The resource I’d like to share is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality inventory. In essence it’s a personality test. This week we have been looking at the media debate and whether the medium facilitates learning or it’s all in the instructional method. I’d like to add another dimension to the mix and say that both medium and instructional method need to take into account personality type and learning styles.
Some believe that introverts are naturally drawn to online courses since there is little to no face-to-face interaction (Anitsal et al. 2008; Harrington and Loffredo 2010). Over the course of the last few weeks I have found that the answer is not so simple. While people may be classified as introverts and extraverts, there can be great differentiation even within each category. Naturally with each personality type, various instructional methods and delivery formats will have unique results on learners. For example an active more extraverted learner may prefer discussion board posting and engaging in more interaction with peers. A more reflective and introverted learner may well just prefer to observe a posted lecture video and submit their work individually. Both ways show learning, but assessment may not be equal. Instructional designers need to find a balance in what works for all types of learners.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality inventory can be a tool for learners and instructors alike to identify personality and also learning style. There is no one size fits all in learning, so the more we know about our students, the more prepared we can be to teach them. Through my work in Assignment 2, I hope to learn more about personality types and what are the effects on e-learning (e.g., engagement, achievement, etc.).
See links for more information on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator:
References
Anitsal, M. M., Anitsal, I., Barger, B., Fidan, I., & Allen, M. R. (2008). Student evaluation of course attributes of online courses versus on ground courses: Impact of student personality traits. Proceeding from the Allied Academies International Conference, 13(1), 1–8.
Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 89–95.
Hi George,
I agree that personality instruments for teachers and learners are valuable resources. I use the Keirsey Temperament Sorter (KTS11)and Everything DiSC profiles in my communications consulting practice–for professional development and team-building–and plan my workshops and delivery style to adapt to peoples temperaments and styles.
In my work on Assignment 2, I have come across some research into types of gamers that may interest you. Rita Orji has conducted research into interventions (rewards, praise, competition, etc.) that appeal to people with one of seven gaming styles identified by BrainHex gamer personality test: Seeker, Survivor, Daredevil, Mastermind, Conqueror, Socialiser, and Achiever.
Orji’s research is focused on games-for-change, but I think that the research applies to designing games-for-learning, too, since both of these serious games genres are designed to educate and change a players behaviour . I am including one or more of her articles in my annotated bibliography (I have more empirical articles than I need at the moment).
Here the the articles that I think may interest you. Let me know if you’d like to connect during or after LRNT523. I’m in the TELD program, so I’m not sure if I continue with your cohort for my next courses (LRNT524 & 525).
1) Orji, R., Vassileva, J., & Mandryk, R. (2014). Modeling the efficacy of persuasive strategies for different gamer types in serious games for health. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research,24(5), 453-498. doi:10.1007/s11257-014-9149-8
2) Orji, R., Mandryk, R., & Vassileva, J. (2017, September). Improving the Efficacy of Games for Change Using Personalization Models. ACM Transactions on. Computer-Human Interactions, 24(5). doi:0.1145/3119929g/
3) Nacke, L., Bateman, C., & Mandryk, R. (2014). BrainHex: A neurobiological gamer typology survey. Entertainment Computing, 5(1), 55-62. doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2013.06.002
Hi Fiona,
Great to know I have a subject expert I can turn to. Assignment 2 has really taken up nearly all my time. I would definitely like to connect if we both have time after. I have to admit my knowledge on personality types is quite limited and I decided to look into it to increase my knowledge, but I also feel that it’s overlooked in e-learning as well. Thank you for the articles. Glad to hear you have all yours (more empirical is good!). Hope we can chat soon.
Hi George,
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a very popular tool that is used in so many industries. As Fiona pointed out, there are more tools becoming available as more research is coming out on understanding the importance of personality indicators and working styles. Another tool that I have seen be used is “Strengths Finders” by Marcus Buckingham. Marcus has published many books and different tests. With assessing employee development and building high-performance teams becoming a popular initiative in some organizations, this topic is very relevant.
Hi Laura,
Definitely there are a lot of out there. It’s interesting since you don’t typically get the same results from each survey so I wonder what drives people to use one tool over the other. Kirschner (2017) does not seem to think highly of them, but I’m going to write about that later for Activity 8.
Reference
Kirschner, P. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166-171.