learning-styles

Van’s review (1992) of evidence to predict academic
achievement by MBTI type is able to cite two examples
of successful intervention studies: one used focused
strategies for 2100 students identified as being at
high risk of dropping out of university; the second
used a ‘reading style’ measure with school children
experiencing reading difficulties. Both were intervention
studies without controls and so the risk of a ‘halo’
effect is not excluded. Cooper and Miller (1991) found
that while a degree of ‘match’ between students’
learning styles and lecturers’ teaching styles did
improve evaluations of teacher performance, student
outcomes were not improved. It appears, from this
evidence, that there are few, if any, studies which are
able to show correlations between specific MBTI types
and improved attainment.
Conclusions
Despite the enormous commercial success
of the MBTI, the research evidence to support it –
both as a valid measurement of style and as an aid
to pedagogy – is inconclusive, at best. The extent
to which the MBTI has been accepted as part
of the normal arsenal of measurements has had the
unfortunate result that some of the analytical and
empirical work done with it is uncritical and unreflective.
Also, critically, an instrument which was designed for
use by an individual to extend his or her understanding
of reactions and preferences is increasingly used
by institutions to assess suitability, strengths and
weaknesses. This is not the fault of the authors, though
it is perhaps an inevitable concomitant of commercial
pressures. Moreover, since there is no clear evidence
of how stable the types are over an individual’s lifetime,
nor a clear understanding of how type dynamics
impact on education, the question of the practical
application of MBTI types in pedagogy – whether to aim
for ‘match’ or ‘repertoire enhancement’ – has, as yet,
no clear answer.
Table 14
Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI)
General
Strengths
Provides a view of the whole personality,
including learning.
Weaknesses
Not specifically about learning.
Design of the model
Based on Jung’s theory on four bipolar
scales, producing a possible 16
personality ‘types’.
The relationships between elements
and scales – ‘type dynamics’ – are
extremely complex.
Reliability
Reliability co-efficients are high for
individual pairs of scores relating to
each of the scales.
The stability of the 16 types is less
impressive.
Validity
The face validity of the MBTI is generally
accepted.
Construct validity is controversial
because of the debate about whether
the constructs are best represented by
opposing pairs.
Implications
for pedagogy
The apparent correlation between
achievement and intuitive-judging types
has led to calls for extra support for
sensing types.
The use of type in career counselling is
widespread and has been used to steer
students into ‘appropriate’ areas of
study.
Links between type and methods of
information processing have not been
proved.
There is no evidence to suggest that
matching teacher and learner types has
any positive effects on achievement.
Evidence of
pedagogical impact
There is limited evidence to suggest
that matching teacher and learner types
may increase student affect.
Type does not appear to predict
performance.
The proportion of critical literature, both
reviews of the instrument and the
resolution of the debate about
personality measures in learning styles,
has been seen as too low.
Overall assessment
Key source
It is still not clear which elements of the 16 personality types in the MBTI are most
relevant for education.
Myers and McCaulley 1985