learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
LSRC reference Section 5<br />
page 48/49<br />
On the surface, the theory behind the MBTI appears<br />
to be fairly simple. However, it is actually very complex<br />
and casual users may have problems fully understanding<br />
its implications. According to Myers and Briggs, each<br />
four letter type represents a complex set of relationships<br />
among the functions (S, N,T and F), attitudes (E and I)<br />
and attitudes toward the outer world (J and P). These<br />
various interactions are known as type dynamics.<br />
(Fleenor 2001 9 )<br />
Some commentators in the <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> field prefer<br />
to exclude the MBTI on the grounds that its scope as<br />
a personality measure goes beyond cognitive controls<br />
and behaviour specifically related to <strong>learning</strong>. However,<br />
the scope of the MBTI includes <strong>learning</strong>, and it was<br />
the authors’ intention that it should be a tool to aid<br />
learners (Myers, cited by Di Tiberio 1996). The MBTI<br />
was specifically designed as a tool to categorise<br />
an individual’s personality type in general, and their<br />
approaches to relationships with others. For this<br />
reason, the MBTI differs in tone from other influential<br />
personality trait theories, by being more positive<br />
or neutral in its descriptors. This aspect may account<br />
for its influence in the <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> field, where<br />
theorists who have drawn upon it have tended to<br />
emphasise descriptors of normal behaviour and<br />
reactions, rather than the identification of pathological<br />
traits or tendencies.<br />
Miller (1991, 217) argues for the relevance of the MBTI<br />
in the <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> field, since ‘many well-established<br />
conceptions of “<strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>”, such as Pask’s …<br />
reflect [a] cognitive emphasis … at the expense<br />
of affective and conative’ aspects. Others have tried<br />
to circumvent this problem by selecting the particular<br />
sections of the MBTI that they consider most relevant<br />
to <strong>learning</strong>. For example, Claxton and McIntyre (1994;<br />
Claxton et al. 1996) focus on ‘sensing-intuition and<br />
thinking-feeling … the combination of an individual’s<br />
preferred information-intake mode with the preferred<br />
mode of decision making’ (1994, 752), although there<br />
may be some methodological reservations about this<br />
‘pick and mix’ approach. If the instrument has been<br />
designed to provide a holistic view of the individual,<br />
selecting and omitting scales may prejudice the validity<br />
of its research.<br />
Evaluation: reliability and validity<br />
The face validity of the MBTI is generally accepted<br />
as fairly sound by researchers from personality theory<br />
backgrounds, with the caveat (not accepted by MBTI<br />
researchers, see quote from Quenck 2003 above) that<br />
the omission of neuroticism is a theoretical weakness<br />
(Eysenck and Eysenck 1985).<br />
There has, however, been considerable debate about<br />
the construct validity of the MBTI, particularly in<br />
relation to the bimodality of the four dimensional<br />
scales. Researchers generally agree that bimodality<br />
has not been demonstrated in any of the dimensions<br />
(Hicks 1984; McCrae and Costa 1989); indeed,<br />
some argue that the bipolarity of all four scales is<br />
unsubstantiated. Girelli and Stake (1993) confirm<br />
that introversion-extraversion, sensing-intuition<br />
and thinking-feeling are not incontrovertibly bipolar,<br />
when tested in Lickert format on 165 undergraduate<br />
and postgraduate students, since more than a quarter<br />
of the subjects in their study scored highly on both<br />
pairs of a dimension. They argue (1993, 299) that as<br />
a result of these findings, ‘not only the format of the<br />
MBTI but the theoretical premise of bipolarity and type<br />
differentiation has (sic) been brought into question’.<br />
Bess and Harvey, in their analysis of 48,638 MBTI<br />
questionnaires completed by managers, found (2002,<br />
185) that previous reports of bimodality on all four<br />
scales had been ‘artifacts caused by the particular<br />
number (and location) of the quadrature points used<br />
by default in BILOG’ – in effect, processing errors.<br />
They conclude that ‘the absence of empirical bimodality<br />
… does indeed remove a potentially powerful line<br />
of evidence that was previously available to ‘type’<br />
advocates to cite in defence of their position’.<br />
One of the most telling criticisms is that the<br />
forced-choice format is inappropriate: ‘the ipsative<br />
scores that derive from forced-choice measures tend<br />
to yield negative intercorrelations that are difficult<br />
to interpret’ (Girelli and Stake 1993, 291). Moreover,<br />
if the dimensions are genuinely bipolar, then this will<br />
be evident even when subjects are not forced to choose<br />
(Loomis and Singer 1980). Furthermore, the MBTI<br />
has no lie scale, nor any measures designed to tap into<br />
respondents’ inclination to make socially acceptable<br />
responses (Boyle 1995), although the latter is dealt with<br />
statistically by the IRT selection and scoring method<br />
used for Form M (Quenck 2003).<br />
9<br />
Page numbers are not available for online Buros reports from the<br />
Mental Measurements Yearbooks.