Web-based distance learning is a relatively new approach in higher education which is gaining in popularity. Because a Web-based classroom is so different than a traditional face-to-face classroom, the variables that influence success or satisfaction with such a course may be different than those in a face-to-face course. We investigated whether student performance and satisfaction in an asynchronous, Web-based distance learning course differed based on personality factors (as measured by the Myers Briggs Type Indicator). Twenty-nine students taking an introductory psychology course participated in the study. Results indicate that personality preference has little relationship with student performance, but several dimensions of personality did influence satisfaction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PalloffR. M.PrattK.Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1999
2.
The Institute for Higher Education Policy, What's the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education, Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC, 1999
3.
BoettcherJ. V.The State of Distance Education in the U.S.: Surprising Realities, Syllabus Magazine, pp. 36–40, March 2000
4.
HannaD. E.Higher Education in an Era of Digital Competition: Emerging Organizational Methods, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2, 1998
5.
National Center for Education Statistics, Issue brief: Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions: Incidence, Audiences, and Plans to Expand, 1998
6.
RahmD.ReedB. J.Tangled Webs in Public Administration: Organizational Issues in Distance Learning, Public Administration and Management, 3, 1998
7.
RobertsJ. M.The Story of Distance Education: A Practitioner's Perspective, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, pp. 811–816, 1996
8.
JohnstoneS. M.KrauthB.Balancing quality and access: Some principles of good practice for the university, Change, 28, pp. 38–41, 1996
9.
RussellT. L.The No Significant Difference Phenomenon, Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State University, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1999
10.
SchlosserC.AndersonM.Distance Education: Review of the Literature, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Washington, D.C., 1994
11.
Dietz-UhlerB.Evaluation of Introduction to Psychology Online, unpublished manuscript, Miami University, 1999
12.
GaudW. S.Assessing the Impact of Web Courses, Syllabus Magazine, pp. 49–50, 1999
SchutteJ.Virtual Teaching in Higher Education: The New Intellectual Superhighway or Just Another Traffic Jam?1997 (Available: http://www.csun.edu/sociology/virexp.htm)
15.
BrooksD. W.Web-Teaching: A Guide to Designing Interactive Teaching for the World Wide Web, Plenum Press, New York, 1997
16.
TwiggC.The Need for aNational Learning Infrastructure, Educom Review, 29, 1994
17.
JungC.Psychological Types, Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1923
18.
McCaulleyM. H.The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Jungian Model for Problem Solving, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 30, pp. 37–53, 1987
19.
CampbellD. E.DavisC. L.Improving Learning by Combining Critical Thinking Skills with Psychological Type, School of System and Logistics, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. (Eric No. ED 306 250), 1998
20.
HirshS.KummerowJ.Life Types, Warner Communication, New York, 1989
21.
CarlsonJ.Affirmative: In Support of Researching the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, pp. 484–486, 1989
22.
CarlynM.An Assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, pp. 461–473, 1977
23.
CoanR. W.Critique of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, in The Eighth Mental Measurement Yearbook, BurosO. K. (ed.), Gryphon, Highland Park, New Jersey, pp. 973–975, 1978
24.
DevitoA. J.Review of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, in The Ninth Mental Measurement Yearbook, MitchellJ. (ed.), Gryphon, Highland Park, New Jersey, pp. 1030–1032, 1985
25.
HuberG. P.Cognitive Style as a Basis for MIS and DSS Designs: Much Ado About Nothing, Management Science, 29, pp. 567–576, 1983
26.
MendelsohnG. E.Critique of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, in The Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook, BurosO. K. (ed.), Gryphon, Highland Park, New Jersey, pp. 321–322, 1965
27.
MyersI. B.McCaulleyM. H.Manual: A Guide to Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California, 1989
28.
SundbergN. D.Critique of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, in The Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook, BurosO. K. (ed.), Gryphon, Highland Park, New Jersey, pp. 322–326, 1965
29.
WigginsJ. S.Critique of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, in The Tenth Mental Measurement Yearbook, Gryphon, Highland Park, New Jersey, pp. 537–538, 1989
30.
ZemkeR.Second Thoughts about the MBTI, Training, 29:4, pp. 43–47, 1992
31.
EhrmanM.Psychological Factors and Distance Education, American Journal of Distance Education, 4:1, pp. 10–24, 1990
32.
DavisM. A.HenryM. J.Conative Capacity of Non-Traditional Learners in Two Instructional Settings, Information and Technology (IR018284), 1997
CareyJ. M.KacmarC. K.The Impact of Communication Mode and Task Complexity on Small Group Performance and Member Satisfaction, Computers in Human Behaviour, 13:1, pp. 23–49, 1997
35.
FeldmanR. S.Essentials of Understanding Psychology, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2002
