How Psychological Type Affects College Success
by John L. Roeder
At almost every recent Technological Literacy Conference, John Wilkes of Worcester Polytechnic Institute has reported on his continuing research on the relationship between cognitive styles and psychological types of students and their preferences for types of science courses. With Wilkes hosting the Twelfth National STS Meeting at Worcester, he arranged for two plenary talks focusing on the role of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). On 8 March 1997 Mary McCaulley, President of the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, addressed "The Implications of Psychological Type for Education That Values Differences." On 9 March Keith McCormick of Comprehensive College Preparation Services addressed "What do the WPI PSAT/SAT Studies Tell us About Student Aptitude; Learning Styles; and the Average Performance of Schools and Ethnic Groups?"
The MBTI was developed by Katharine C. Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, based on Carl Jung's theory of psychological types. Myers founded the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, over which McCaulley now presides. The indicator classifies people by one of two different possibilities in four different ways, leading to 16 types -- or, as McCaulley put it, "16 ways of saying I'm OK, you're OK." She displayed the 16 types in a 4 x 4 grid, with special emphasis on combinations of two classifications and their locations in the grid.
Of special interest were the first two classifications: Extroversion (E) vs. Introversion (I); and Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N). Only 30-40% of the general population are Introverted (I, the top half of the grid); and only 25-35% of the general population are Intuitive (N, the right half of the grid). Yet, as McCormick later reported, the four highest-scoring Myers Briggs psychological types on the SATs have been the four "IN" types (on the upper right quadrant of the grid). McCaulley characterized these types as interested in "knowledge for its own sake."
Focusing on N vs. S, McCormick reported from his analysis of responses to all October 1995 SAT questions for 2500 students in six Worcester area high schools that SAT scores are also higher for students taking "tough" courses:
S N Some AP 1080 1120 Honors 936 1017 Some Honors 801 883 Combined SAT scores in McCormick's sample for "S" and "N" students
McCormick explained this difference by observing that the "S" and "N" students are on an equal footing with routine problems, but "N" students have an advantage with nonroutine problems. A nonroutine problem for a student in general courses could be a routine problem for a student in "tough" courses. McCormick also attributed ethnically-related score differences to different proportions of ethnic groups in "tough" courses and different MBTI distributions among different ethnic groups. He also said that psychological type affects student choice of teachers and thus can affect whether a student takes "tough" courses.
Following McCormick's presentation, I was led to share the following conclusions: Two influences on SAT scores had been demonstrated: the level of high school courses taken and "N" vs. "S" in the MBTI. If the MBTI of a person cannot be changed, I reasoned, the only variable under the control of a high school student is the level of courses taken. And though the MBTI may not be changeable, it can be taken into account in teaching, especially in the "tough" courses. Moreover, taking variations in the MBTI into account is important in teaching not only at the high school level but also at the college level (so that the assessment system is not biased in favor of "IN"s).
Home Spring 97 Full Screen
The TEACHERS CLEARINGHOUSE FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY EDUCATION