JOURNAL OF ELEMENTARY SCIENCE EDUCATION, Vol. 6, No.2, pp. 31-51, (1994), (C) 1994,College of Education, The Universityof WestFlorida

MATCHING AND MISMATCHINGPRESERVICE TEACHERS'

LEARNING STYLES: KEYS TOEDUCATING FOR INDIVIDUAL

DIFFERENCES

By P. Alan Lennon & Claudia T. Melear, Ph. D.

AbstractLearning styles of elementary education majors inbiology (n=83), measured by the Myers-Briggs TypeIndicator (MBTI), were compared to learning stylesofstudents (n=673) in a general non-majors biologycourse. Recommendationsfor coursesfor elementaryeducation majors were made, which includedincorporating student-led demonstrations andpresentations, a study schedule, instruction withpersonal involvement, television, films and audio­visuals. A program which taught psychological(MBTI) type theory and matched and mismatchedstudents' learning styles was incorporated into abiology course for elementary education majors toeducate them in individual differences. Theprogramfacilitated an increase in the students' decideddominant MBTIfunction scores (p < .04).

31

IntroductionThe need for improving science education at the elementary

level in the United States has been noted for some time (Stake andEasely, 1978). Many elementary teachers feel inadequately preparedto teach science (Weiss, 1987). They also fail to use instructionalstrategies consistently with learning theory (Stake and Easely, 1978;Weiss, 1987). Goodlad (1984) has shown that elementary teachersavoid instructional strategies which research has shown to be effective.Having poor attitudes toward teaching science (Weiss, 1978), manyelementary teachers experience high science teaching anxiety(Czerniak, 1989). Probably because of their anxiety, elementaryteachers spend less time teaching science than any other subject (Husen,1983).

Recommended improvements for preservice instructionregarding the sciences have included providing elementary educationmajors more I) science content courses, 2) science methods courses,and 3) laboratory courses (Donnellan, 1982). Czerniak (1989) addedthat elementary educators also need to possess knowledge of the useofappropriate instructional strategies. For example, Atwater (1989)predicts the simultaneous increase of minority students and decreaseof minority teachers in the 21st Century. Since minority childrenfrequently have learning styles which differ from their teachers (Hale­Benson, 1986), preservice teachers need exposure to teachingstrategies both matched and explicitlymismatched to their own learningstyles.

Boersma, Kienholz, Jevne, and Chapman (1990) have shownthat teaching psychological type theory, such as the theory whichunderpins the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, to elementary teachersprovides a scenario for educating them about appropriate usage ofinstructional strategies. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) isa psychological test based upon Carl Jung's Psychological Types andthe additional work ofKatherine C. Briggs and Isabel Briggs-Myers(1921). Teaching psychological (MBT!) type theory to elementaryteachers lessened teaching anxiety in general and promoted betterunderstanding of individual differences both within students and the

32

teacher (Boersma et al., 1990). These elementary teachers had moreconfidence in themselves, in their teaching effectiveness, and in theimplementation of new strategies for individualizing instruction.

In this present study, preservice elementary teachers weretaught psychological (MBTI) type theory as part of a "treatment"program which was incorporated into a biology course specificallydesigned for them. The program was administered with the intent ofincreasing students' self-awareness of their own learning styles, aswell as introducing them to differing learning styles, while providingbiology content instruction. The strategies which were employed inthe program as well as the effects ofthe program are presented in thisreport.

When learning psychological (MBTI) type theory, studentsare given their 4-letter MBTI profiles after taking the MBTI, a self­report inventory. Each letter indicates a person's outcome in each ofthe following dichotomous categories: Extraversion(E)/Introversion(I), Sensing(S)/Intuitive(N), Thinking(T)/Feeling(F), andJudging(J)/Perceiving(P). These four dichotomous categories resultin 16 different 4-letter combinations representing 16 psychologicaltypes, which reflect normal differencesamong individualsin the generalpopulation (Myers, 1980). These combinations are: ISTJ, ISFJ, ISTP,ISFP, INFJ, INTJ, INFP, INTP, ESTP, ESFP, ESTJ, ESFJ, ENFP,ENTP, ENFJ, and ENTJ.

These normal differences among individuals hint at possibledifferences in the way that they prefer to learn. For example, it seemslikely that extraverts would prefer to study in groups and do projectswith others, while the introvert might prefer working alone. Morganreports (in Lawrence, 1987) an analysis of the most preferredinstructional strategies of each of the 16 MBTI types. For example,the INTP individual is a global learner and needs help in coming toclosure (due to the influences ofthe NP preferences). The INTP likesreading and listening, and wants to consider theory first, thenapplications (N preference). This learner is good at paper-and-penciltests (NT preferences), prefers open-end instruction (N preference),enjoys working alone (I preference), and likes autonomy (NP

33

preferences). McCaulley and Natter (1974), Curry (1983) and Claxtonand Murrell (1987) also concluded that personality, as measured bythe MBTI, is a predictor of instructional preference.

The four categories generated by grouping the sixteen MBTIprofiles by function combinations, represented by the 2 middle lettersof the 4-letter MBTI profiles, are the ST types, SF types, NF types,and the NT types. Lawrence, in synthesizing learning style researchrelated to the MBTI, presents those learning preferences associatedwith these 4 categories.

Table 1

Learning Preferences Associated Witll MBTI Types ByFunction Combinations

ST Typesdemonstrationslabstelevisionhaving a plan and sticking to itlectureaudiovisuals

NFTypeslearn through personal relationshipsdislike impersonal, didactic

instructionhighly value faculty feedbackvalue student enthusiasmlow-friction student-led discussionsopportunities to be creative and

spontaneous

34

SF Typesstudent-led demonstrationsstudent-led presentationsinstruction with personal

involvementtelevisionfilms and audiovisualshaving a study schedule

NT Typesorganized teacher lecturesself-instructionreadingsystematically organized

courses

Lawrence, G. (1984).

Lawrence's (1984) synthesis of learning style researchinvolving the MBTI is useful for designing instructional programswhich match and mismatch the instructional preferences of studentsin attempt to educate them for individual differences. Lawrence'ssynthesis is also useful for comparing the MBTI-measured learningpreferences of groups of students, such as elementary educationmajors, with the learning preferences of other groups, and can beused for making recommendations for employing appropriateinstructional strategies when instructing groups with differing learningpreferences.

One opportunity for introducing psychologicaltype theory withthe MBTI into preservice elementary teacher preparation is in courseswhere the students are grouped by major, as in methods courses orany content-area course designed specifically for the elementaryeducation major. When grouped according to major, elementaryeducation majors are somewhat homogeneous, with regard to MBTItype, with approximately half ofthe students being ofthe SF functioncombination (Boersma, et aI., 1990; Conwell, Helgeson, &Wachowiak, 1987).

In such courses, instructors have the opportunity to usestudents' self-awareness of their MBTI profiles and the ensuingimplications about each individual's psychological development alongwith a 'matched-mismatched' program (Speigel, 1986). In using a'matched-mismatched' program, "courses can be designed not onlyto match students' styles but also to mismatch them in a judicious andconsidered way so as to help students enhance aspects ofthe selfthatare relatively undeveloped" (Claxton & Murrell, 1987, p. 20). A'matched-mismatched' program could be designed to increasestudents' self-awareness oftheir learning preferences and to introducethem to learning preferences of others which differ from their own.This is especially important for preservice teachers of one culturalgroup who will teach children of another (Atwater, 1989). Hale­Benson (1986), for example, suggests that African-American childrenhave learning styles and instructional preferences unique to theircultural group.

35

This study was designed to determine if elementary educationmajors enrolled in a biology course designed for them, as a specialgroup ofnon-majors, were significantly differentwith respect to MBTIfrequency distribution from students in a larger non-majors generalbiology course. Another purpose was to determine differences oflearning preferences in each of the two groups in order to makesuggestions concerning course design for teaching biology to non­majors in general and elementary education majors as a select groupof non-majors in biology. Finally, this study introduced a programwhich matched and mismatched students' MBTI-predicted preferredinstructional strategies. The program was designed to increasestudents' self-awareness and encourage affirmation of their learningpreferences, while teaching them biology content, and to introducethem to differing learning preferences of others.

MethodDescribed here is the method employed to assess the MBTI

frequency distribution among a group ofelementary education majorsand the method by which the MBTI frequency distribution of thatgroup was compared to the MBTI frequency distribution of a largergroup of non-majors in biology. Also described here is the methodused to incorporate a "matched-mismatched" instructional preferenceprogram into a biology course for elementary education majors inattempt to educate them concerning individual differences.

SubjectsFor comparing the learning preferences ofelementaryeducation majorswith students in a general non-majors biology course, Melear's (1990)assessment ofthe MBTI frequency distributionofa population (n=673)of students enrolled in 40 recitation sections ofa computer-managedgeneral biology course for non-majors at a large midwestern stateuniversity was used. That assessment was compared to an MBTIfrequency distribution which was compiled using four sections (n=83)of students, collected over two semesters, in a 3-credit hour course

36

ofgeneral biology for elementary education majors at a southeasternstate university.

For determining the effect of the 'matched-mismatched'instructional preference program, a treatment group and a controlgroup were designed. The treatment group in this study consisted oftwo sections of students (n=38) enrolled in a biology course forelementary education majors. The MBTI frequency distribution of2­letter function combinations of the treatment group included 13%ST, 50% SF, 32% NF and 5% NT. The control group consisted oftwo sections of students (n=26) enrolled in a physical science coursefor elementary education majors. Their MBTI frequency distributionof2-letter function combinations included 15% ST, 58% SF, 19% NFand 8% NT. Both groups were enrolled in courses offered at asoutheastern state university.

ProcedureSelection Ratio Type Table (SRTT) comparisons were made

of the two above-mentioned MBTI frequency distributions in orderto make learning style comparisons as predicted by MBTI profiledistributions. The SRTT comparisons were compiled using a softwareprogram (SRTT software purchased from the Center for Applicationsof Psychological Type in Gainesville, FL) which gave the followingratio for each ofthe 16MBTI categories: {% ofelementary educationmajors in biology in this MBTI category} divided by { % ofstudentsin general non-majors biology in this MBTI category}. The programthen performs Chi-square analysis on the ratios generated in eachcategory to determine whether statistical significance exists in thedifferences found. Differences which were found were related backto Lawrence's (1984) synthesis of learning style research involvingthe MBTI for making recommendations for teaching both groups.

For determining the effect of the 'matched-mismatched'instructional preference program, both the treatment and controlgroups received MBTI pretests and posttests. The number ofstudentsin each group with increased MBTI preference scores was comparedusing the two-tailed z-test for the difference oftwo proportions. The

37

'matched-mismatched' instructional preference program includedstrategies, following the MBTI pretest and preceding the MBTIposttest, which: a) gave students their MBTI profiles, b) taughtpsychological (MBTI) type theory, and c) tried to efficiently matchand mismatch the instructional preferences ofthe most students whileteaching science content. Since most of the students in the treatmentgroup were of the SF function combination (50%) and since the NTfunction combination was comprised of the least number of students(5%), it was surmised that employing SF- and NT-preferredinstructional strategies would efficiently match or mismatch the moststudents whenever the program was being administered. Note thatthere is overlapping of preferred instructional strategies between thegroups categorized by MBTI function combination; ie., a primarilyS-preferred instructional strategy, such as the use ofaudiovisuals, is apreferred strategy of students with both the SF and the ST MBTIfunction combination.

Students were aware of the types of instructional strategiesbeing employed during implementation of the program, such as SF­preferred or NT-preferred, and were asked to consciously affirm ordeny the instructional strategies which their MBTI profiles predictedthat they would prefer. The 'matched-mismatched' program wasincorporated into the treatment group's classes by the researcher oncea week over a nine-week period. When the program was not beingadministered, the regular classroom instructor taught biology in thesemester-long course. The 'matched-mismatched' program was notadministered to the control group.

Matched-Mismatched Instructional PreferenceProgram

Following are the strategies of the 'matched-mismatched'program incorporated into the regular biology instruction of thetreatment group. The strategies were preceded by the MBTI pretestand followed by the MBTI posttest. MBTI pretest was given during'week one', which actually was the fourth week of the semester, andthe MBTI posttest was administered eight weeks later, during 'week

38

nine.' The researcher was given full access to the 50-minutes classperiod every Monday during the nine week block, during which theMBTI pre- and posttests and the 'matched-mismatched' instructionalstrategies were administered.

STRATEGY 1. Psychological (MBTI) type theory was introducedby disclosing to the students their individual MBTI profiles andproviding a lecture (NT-appropriate) describing the 4 MBTIdichotomies, Carl lung's theory offunctions and attitudes plus Myers'addition of the judging/perceiving category to psychological typetheory. SF-appropriate visual aides supplemented the lecture depicting'stick-figures' displaying appropriate category-specific behaviors; ie.,extraverts were depicted as being happy and interactive within a crowd,while introverts were shown to be more withdrawn and threatened bya crowd. A question-and-answer period followed.

STRATEGY 2. Students were given a presentation of the biologicaltopic of natural selection in an NT -appropriate strategy first (lecture)and later in an SF-appropriate strategy (demonstration and audio­visual). The lecture included the notions of variations within speciesand survival of the fittest. The demonstration portrayed the selectiveadvantage of differently colored moths (paper reproductions) ondifferently colored trees (paper reproductions). The audio-visualshowed actual film footage of white moths being eaten on darkertrees while darker moths were camouflaged.

STRATEGY 3. An NT-appropriate homework strategy (se1f­instruction) concerning the correct application of a test-cross ingenetics was administered. Without prior instruction concerning agenetic 'test-cross,' and following an introduction to the use ofPun netsquares and the relationship of the parent to the f1 and f2 generations,students had to solve a genetics problem using the test-cross todetermine the genotype ofan organism which was either homozygousdominant or heterozygous dominant. Students knew the phenotypic

39

ratios of the f1 generation. Students had to instruct themselves byreading a passage on the correct usage of a test cross.

STRATEGY 4. An NT-appropriate strategy (global lecture includingoutlining) on the topic of plant diversity was applied. After beinggiven a global overview of all of the plant kingdom, students had tomemorize all the plant phyla and sub-phyla, as well as majorcharacteristics of each of these, using an outline.

STRATEGY 5. Students were instructed using an SF-appropriatestrategy (demonstration) teaching the concept of genotypic versusphenotypic distribution. The demonstration used colored clay torepresent alleles of genes on chromosomes, determining moth color,and differently colored paper moths to display the difference betweengenotype and phenotype.

STRATEGY 6. Students were provided a presentation, with bothSF- and NT -appropriate aspects, relating one's MBTI profile to manyaspects of life, such as the relationship between MBTI type and jobsatisfaction, the relationship between learning style and future teachingstyle, and a reemphasis of the relationship between MBTI profile andpreferred instructional strategies. While the lecture was NT­appropriate with its outline format, the topics involved were verypersonal to the students (SF-appropriate) and opportunities were givenfor them to interject their thoughts throughout the lecture.

STRATEGY 7. An SF-appropriate strategy (small group projectspreparing for student-led presentations) was designed in which eachstudent in a group had to teach a biology topic to one of the membersof his/her small group. In teaching his/her student, the researcherinstructed each "teacher" that his/her "student's" MBTI type was tobe highly considered in choosing instructional strategies. The "teacher"in each pair was the small group member whose MBTI type differedthe most from the "student." The topic to be taught was of the"teacher's" choosing from the following topics: gene flow, gene drift,

4ll

random mating, population size dynamics, natural selection and theuse of the Hardy-Weinberg equation for measuring the extent ofevolution.

STRATEGY 8. A case study was presented at a time when studentsappeared comfortable and confident about discussing psychological(MBTI) type theory. Students were asked to review the case of aproblem familyand make intervention suggestions. Suggestions madewere then related back to the MBTI profiles of those making thesuggestions (this strategy from Boersma, et al., 1990). The case studyis as follows:

Judy, a quiet, somewhat withdrawn Grade 3girl, has come to your attention. Her achievement hasdeteriorated during the past year and no one knowswhat to do with her. She spends a lot of time talkingto herself, as ifshe were in a fantasy world. Previouslyshe was one of the top students in her class. Judy isreported to have an IQ of 120. Her Murphy-MeisgeierType Indicator for Children (MMTIC) type is clearlyINFP; her Perception of Ability Scale for Students(PASS) score (PASS is a self-esteem inventory andMMTIC is equivalent to the MBTI) is very low,suggesting that she sees herself "stuck" in a cornerseparated from her mother by her father. A housesuggests a dark, dangerous place.

Students were divided into groups based upon their functioncombination (ST, SF, NT, or NF) and asked to consider the case studyand make recommendations on how to help Judy in 3 categories:1) educationally; 2) socially; and 3) in her family relationships.Afterwards, each group discussed their recommendations and theresearcher led an inquiry discussion on how the psychological typeand particular function combinations of the grouped students mighthave influencedthe kind ofrecommendations generated by each group.

41

The same eight-week time interval existed between MBTIpretest and MBTI posttest for both the control and treatment groups.No data concerning MBTI test scores, psychological type theory usingthe MBTI, or any part of the 'matched-mismatched' program wasintroduced to the control group during that time interval. Only afterthe MBTI posttest did the researcher present MBTI profiles and alecture on psychological (MBTI) type theory to individuals of thecontrol group.

While each individual received a 4-letter MBTI profile fromthe pretest, the MBTI also generates a scale score for each of theletters representing the strength of preferences the individual has foreach MBTI function. After the treatment group and the control grouphad completed both the MBTI pre- and posttest, the MBTI pre- andposttest scale scores for the psychological (MBTI) functions of eachgroup were compared to determine the measurable effect, if any, ofthe 'matched-mismatched' instructional preference program on thepreferences for psychological (MBTI) functions.

ResultsStudents in a biology course specifically designed for

elementary education majors were significantly different as well asmore homogeneous in regards to MBTI profile distribution whencompared to students in a general non-majors biology course. Notein the following tables, Tables 2 & 3, that "I" represents the ratio:

% of Elementary Education Majors in Biology in this MBTI type or category% of Students in General Non-Majors Biology in this MBTI type or category

42

Table 2

SRTT Comparison {a} oftile MBTI profile distributionofElementary Education Majors in Biology (1) (n=83)witlt Students in a General Non-Majors Biology Course

(2) {b} (n=673)

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ(1) 0=5 6.02% 0=10 12.05% 0=1 1.20% 0=2 2.41%(2) 0=49 7.30% 0=64 9.50% 0=16 2.40% 0=1 11.50%

1=0.83 1=1.27 1=0.51 1=1.47

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP(1) 0=0 0.00% 0=5 6.02% 0=6 7.23% 0=1 1.20%(2) 0=26 3.90% 0=42 6.20% 0=28 4.20% 0=24 3.60%

1=0.00 1=0.97 1=1.74 1=0.34

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP(1) 0=3 3.61% 0=11 13.25% 0=9 10.84% 0=3 3.61%(2) 0=42 6.20% 0=54 8.00% 0=83 12.30% 0=37 5.50%

1=0.58 1=1.66 1=0.88 1=0.66

ESTJ(1) 0=5 6.02%(2) 0=58 8.60%

1=0.70

ESFJU0=18 21.69%0=73 10.80%

1=2.00u

ENFJ0=3 3.61%0=38 5.60%

1=0.64

ENTJ0=1 1.20%0=28 4.20%

1=0.29

{a} Legend: % = percent of total who fall ioto this type1= ratio of % of type in group 1 divided by % of type in group 2

* = p < .05**=p<.OI

*** = P < .001

{b} Melear (1990)

43

Elementary education majors had a higher representation ofFeeling (F) (p < .01), Extraverted/Sensing (ES) (p < .05), and ESFJ(p < .01) individuals. The two groups also differed in the percentageof students with the Sensing/Feeling (SF) (p < .01) functioncombination. Fifty-three percent of the elementary education majorswere of the SF type, while fewer than 35% ofthe general non-majorsin biology were of the same combination.

Table 3

Comparison fa} of2-Letter MBTI FunctionCombinations ofElementary Education Majors (1)

(n=83) witn Students in General Non-Majors Biology{h} Course (2) (n=673)

Percent (%)

Function Combination(I)(2)

ST1626

1=0.60

SF5334

1=1.53

NF2325

** 1=0.93

NT8

151=0.56

{a} Legend: % = percent of total who fall into this groupI = ratio of% of type in group 1 divided by % of type in group 2

* = P < .05**=p<.Ol

***=p<.OOl

{b} Melear (1990, p. 90).

44

When examining possible effects of the matched-mismatchedinstructional preference program the researcher discovered, using thetwo-tailed z-test for the difference of two proportions, that membersof the treatment group who met an investigative condition of havinga decided dominant MBTI function (with E-I attitude, J-P attitudeand dominant function outcome scores all above 9; see Myers &McCaulley, 1985) at MBTI pretest more often had increasedpreference for their dominant MBTI function at MBTI posttest thandid members of the control group (p < .04). Note that an outcomescore is a relative score which summarizes the scale scores ofthe twopossible outcomes in a dichotomous category. Twelve members ofthe treatment group each had a decided dominant function at MBTIpretest, and 10 of these showed an increase in their scale scoresindicating an increase in their strength ofpreference for their dominantfunction. Eight members of the control group each had a decideddominant function at MBTI pretest, and only three of those showedan increase in their scale scores indicating an increased preference fortheir dominant function.

Table 4

Effect ofMatched-Mismatched InstructionalPreference Program on MBTI Function Scale Scores

TREATMENT GROUP CONTROL GROUP

# of Students With DecidedDominant Functions AtMBTI Pretest

# of Students With IncreasedDecided Dominant FunctionScores At MBT! Posttest

{z-value = 2.05 (p < .04)}

45

12

10

8

3

DISCUSSIONElementary education majors in biology, a select group of

biology non-majors, have learning styles which differfrom the learningstyles ofstudents in a general non-majors biologycourse. Comparisonsbetween the 2-letter METI function combinations of elementaryeducation majors in biology with general non-majors in biology reveala more even distribution of each of the four MBTI functioncombinations in a general non-majors biologygroups. Fair and efficientteaching of these students in the general non-majors course shouldinclude incorporating approximately equal representation ofpreferredinstructional strategies from each of the 4-function combinationcategories described by Lawrence (see Table 1), with slightly moreSF-preferred strategies and fewer NT-preferred strategies, based onthe function combination distribution. Some of the strategies in thisstudy are examples of SF- and NT-preferred, biology-appropriatestrategies. Prior research suggests that when students are taught moreoften in their preferred learning styles, their chances for successincrease (Melear, 1990;Reynolds & Hope, 1970); and, several authorsadvocate the usage of the MBTI to measure learning style(Bonnstetter, Horne & McDonald, 1991; Curry, 1983; Claxton &Murrell, 1987; Keirsey & Bates, 1984; Kuerbis, 1988; Jensen &DiTiberio, 1984; Lawrence, 1987; Myers, 1980; McCaulley, 1977.)Since students' learning styles can be effectively assessed using theMETI, course design should consider students' preferred instructionalstrategies and implement those strategies with educational equity.

Homogeneity ofMBTI function combinations is promoted incourses where students are grouped according to major (Myers &McCaulley, 1985). In this study, students in a biology course forelementary education majors were more homogeneous in referenceto their METI function combinations, and thus more homogeneousin their METI-predicted preferred learning styles. Over 53% ofelementary education majors were of the SF function combination(see Table 3).

46

When students are more homogeneous in regards to MBTItype, instructors have the greatest opportunity to teach students usingmethods which comply with the learning strategies preferred by thestudents. Thus, a large percentage (approximately halt) of theinstruction incourses designed for elementary education majors shouldemploy SF-preferred instructional strategies (see Table 1), including:student-led demonstrations and presentations, instruction with personalinvolvement, television, films and audio-visuals, and having a studyschedule. This would facilitate more students being instructed moreoften in their preferred learning styles and increasing their chances ofsuccess.

During a course, content learning success is not necessarilythe only instructional objective, such as when matching andmismatching students' learning styles to increase students' self­awareness of their learning styles. Matched/mismatched strategiesare most efficiently implemented in homogeneous courses, so perhapsmore freshman and sophomore courses should be grouped accordingto major (to increase homogeneity) so students could gain moreunderstanding about themselves as learners earlier in their collegecareer.

Lyons (1983) documented the value in preservice teachereducation of having each student develop an awareness of his/herlearning style. Lyons and Lanquis (1985) maintained that study oftheselfas learner serves as a guide through coursework as well as servingas an introduction to educating for individual differences. Thus,improvements for elementary teacher preservice preparation shouldinclude instruction in psychological (MBTI) type theory as well asinformation concerning one's learning style, which can be determinedusing the student's MBTI profile.

This study has provided a 'matched-mismatched' instructionalpreference program which includes the teaching of psychological(MBTI) type theory as well as incorporates opportunities for affirmingor denying one's instructional preferences as predicted by one's MBTIprofile. This program was administered in a relatively homogeneousclass, in regards to MBTI frequency distribution. In this study, it was

47

shown that the program facilitated an increase in the strength ofpreference for decided dominant MBTI functions (p < .04).

The increased preference scores ofdecided dominant functionspossibly resulted from increased consciousness and affirmation oftrueMBTI function-related instructional preferences. If this is so, thenthis program measurably increased students' self-awareness andperhaps facilitated good psychological (MBTI) type development aswell. Although preferences for MBTI functions and attitudes canclearly be seen in children, preferences which are probably unconsciousand innate (lung, 1921), good type development is enhanced byconsciousness of one's preferences and choices related to usingdiffering functions. According to Myers, the MBTI model of lung'stheory assumes that a lifelong process of increasing consciousness,differentiation, and direction ofone's processes is the essence ofgoodtype development (Myers, 1980).

The 'matched-mismatched' instructional preference programprovides an example of incorporating the teaching of psychological(MDTI) type theory into the preservice preparation of elementaryteachers. This program also provides a scenario for educatingelementary education majors in the use of appropriate instructionalstrategies. Finally, this program specifically varied instructionalstrategies employed in the teaching ofscience content. The result ofexperiencing such a program in preservice preparation could beimproved elementary, and elementary science, education.

ReferencesAtwater, M. (1989). Including multicultural education in science

education: Definitions, competencies, and activities. Journal ofScience Teacher Education, 2(1), 17-20.

Bonnstetter, R., Horne, S. & McDonald, D. (1991). On research:Use a variety of styles to meet the needs of everyone in yourclass. Science ...Scope, 15(3),48-49.

Boersma, F. 1., Kienholz, A., Jevne, R. & Chapman, 1. W. (1990).Teaching type to elementary school teachers: Implications forindividualizing instruction. Journal ofPsychological Type, 18,33-38. 48

Claxton, C. S., & Murrell, P. H. (1987). Learning styles:Implications for improving educational practices. Asle-EricHigher Education Report, 4, 20.

Conwell, C. R., Helgeson, S. L., & Wachowiak, D. G. (1987).The effect of matching and mismatching cognitive style andscience instruction. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching,24(8), 713-22.

Curry, L. (1983). An organization oflearning styles theory andconstructs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting oftheAmerican Educational Research Association. ERIC DocumentNo. ED 235 185.

Czerniak, C. M. (1989). An investigation ofthe relationshipsamong science teaching anxiety, self-efficacy, teacher educationvariables and instructional strategies. Paper presented at theNational Association of Research in Science Teaching, SanFrancisco.

Donnellan, K. M. (1982). NSTA elementary teacher survey onpreservice preparation of teachers at the elementary, middle andjunior high school levels. Presented at the National ScienceTeachers Association Meeting, Washington, D.C.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Hale-Benson, J. (1986). Black children: Their roots, culture andlearning styles. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

Husen, T. (1983). Are standards in U.S. schools really laggingbehind those in other countries? Phi Delta Kappan, 611(7), 455­461.

Jensen, G. H., & DiTiberio, J. K. (1984). Personality andindividual writing processes. College Composition andCommunication, 35(3), 285-300.

Jung, C. (1921). Psychological types. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Kiersey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me (5th ed.).Del Mar: Prometheus Nemesis.

49

Kuerbis, P. (1988). Research matters...to the science teacher:Learning styles and science teaching. NARST News, 3( 1).

Lawrence, G. D. (1984). A synthesis oflearning style researchinvolving the MBTI. Journal ofPsychological TYpe, 8, 2-15.

Morgan, M. K. (1987). In G. D. Lawrence. People types andtigers stripes: A practical guide to learning styles (2ndedition). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications ofPsychological Type, Inc.

Lyons, C. A. (1983). The relationship of prospective teacherneural processing, cognitive style and personality to classroomlearning and teaching behavior. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 44, 3839A .

Lyons, C. A. & Languis, M. L. (1985). Cognitive science andteacher education. Theory into Practice, 24(2),127-130.

McCaulley, M. (1977). Personality variables: Modal profiles thatcharacterize the various fields of science and what they mean foreducation. Journal ofCollege Science Teaching, 7(2), 114- 120.

McCaulley, M. H., & Natter, F. L. (1974). Psychological (MBTI)type differences in education. InF. L. Natter and S. A. Rollins(Eds.), The Governor's Task Force on Disruptive Youth: PhaseII Report. Tallahassee, FL: Office of the Governor. [Reportout of print. This chapter available from the Center forApplications of Psychological Type, Gainesville, FL].

Melear, C. T. (1990). Cognitive processes in the Curry learningstyle framework as measured by the Learning Style Profile andthe Myers-Briggs Type Indicator among non-majors in collegebiology. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 127A.

Myers, I. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press, Inc.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. (1985). Manual: A guide to thedevelopment and use ofthe Myers-Briggs TYpe Indicator. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press, Inc.

Reynolds, R. 1., & Hope, A. G. (1970). Typology as a moderatingvariable for success in science. Psychological Reports, 26(3),711-716.

50

Speigel,1. F. (1986). The impact on sensing-congruent vs.intuitive-congruent training instructions for identifying feeling inothers on the ability of subjects with sensing vs. intuitive jungianperception preferences to discriminate other's overt and covertfeeling messages. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 88­89A.

Stake R. E., & Easely, 1. (1978). Case studies in scienceeducation. Vol. 1: The case reports (National ScienceFoundation Report SE 876-74). Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Weiss, I. (1978). Report ofthe 1977 national survey on science,mathematics and social sciences. Research Triangle Park, NorthCarolina: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation,Research Triangle Institute.

Weiss, I. (1987). 1985-86 National survey ofscience andmathematics education. Research Triangle Park, NC: ResearchTriangle Institute.

P. Alan Lennon, Ph. D., Department of Biological Sciences,University of Northern Colorado Greeley, CO 80639.

Claudia T. Melear, Ph. D., Assistant Professor Department ofScience Education East Carolina University Greenville, NC27834.

51