Relationship between personality type and achievement in an undergraduate physiology course

GERALD D. THARP School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588

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 Myers- Briggs 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 extra- verted (E) and perceptive (P) types had the lowest grades and dropped out of the course in the largest numbers. When com- binations 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.

Myers-Briggs type indicator; cognitive learning styles; science teaching

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 sub- ject matter presented in their course. This inability to reach all students causes much frustration and soul- searching as to the cause of student failure. One possi- bility is that an individuals personality type can in- crease 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 person- ality type and has been developed over the past 50 years by Myers (6). It identifies individuals along four dichot- omous 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 (sensing- intuition): Do they perceive the real, practical facts of life with their senses or use intuition, imagination, and in- spiration 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 em- pathy and feelings? 4) J-P (judgment-perception): Does the person prefer to live in a decisive, planned, and or- derly way or in a spontaneous, flexible manner?

A persons MBTI profile consists of scores on each of

the four two-part scales, thus yielding 16 possible person- ality types (e.g., ESTJ, INFP, etc.).

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON PERSONALITY AND ACHIEVEMENT

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 pre- pared, 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). Combi- nations 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 rela- tionships were also found in a later study of 2,906 stu- dents (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 ap- pears 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 ad- vantage 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 stu- dents 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 behav- ioral sciences. Rowe (7) reported similar findings when the MBTI was given to 314 high school students in sum- mer science research programs at the University of Flor- ida and to 306 public high school students from a small Florida school. The summer research students were pre- dominantly I types, whereas the public school students were mainly S types. Melear (5) gave the MBTI to 673 nonmajor undergraduate students in an introductory bi- ology course that used a structured learning environment with defined goals and deadlines. Melear found the typi- cal nonmajor could be described as an ESFP type: inter- ested 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

1043-4046/92 $2.00 Copyright 0 1992 the American Physiological Society Sl

AND ACHIEVEMENT 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 rela- tionship 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

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 ana- lyze 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 combina- tions chosen for analysis were those previously reported as hav- ing some effect on academic achievement. The 43 students who did not finish the course were compared with 41 students re- ceiving 172 or higher total points (A+, A, B+ grades) as to the number of persons in selected personality type categories.

RESULTS

Comparisons of the total course points for selected per- sonality 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 prob- ability is adjusted for running multiple t tests using the Bonferroni equation (a! = O.O5/number of t tests), signif- icant comparisons were I > E and IJ > EP.

Table 1. Professional goals of the students in human physiology class

Profession No. of Students

Medicine 60 Physical education 18 Physical therapy 17 Biology 15 Nursing 13 Undecided 11 Exercise science 10 Nutrition 8 Pharmacy 6 Speech pathology 5 Medical technology 5 Education 4 Physicians assistant 4 Veterinary medicine 4 Microbiology 3 Occupational therapy 3 Miscellaneous 20

Table 2. t Test analysis of achievement between different MBTI types

Personality Types Compared

N Mean Total Points

SD Two-Tail Probability

E I

83 80

88 75

98 65

90 73

29 35

29 45

15 35

15 45

31 44

42 44

44 27

27 47

31 47

39 46

10 14

137.7 155.9

32.5 o.ooo* 29.3

147.4 33.2 145.7 31.1

0.741

33.0 30.4

0.099

151.0 31.5 141.2 32.4

0.052

147.9 35.4 158.1 27.2

147.9 35.4 154.2 31.1

0.201

0.428

143.6 25.1 158.1 27.2

0.084

25.1 0.239 31.1

30.7 31.7

0.675

160.3 31.3 144.4 31.7

31.7 29.5

0.0227

0.235

147.5 30.7 158.5 32.8

127.8 30.3 155.4 30.6

154.1 33.2 124.5 26.2

0.017.f

0.182

o.ooo*

0.023t

S N

T F

150.0 141.5

J P

ES IN

ES IS

EN IN

EN IS

143.6 154.2

NF NT

147.5 144.4

SJ NT

NT SF

SF ST

144.4 139.9

139.9 158.5

NF ST

EP IJ

INJ 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

PERSONALITY TYPES AND ACHIEVEMENT s3

Table 3. Comparison of selected personality types of top 41 students to 43 students who did not finish the course

Personality Types Compared

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

Number of Students

Top students Students dropping in course course

12 25 29 18 25 27 16 16 31 21 10 22 26 15 15 28

4 17 18 7

2 14 12 13 21 13

8 8 8 18

12 9

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). Suc- cess in CA1 courses favor those who can concentrate by themselves, pay attention to details, and stay with a sin- gle 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 stu- dents 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 achieve- ment 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

level combines abstract concepts with many practical ap- plications 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 fa- vors 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 instruc- tors 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 concen- tration and reasoning skills. As teachers we need to em- phasize 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 relation- ship between achievement in physiology and personality type. The study did not take into account other variables that could influence achievement, such as student back- ground in the sciences or years of college completed. Vari- ables 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.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Charlton, R. E. Cognitive style considerations for the improve- ment of biology education. Am. BioZ. Teach. 42: 244,247, 1980. Hoffman, J. L., and K. Waters. Some effects of student per- sonality on success with computer-assisted instruction. E&K. Technol. 22: 20-21, 1982. Lawrence, G. A synthesis of learning style research involving the MBTI. J. Psychol. Type 8: 2-15, 1984. 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. Melear, C. T. Cognitive processes in the Curry learning style framework as measured by the learning style profile and the My- ers-Briggs type indicator among non-majors in biology. Diss. Abstr. Int. 51-1: 127-A, 1990. Myers, I. B., and M. H. McCaulley. Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists, 1985, p. 94-139. Rowe, M. B. Who chooses science? A profile. Sci. Teach. 45: 25-28, 1978. Schurr, K. T., and V. E. Ruble. The Myers-Briggs Type In- dicator and first-year college achievement: a look beyond aptitude test results. J. Psychol. Type 12: 25-37, 1986. 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.