge,Tennessee. He is currently conducting research on teacher effectiveness, brain-based teaching approaches, andpersonality types using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® instrument. Dr. Rushton recently received the OutstandingUndergraduate Teaching Award by his peers at the University of South Florida—Sarasota/Manatee, as well as theOutstanding Professor Award from the 2003 graduating class.

Tanice Y. Knopp currently is an Assistant Professor at the University of South Florida in the Department of SpecialEducation. She teaches in the undergraduate and graduate programs and is coordinator of the MA program in SpecialEducation. Her primary work is in the areas of (a) teaching children with severe emotional/behavioral disorders and(b) special education teacher preservice and in-service professional development. Her areas of research include (a) teacher beliefs and practice, (b) beginning teacher and mentor teacher needs, (c) transdisciplinary programmingfor students with severe and complex needs, and (d) reflection in teacher education. Dr. Knopp also has been activelyengaged in developing and facilitating formal collaborative partnerships among school districts and the university. Dr.Knopp is Principle Investigator on the USF Regional Professional Development Partnership grant and on theTransdisciplinary/TAT Project grant. Currently she is conducting a number of research projects in special educationclassrooms in three school districts.

R. Lee Smith is Associate Dean in the School of Education at Indiana University South Bend and Associate Professorin the Special Education program. In the past, Lee has worked as a teacher of students with mental retardation,emotional disabilities and autism. He has also been a school system curriculum specialist and assistant principal. He teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in the special education areas of mild disabilities, autism, and lowincidence disabilities. His primary research interests are teacher education with emphasis on professional dispositionsin education and special education teacher education.

Stephen Rushton, Ph. D.University of South Florida

5700 North Tamiami Trail, PMC217Sarasota, FL 34243

(941) 359-4345

srushton@sar.usf.edu

This Journal is being made available through the collaborative efforts of Dr. Tom Carskadon, Editor of the Journal of Psychological Type, andthe Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc., CAPT, worldwide publisher.

Journal of Psychological Type is a trademark or registered trademark of Thomas G. Carskadon in the United States and other countries.

CAPT is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to the meaningful application and ethical use of psychological type as measured through theMyers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust inthe United States and other countries.

Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. and CAPT are trademarks or registered trademarks of the Center for Applications ofPsychological Type in the United States and other countries.

Copyright © 2006 by Thomas G. Carskadon, Editor.

ISSN 0895-8750.

Journal of Psychological Type®, Volume 66, April 2006

34