Educational Technology & Society 3(2) 2000
ISSN 1436-4522
71
,QWHUQHW7HDFKLQJ%\6 W\OH 3URILO LQJ WKH2QO LQH3URI HVVRU
Dorothy Fuller
Instructional Designer
Instructional Technology
Black Hills State University
1200 University
Spearfish, South Dakota 57799 USA
Phone: +1 605 642 6038
dorothyfull[email protected]
Rena Faye Norby
Assistant Professor
College of Education
Black Hills State University
1200 University
Spearfish, South Dakota 57799 USA
Phone: +1 605 642 6859
renafayenorby@bhsu.edu
Kristi Pearce
Associate Professor
BHSU Faculty Development Coordinator
Black Hills State University
1200 University
Spearfish, South Dakota 57799 USA
Phone: +1 605 642 6405
Sharon Strand
Assistant Professor
College of Arts and Sciences
Black Hills State University
1200 University
Spearfish, South Dakota 57799 USA
Phone: +1 605 642 6040
sharonstrand@bhsu.edu
ABSTRACT
The goal of this article is to offer the results of a pilot study which examined the personality type and
teaching style preferences of faculty who elected to teach an on-line course. The article will present a
description of personality assessments, including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and Anthony
Gregorc's Transaction Ability Inventory used to determine teaching tendencies and styles. In addition, a
structured written questionnaire developed by the researchers was used to assess teacher satisfaction with
worldwide web-based instruction. Utilizing the results of these psychological assessments, a preliminary
analysis of the personal characteristics of college professors who chose to teach on line will be presented.
This pilot study found that some preferred teaching styles may be more compatible with the dynamics of
distance learning formats. By determining successful teaching styles for on-line courses, we can develop
more effective faculty development programs to assist others in successfully transitioning into the cyber-
teaching and learning environment.
Keywords
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Gregorc Transaction Ability Inventory, On-line Instruction, Faculty
Development, Teaching Styles
72
Introduction
As universities strive to meet the needs of today's students by developing on-line courses and degree programs,
more and more faculty will be required to adapt their courses for on-line delivery. Consequently, this pilot study
is the result of the authors' personal interests in teaching on-line and finding ways to promote faculty
development to meet the challenges of teaching in the twenty-first century.
Our experiences with teaching on-line and faculty development for those faculty beginning to teach on-line
suggest that some preferred teaching styles may be more compatible with the dynamics of distance learning
formats. This pilot study attempts to determine successful teaching styles for on-line courses. Through an
awareness of preferred teaching styles and personality tendencies, more effective faculty development programs
can be developed to assist others in successfully transitioning into the cyber-teaching and learning environment.
Literature Review
The introduction of new computer technologies to higher education has created a change in how instructors
deliver information to students. This change has followed the pattern for the diffusion of innovations defined by
Rogers (1995). He ranked those accepting any change as (a) innovators, (b) early adopters, (c) early majority, (d)
late majority, and (e) laggards. Rogers also defined critical mass as "the point at which enough individuals have
adopted an innovation so that its further rate of adoption becomes self sustaining" (p. 313). Based on a yearly
survey of the adoption of technology in higher education, Green (March/April 1996) stated that the use of
information technology has reached the point at which a critical mass of 15 to 20% of college faculty has
adopted the innovation of computer assisted instruction. Geoghegan (in Gilbert, March 1995) presents these
characteristics of early adopters: favor revolutionary change, visionary, have a strong technology focus, risk-
takers, experimenters, largely self-sufficient, and horizontally networked, that is they have a high proportion of
interdisciplinary and cross-functional links in their personal networks.
Faculty development has often taken on the role of assisting in making the change from the traditional classroom
to computer assisted educational environments, but faculty development professionals have had to create their
own path in doing so. Experience with computer environments from outside academia may provide some
insights into the problems that may be encountered and suggest solutions to the problems. Kiesler, Siegel &
McGuire (Oct. 1984) found problems in making the change to computer mediated communication came from
pressures of time, an absence of regulating feedback, the absence of nonverbal behavior weakening social
influence, the absence of status and position cues, social anonymity leading to depersonalization, and lack of
established norms and etiquette leading to a breakdown of established boundaries. However, Pfaffenberger
(1986) found that these new communication environments, such as electronic mail, bulletin boards, and
computer conferencing, have the potential to "democratize" the educational space because they obliterate social
barriers and status distinctions. Kerr (1986) suggests effective leadership styles and skills necessary for
moderating on-line meetings and facilitating electronic groups include sensitivity to the needs of participants,
knowledge, persistence, willingness to spend the time and effort, enthusiasm, creativity, and flexibility.
These changes in the educational environment have caused a rethinking of the role of the teacher. Cooper &
Selfe (Dec. 1990) found that computer conferences created non-traditional discourse forums for students to resist
teacher-centered pedagogy, creating new teacher/student dynamics which some instructors may find unsettling.
Berge (1995) states that the online instructor must be clear, flexible, encouraging, non-authoritarian, objective,
accepting, facilitative, informal, responsive, and patient.
As a profile of successful traits of on-line instructors evolves from the research, it may prove helpful to find
reliable ways of identifying preferred teaching styles of those who will be required to teach on-line. Several
researchers have used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to determine preferred teaching styles in relation
to distance education (Ehrman, 1990), willingness to use technology in teaching (Grant & Cambre, 1990;
Knupfer, 1989; Pfeifer, 1983), and willingness to embrace innovation and change (Hetrick, 1993).
Ehrman (1990) builds upon the previous work of Lawrence (1984) to chart preferred teaching models of the four
scales of the MBTI.
1. Extraversion vs. Introversion
a. Extraverts (E) prefer activities requiring dialogue, cooperative study, and discussion.
b. Introverts (I) prefer lectures, complex verbal tasks, and little interpersonal involvement.
2. Sensing vs. Intuitive
73
a. Sensing (S) tendencies prefer structured, step-by-step syllabus, and traditional curricula.
b. Intuitive (N) tendencies prefer focusing on concepts, self-instruction, and independent study.
3. Thinking vs. Feeling
a. Thinking (T) teachers prefer teacher directed activities and lecture.
b. Feeling (F) teachers prefer simulations and small group work.
4. Judging vs. Perceiving
a. Judging (J) teachers prefer formalized instruction, predictable routines, and tradition
b. Perceiving (P) teachers prefer less structured programs and independent study programs.
When it comes to using technology tools in instruction or in making changes in teaching models, Hetrick (1993)
and Grant and Gambre (1990) found that Myers-Briggs “S” tendencies were less willing to adopt new methods
and more interested in preserving the
status quo.
Hetrick (1993) also found that in the case of school
administrators in his study the Myers-Briggs type “N” was most likely to be visionary and to see new
possibilities for change.
Using the Gregorc Transactional Ability Inventory to measure preferred learning styles among teachers, Herbster
(1987) found that of the 4 possible combinations (Concrete-Sequential, Concrete-Random, Abstract-Random,
and Abstract Sequential), Concrete-Randoms were more intuitive and more inclined to risk-taking. The study
also suggested that Concrete-Randoms and Abstract-Randoms tended to be more people oriented, while
Concrete-Sequentials and Abstract-Sequentials were more product oriented and had a greater need for structure
and control.
If those who are successful and who enjoy the teaching and learning environment of Internet-based instruction
tend to be flexible, people oriented risk takers with a lower requirement for structure and control, then we would
anticipate that, using the MBTI as an indicator,
More on-line instructors would be E (Extravert) rather than I (Introvert)
More on-line instructors would be N (Intuitive) rather than S (Sensing)
More on-line instructors would be F (Feeling) rather than T (Thinking)
More on-line instructors would be P (Perceiving) rather than J (Judging)
Using the Gregorc Transactional Ability Inventory, we would anticipate that most instructors would be either
Concrete-Random or Abstract Random.
Research Question
Does personality type and preferred teaching style influence the comfort level for providing online instruction?
Instrumentation
This pilot study examined the personality traits and teaching style preferences of faculty who elected to teach an
on-line course. It utilized a battery of personality assessments, including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) and the Gregorc Transaction Ability Inventory. Although no other studies were found to measure
instructor tendencies when teaching on-line, these instruments were selected because of their validity and
credibility in the educational psychology field of assessing teaching style. In addition, a researcher-developed
survey was used to inquire about the subjects' previous experiences with distance education, current reaction to
on-line teaching and learning, and attitude toward participation in on-line instruction in the future.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), developed by Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers, is based on the
work of C.G. Jung, a psychiatrist who studied human behaviors for many years. The MBTI functions as a tool to
help people understand themselves and their behaviors. It describes personality preferences rather than
measuring skills or abilities and purports that all preferences are equally important. It has been well documented
and researched in hundreds of scientific studies over the past forty years.
The eight MBTI preferences and descriptions of each in work situations and communication methods are
presented in Table 1.
74
Extroversion (E) Introversion (I)
Teaching approach uses discussion and cooperative
learning.
Teaching approach uses lecture and verbal tasks.
Prefers variety and activity. Likes quiet for concentration.
Likes having people around. Likes working alone.
Often acts quickly without thinking. Likes to think a lot before taking action.
Prefers face-to-face group discussion over written
communication.
Likes to communicate one-on-one.
Develops ideas through discussion with others. Develops ideas through reflection.
Often impatient with slow moving tasks and
welcomes interruptions.
Tends to work for long periods of time and prefers
to not be interrupted.
Sensing (S) iNtuition (N)
Uses traditional curriculum and step by step
instructional methods for teaching.
Focuses on conceptual understanding and the use of
self-instructional methods for teaching.
Likes using past experiences and standard ways to
solve problems.
Likes solving new and complex problems.
Enjoys applying what is already known by giving
examples and details.
Enjoys learning new skills more than using them.
May ignore and not trust their inspirations. Willing to follow their insights and relies on
imagination.
Likes suggestions that are straightforward and
feasible.
Likes novel and unusual suggestions.
Are inclined to follow an agenda. Prefers change and proceeds with bursts of energy
to follow global schemes.
Likes to do practical things and prefers realistic
applications.
Likes to do innovative things.
Seldom makes errors of facts. May make errors of facts.
Thinking (T) Feeling (F)
Uses teacher-directed instructional approaches and
peer tutoring.
Uses simulations and case studies together with
small group work for teaching.
Uses logical analysis to reach conclusions. Uses values to reach conclusions.
Can work without harmony. Works best in harmony.
Is firm-minded and has little trouble giving
criticism.
Tends to be sympathetic and has difficulty
providing criticism.
Feels rewarded when task is done. Feels rewarded when people's needs are met.
Seeks involvement with tasks. Seeks involvement with people.
Presents goals and objectives first. Presents points of agreement first.
Tends to be brief and concise. Is sociable and friendly.
Judgment (J) Perception (P)
Uses formalized instruction and predictable routines
in teaching.
Uses independent study projects as preferred
teaching approach.
Works best when they can plan their work and
follow their plan.
Enjoys flexibility.
Likes to get things settled and finished. Likes to leave things open for last minute changes.
Tends to be satisfied once a decision is reached. Tends to postpone unpleasant tasks.
Reaches closure quickly. Tends to postpone decisions while searching for
different options.
Seeks structure and schedules deadlines. Adapts well to changes and feels restricted without
opportunity for change.
Focuses on the task. Focuses on the process.
Expects others to follow through and is depends on
it.
Expects others to change and adapt.
Table 1.
Myers-Briggs Type Indictor preferences
The Transaction Ability Inventory was developed by Anthony Gregorc to describe adult methods of transacting
with their environments. In coordination with Kathleen A. Butler's extensive research efforts, a styles summary
75
was created to identify specific teaching approaches. The purpose of this instrument is to aid in the identification
of the natural ways of interacting with one's world. Like the MBTI, it is self-administered and compliments the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. This instrument generates four styles of interaction which are described in Table
2.
Concrete Sequential (CS)
Uses step-by-step methods of instruction. Needs an
orderly, quiet instructional environment. Plans and
organizes their time and space. Knows the
acceptable ways of doing things and performs
accordingly. Needs exact directions and examples.
Creates real and practical products. Uses facts and
focuses on details. Is consistent and efficient.
Prefers hands-on methods for teaching and learning.
Needs guided practice. Stresses cognitive domain in
learning.
Abstract Sequential (AS)
Prefers to debate point of view. Needs reading
references and expert sources. Organizes ideas
logically. Needs to feel confident about their work.
Finds information and analyzes ideas. Judges value
of importance. Is a patient learner. Examines key
points and then formulates theories. Strives for
intellectual recognition. Likes to write analytical
essays. Needs time to learn thoroughly before
acting. Relies on notes and written materials. Is
concerned with excellence. Uses demonstrations to
model when teaching. Needs to follow traditional
procedures. Prefers to work alone.
Abstract Random (AR)
Prefers to reflect on their feelings. Likes flexibility
and adaptability. Relates well to others. Appreciates
nature, art, and beauty. Personalizes information.
Uses imagination to create products. Sees a holistic
view. Loves to interpret. Prefers to be a part of a
group and share with others. Needs personal
attention and emotional support. Needs social
activities to balance work. Needs freedom from
control by others. Needs open communication.
Needs non-competitive environment. Stresses
affective domain of learning and is spontaneous in
teaching.
Concrete Random (CR)
Likes to experiment to find answers. Prefers to find
new information and processes. Can find
possibilities and create change. Is independent.
Takes calculated risks. Considers solutions and
creates various approaches. Likes to try new
approaches to solve problems. Has high degree of
curiosity. Is competitive. Uses trial and error
approaches. Enjoys brainstorming and open-ended
discussions. Prefers hands-on experiences. Needs to
have options to demonstrate their way works. Has
no preferred teaching approach.
Table 2.
Gregorc Transaction Ability Inventory styles
Finally, a structured written questionnaire was developed by the researchers to assess teacher satisfaction with
the on-line instruction experience. Questions included: How many distance education courses have you taught
using video conferencing? Satellite? RDTN? Internet? How many distance education courses have you taken as
a student? How would you describe this experience in on-line instruction? Exciting? Stimulating? Frustrating?
Difficult? Worthwhile? Are you interested in teaching additional on-line courses?
Utilizing the results of these psychological assessments, a preliminary analysis of the personal characteristics of
college professors who chose to teach on line is presented.
Pilot Study Subjects
This pilot study included 20 faculty members from a small, midwestern state university in the United States who
volunteered to teach an on-line course during the spring 1999 semester for the Technology for Teaching and
Learning Workshops (TTL) participants. This course titled "Using Active Assessments to Measure Student
Learning" was designed for in-service South Dakota teachers who had participated in a South Dakota state
sponsored 4-week technology workshop the previous summer. At the end of the course, each instructor received
a packet of self-reporting instruments, including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Gregorc Transactional
Ability Inventory, and the researcher-developed satisfaction survey to complete and return. Of the 18
respondents, 50% were female, 22% were male, and the other 28% did not report their gender. The average age
of respondents was 45.
76
Pilot Study Results
Instructors’ Previous Experiences
. The majority of the respondents had very little or no experience previously
teaching at a distance or via the Internet; however, they had at least one or two experiences learning via video
conferencing, satellite, or another television delivery system, or via the Internet. More than 50% of the
respondents had experience with some courses using computer based communications in education.
Questions 6-10
reflect the current experience with on-line teaching and learning. When asked how the
respondent found this course experience, the responses are provided in Table 3.
I found this course
to be:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly
Agree
Exciting 0 12% 12% 59% 17%
Stimulating 0 0 24% 52% 24%
Frustrating 0 12% 0 70% 18%
Difficult 6% 41% 12% 35% 6%
Worth the time
and effort invested
0 12% 6% 53% 29%
Table 3.
Responses to Teaching and Learning Experiences
The majority of the respondents found teaching the course to be exciting, stimulating, frustrating, and worth the
time and effort invested. These feelings are not necessarily mutually exclusive; classroom teachers are frequently
found to be excited and stimulated by their work while experiencing frustrations due to a number of
uncontrollable factors relating to content or pedagogical issues. Forty-one percent agreed teaching the course
was difficult. As this was the very first experience with teaching at a distance for 76% of the respondents. For
the most part, instructors and students never met face to face or talked by telephone, so the method of delivery
was very different from what the instructors had experienced in previous teaching experiences.
When questioned about their future with Internet-based teaching and learning,
82% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that:
I would be willing to teach another TTL course on-line;
I would be interested in teaching more Internet based courses;
I would be interested in taking Internet based courses;
71% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that:
I would recommend this form of teaching to my colleagues;
and, 88% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that:
I would recommend Internet based courses for other adult learners.
Instructors' Teaching Styles and Tendencies.
The standardized instruments used to ascertain the respondents’
preferred styles of working and natural means of transacting with their environment were the Myers Briggs Type
Indicator and the Gregorc Transaction Ability Inventory.
For the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, classifications are Introversion or Extroversion, iNtuition or Sensing,
Thinking or Feeling, and Perception or Judgement.
The respondents’ results are presented in Table 4:
Introversion Extroversion iNtuition Sensing Thinking Feeling Perception Judgement
47% 53% 76% 24% 41% 59% 47% 53%
Table 4.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator results
Myers Briggs Type Indicators were fairly balanced, except for the predominance of the Intuitive type over the
Sensing type, for this group of educators.
When relating the Myers Briggs results to the respondents’ Gregorc results, the following trends were noted:
Introverts are more likely to be Abstract Random (AR) than Concrete Random (CR) or Concrete Sequential
(CS);
77
For Extroverts, there are more Concrete Random (CR) than Abstract Random (AR), and least of all
Concrete Sequential (CS);
There are many more Intuitives than Sensing; of the 13 iNtuitives, 6 were Abstract Random (AR), 4 were
Concrete Random (CR), and 3 were Concrete Sequential (CS).
When looking at combination scores on the Myers Briggs, it is of interest to note that there were:
18% each of tendencies: ENFP and INTP;
12% of tendencies: ENFJ, INFJ, ESTJ, ENTJ, and ISFJ;
6% of type INFP.
The general trend indicated by these results is the “J” type person is more likely to not be willing to teach
another TTL course on line, is not interested in teaching more Internet based courses, is somewhat more likely to
be male, and would not recommend teaching Internet based courses.
Results of the Gregorc Transaction Ability Inventory are as follows: 35% were of type AR, 35% were of the type
CR, 23.5% were of type CS, and one of the 18 respondents did not complete the Gregorc Transaction Ability
Inventory. No one in this group of respondents scored as an “AS” on the Gregorc inventory. (See appendices 1
and 2 for statistical results)
In conclusion, the results of this pilot study reflect that most respondents were enthusiastic about the
undertaking, within the limits of a first time experience, and would enjoy teaching on-line again. Faculty who
find the change in instructional strategies especially challenging in relation to their MBTI and Gregorc inventory
results may need special assistance and support to transition to teaching in the cyber-classroom. Thus, the
findings of this pilot study offer suggestions for faculty development, implications for instructional design, and a
personal reflection about using the research for decision-making to teach on-line.
Suggestions For Faculty Development
It seems that particular teaching tendencies and styles may benefit from faculty development programming to
become more effective in the virtual classroom. For example, faculty who are identified as ISTJ (Introversion
Sensing Thinking Judgment) according to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator may need to become more
considerate of the human element. They may need to be reminded to communicate deserved appreciation to the
students enrolled in an on-line course as well as to develop patience for those cyber learners who ignore standard
operating procedures when trying out new techniques. The faculty member who has the preferred style ISTP
(Introversion Sensing Thinking Perception) may need to be reminded to open up and share concerns and
information with the cyber learners. In addition, these faculty need to plan and develop perseverance when
designing an on-line course.
The faculty member type ESTP (Extraversion Sensing Thinking Perception) may need to curb their assertiveness
and take their cyber-student's feelings into consideration. They need to look beyond a quick fix by planning
ahead and developing stick-to-itiveness for teaching on-line to be satisfactory. The faculty member type ESTJ
(Extraversion Sensing Thinking Judgment) may need to consider all perspectives before designing the on-line
course including the human element. In addition, this teaching type may need to be prodded to look at the
benefits of change and to take time for reflection. They need to be reminded to show appreciation for their cyber
learners' work for teaching on-line to be successful.
The ISFJ (Introversion Sensing Feeling Judgment) teaching type may need to work at seeing the future in
positive, global terms. They need to develop more assertiveness and become directive in their teaching approach.
In addition, they may need to be reminded to remain open to different ways of learning. The ISFP (Introversion,
Sensing, Feeling, Perception) teaching type may need to develop a way to analyze information rather than just
accepting it. They may need to learn how to give negative feedback to their cyber learners; yet keep the learners
motivated.
The ESFP (Extraversion Sensing Feeling Perception) teaching type may need to include logical implications in
making instructional decisions. They need to plan ahead in on-line course development and manage their time
when delivery an internet-based course. The ESFJ (Extraversion Sensing Feeling Judgment) teaching type may
need to learn how to value and manage conflict. They need to "listen hard" to what their cyber learners need and
78
want for on-line teaching to be successful. They need to consider the logical, global implications of their
instructional decisions.
The INFJ (Introversion iNtuition Feeling Judgment) teaching type may need to develop political appropriate and
assertiveness skills to present their ideas. In addition, they may need to learn how to give constructive feedback
to their cyber learners in a timely manner. The INFP (Introversion iNtuition Feeling Perception) teaching type
may need to learn to work with reality rather than expecting the perfect response from their cyber learners. They
may need to develop more tough-mindedness and know when to say no. In addition, this teaching type may need
to factor in facts and logic when designing their internet-based course including timelines and action plans.
The INFP (Introversion iNtuition Feeling Perception) teaching type needs to set priorities and develop follow-
through. They need to focus on important details in designing on-line instruction. They need to learn and apply
time management skills in the development and delivery of internet-based courses. The ENFJ (Extraversion
iNtuition Feeling Judgment) teaching type may need to recognize the limitations of their cyber learners and
guard against unquestioning trust. They may need to learn to manage conflict productively and pay as much
attention to the details of the task as to the cyber learners. In addition, they may need to suspend self-criticism
and listen carefully to the cyber student's feedback.
The INTJ (Introversion iNtuition Thinking Judgment) teaching type may need to solicit feedback and
suggestions from the cyber learners. They may need to learn how to appreciate their on-line learners. In addition,
they may need to focus more on the impact of their instructional design on the learner. Furthermore, they may
need to learn when to give up an impractical idea. The INTP (Introversion iNtuition Thinking Perception)
teaching type may need to focus on practical ideas and develop follow-through when designing on-line courses.
They may need to make efforts to state things more simply. They need to show appreciation of cyber learners'
input. In addition, they may need to get to know more about other faculty and student perceptions about on-line
teaching and learning.
The ENTP (Extraversion iNtuition Thinking Perception) teaching type may need to pay attention to the here-
and-now when designing on-line instruction. They may need to acknowledge and validate input from the cyber
learners. In addition, they may need to set realistic timelines and instructional priorities. They will need to learn
how to work within the system of their on-line delivery program. The ENTJ (Extraversion iNtuition Thinking
Judgment) teaching type may need to factor in the human element and appreciate their cyber learner's
perceptions. They may need to check the practical, personal, and situational resources available before plunging
ahead when designing their on-line course. In addition, they may need to take time to reflect and consider the
learners' view before making instructional decisions.
Regarding the Gregorc's Transactional Ability Inventory, the CS (concrete sequential) teaching style needs to
step back to see the forest! This style can easily become overwhelmed when designing a course for internet
delivery. When designing instruction for on-line delivery, they need to consider the process in achieving the
product. These faculty have difficulty taking action without specific direction; consequently, developing an on-
line course for teaching on the internet will be very challenging. In addition, they need to set reasonable
expectations for themselves and their cyber learners. The AS (abstract sequential) teaching style needs to lighten
up and be less concerned with perfection! Because they have trouble working cooperatively in group
discussions, they need to be willing to try teaching on-line. In addition, they need to work on facing the
unpredictable (which technology can be!). The AR (abstract random) teaching style needs to see the trees in the
forest. When designing an on-line course, they need to become aware of and focus on critical time limits for
themselves and their cyber learners. They need to attend to important details and student assignments for
successful on-line learning. In addition, they need to explain fully and clearly before assuming the cyber learners
will understand. The CR (concrete random) teaching style needs to learn to prioritize when designing on-line
coursework. They need to persevere and follow-through when managing an internet-based class. In addition,
they need to learn how to pace themselves and the course flow for successful on-line teaching and learning.
Implications for Instructional Design
Most instructional design models include an analysis of the learners and consideration of learning styles;
however, instruction can also be designed to support preferred teaching styles. If the instructor's preferred style
of interaction is known, the course design and the types of learning and interaction activities can be selected to
meet both instructor and learner needs.
79
Overcoming the Faceless Classroom.
For those extraverts who rely heavily on the verbal and nonverbal
feedback of their face-to-face students, on-line communications can be frustrating and unrewarding.
Additionally, many of the students may have the same difficulty in making connections in a faceless,
asynchronous environment. Planning class discussion assignments that include sharing of some level of personal
information early in the course may help faculty and students alike in constructing mental models of each other
and in beginning to understand the personal tone of each participant's electronic writing style. One professor at
Black Hills State University was extremely frustrated with this lack of personal connection with his students, and
in desperation, challenged his students to go to his personal web page, read his curriculum vita and, based on the
information they found, guess his favorite football team. The students responded quickly and enthusiastically,
and their electronic responses took on an entirely different tone. The instructor responded to the students with his
own style of informal banter, and the students responded back to him and to each other. He reported that this
exercise, begun in frustration, proved to be such a good way of establishing an on-line rapport that he plans to
use something similar in all of his future on-line classes.
Adapting to a Student-centered Teaching Approach.
The Internet and World Wide Web alter many of the control
dynamics of a traditional classroom. Control of class time or class pacing are now in the hands of students who
log on to the course at all hours of the day and night and work at their own pace. For those who feel more
comfortable in an environment of predictable routine where they can maintain structure and control, on-line
instruction may not be a pleasant prospect. Consideration of the faculty need for structure in addition to the
learners' needs may ease the transition for those teachers with sequential styles of interaction. One professor
found that by using the calendar tool in WebCT she could create a course structure with established deadlines
and scheduled events that resembled the structure she was used to on campus. For another faculty member, one
who traditionally does not enjoy or use a lot of structure in her classes, using the Gregorc Transaction Ability
Inventory made her aware of others' need for structure. As a result, she began adding more structure to her
Internet supported instruction, much to the relief of some of her students.
Managing Time and Technique
. Of all the issues surrounding Internet-based instruction, the one that usually
rises to the top of faculty concerns is the amount of time these courses require. The time required for reading and
responding to individual responses to discussion forums and to private e-mail is piled on top of the time required
to read and respond to written assignments and class projects that are part of both on-line and face-to-face
instruction. Additionally, many faculty find that the lack of an assigned time and place for class time creates a
structural void in their schedules that is too easily filled by other work. For those who prefer to shun formal
structure, this can mean that meeting an on-line course falls into a sporadic, helter-skelter pattern that may leave
students feeling abandoned and discouraged. If faculty understand their preferred informal interaction styles,
they can plan for providing some necessary structure by formally placing a specific time for meeting their classes
on line and posting it along with their office hours and face-to-face schedules. They can close their office doors
and hang a sign that says "In Class. Do Not Disturb." These schedules can quickly become as inviolable as
traditional classroom meeting times.
In regard to the many faculty who find all of their time eaten away by the seemingly endless stream of student e-
mail, we offer one final example of how knowledge of preferred interaction and work styles can be the
springboard to a solution. When one of our on-line teachers complained about the amount of time required to
answer each e-mail or bulletin board question, he was asked how he normally tackled his student feedback.
Being a strongly sequential person, he would open each e-mail, read it and answer it, file it, then move on to the
next. Upon further questioning, he revealed that it never occurred to him to review the entire list of e-mails
before answering any; he said that was too disorderly. Knowing his need for order and sequential activity, the
instructional designer worked with him to find an alternative approach that provided a new sequential structure
that was more efficient for the task. Rather than answering each e-mail, he read all e-mails and sorted them
according to type of response needed. Then he provided comprehensive responses that answered all similar
questions once. Then he addressed those single questions that required a more individual response last. Finally,
he re-examined his assumption that all e-mails must be answered immediately and provided his students with a
specific time schedule of when he would read his e-mail each day and when they could expect feedback. The
time spent reading student contributions remained the same, but the time spent in responding was reduced
significantly, and by providing a clear time structure for responding, he was able to free himself to complete
other duties and still meet his students' need for timely feedback.
Establishing the Learning Community
.The challenge of teaching an on-line course is to find a way of
maintaining the feelings of collegiality and community with the students that are part of the pleasure of teaching
a face-to-face course. Most faculty are accustomed to taking cues from students' facial expressions, body
language, and extemporaneous questions to help the teacher know how the students are progressing with the
80
material to be learned. Suggestions for creating this learning community in the virtural classroom include the
following:
Practice writing rich statements to the students in the Internet delivered course. This interactive strategy can
make the instructor feel that the student-teacher interaction is going on even though you are not in the same
classroom.
Ask the students for feedback several times while the course is in session to keep that contact, now in virtual
form, alive and well.
Send virtual greeting cards or virtual bouquets of balloons to let the students know that they were important
to the instructor. This tactic produced pleased comments from several on-line learners. This seemed to be a
successful way to keep the teacher-student interaction lively and personal.
Using the Research to Make A Personal Decision about Teaching Online
Finally, the following reflection offers one faculty member's personal experience as a participant in this study:
I understand fully the need for college level courses to be delivered online. At the small state
university in western South Dakota where I teach, many of our students commute long distances
for class, so online education would allow them to take their coursework from home without the
commute. Many of our students are returning adults with family responsibilities, community
commitments, and employment to juggle as well as taking coursework. These highly motivated
students are excellent candidates for online education offerings. While I can rationally understand
the need for online courses, and have been willing to offer my written communications classes
through the internet for the last three years, the experience of researching on-line teaching in the
midst of teaching on-line has provided me the opportunity for in-depth self-reflection about my
teaching practices. While teaching the TTL course studied here, I was also in my fourth semester
of teaching college composition online. At the same time, I was learning how to use the WebCt
course delivery package for my composition class, a mind-boggling experience in on the job
training. Looking at the preferences inventories, it is apparent that being willing to attempt new
experiences comes out of my Intuitive, Concrete Random style of operation. Without this study I
might have arrived at my current conclusion that I am not best suited to teach online; however, the
findings have only confirmed what I was experiencing. As a result of the self-reflection this
research engendered, this will be the last semester I teach composition online -- at least for a while.
Even after six semesters of teaching composition online, I still feel uncomfortable with the
experience. I teach composition from a very student-centered, process-oriented, confidence-
building perspective. In a classroom situation I determine what concepts or skills I need to present
to the students as they reveal their strengths and weaknesses as writers. The online environment
does not seem to favor this way of approaching teaching. I am instead required to think of
everything my students might need to know, explain those concepts and skills fully in writing, and
require all students to read through all the materials I have presented, whether they need this
instruction or not. I spend a lot of time with students in my writing classes focusing on their
current writing process and suggesting alternative strategies for improving their process while they
are producing a piece of writing. While I have improved in this area over the course of teaching
online, the online environment still does not seem as conducive to intervening in the writing
process as the classroom environment allows. Finally, I spend much time helping students to
overcome writing anxiety and build confidence in themselves as writers. Much of this is done
through personal interaction in the classroom. In delivering the course online, I miss seeing their
faces, kidding with them about their lives, and encouraging their efforts at writing -- all activities I
can do naturally in a classroom setting. This research into personality and teaching preferences has
enabled me to see that while teaching online has been an interesting experience, I am not best
suited to this course delivery system. I urge my students to find their strengths as writers so they
can use those strengths to develop a better writing process; it's time I took my own advice about
teaching.
Looking at the Myers-Briggs personality type and the Gregorc Teaching Styles helped me to see
why I was experiencing discomfort teaching online. As an Extrovert I strive in my classroom for
dialogue, cooperative study, and discussion, all aspects that were difficult to establish online.
Additionally, as an Extrovert I chose teaching because I like having people around and prefer face
81
to face over written communication. I still feel uncomfortable and even inconvenienced by
working alone communicating with my students through the computer. As an Intuitive, I
personally like self-instruction and independent study. While I favor those experiences myself, I
found it difficult to engender them in all my online students. As a result, many students did not
complete the course, which only made me feel inadequate. Additionally, according to type, I enjoy
learning new skills more than using them, but once the newness has worn off, I'm ready to move
on to other experiences. My Feeling characteristic seeks involvement with other people, something
I found very difficult to experience in the online environment. I found that the online environment
required me to be much more teacher-directed than I prefer. Additionally, as a perceptive, I like to
focus on the process, the result of my graduate training and my personal preference. I additionally
enjoy flexibility; however, the online environment focuses on the task and seems more inflexible
and settled than I prefer.
The Myers-Briggs inventory defines my personality preferences well, but I have more difficulty
finding my preferred teaching style using the Gregorc inventory. I definitely have a random
teaching style, but I share characteristics with both the abstract and concrete preferences. Like an
abstract random, I am reflective and flexible but need freedom from external control. I have used
the experience of teaching online to reflect on myself as a teacher and hope I have improved as a
result of the experience. However, I felt the environment to be inflexible and I felt controlled by it.
I additionally relate well to others, personalize information, and prefer to be part of a group, but I
found it difficult to use these characteristics while teaching online. However, like a concrete
random, I like to experiment, am a risk taker, have a high degree of curiosity, and use trial and
error, all characteristics which led me to enter this new world of teaching online. And now that I
have done it for three years, I have learned much about myself, and know it is time to return to the
(traditional) classroom where my strengths as a teacher can be better utilized.
References
Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating Computer Conferencing: Recommendations from the field.
Educational
Technology,
35 (1), 22-30.
Butler, K. A. (1984
). Learning and teaching style: In theory and practice
, Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems,
Inc.
Cooper, M. M. & Selfe, C. L. (Dec. 1990). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and
internally persuasive discourse
. College English,
52 (8), 847-869.
Ehrman, M. (1990). Psychological factors and distance education.
American Journal of Distance Education,
4 (1) 10-24.
Gilbert, S. (1995). An "online" experience.
Change Proquest
, March, 28-46.
Grant, M. B. & Cambre, M. A. (1990). Research on teachers’ characteristics in relation to a cognitive-
learning based interactive videodisc system.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association
, April 16-20, Boston, MA.
Green, K. G. (1996). The coming ubiquity of information technology.
Change Proquest
, March/April, 24-
28.
Gregorc, A. F. (1982).
An adult's guide to style
, Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems, Inc.
Herbster, D. L., Abel, F., Hargrove, J. A. & Weems, D. (1987). Integrating learning styles, critical thinking,
and models of teaching in the student teaching experience.
Internal report
, Bozeman: Montana State
University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 303 462).
Hetrick, W. (1993). Leadership for a time of change.
Paper presented at the Annual Conference on
“Creating the Quality School”
, March 25-27, Oklahoma City, OK.
Hirsh, S. K. & Kummerow, J. M. (1990).
Introduction to type in organizations: Individual Interpretive
Guide
, 2
nd
Ed., Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Kerr, E. B. (1986). Electronic leadership: A guide to moderating on-line conferences
. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communications,
29, 12-18.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. (Oct. 1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated
communication.
American Psychologist,
39 (10), 1123-1134.
Knupfer, N. (1989). The relationship between elementary teachers’ psychological tendencies and their uses
of educational computing.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology
, February 1-5, Dallas, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.
ED 308 824)
82
Lawrence, G. (1984). A synthesis of learning style research involving the MBTI.
Journal of Psychological
Type
, 8 (1) 2-15.
Myers, P. B. & Myers, K. D. (1987).
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press, Inc.
Parisot, A. H. (1997). Distance education as a catalyst for changing teaching in the community college:
Implications for institutional policy
. New Directions for Community Colleges
, 25 (3), 5-15.
Pfaffenberger, B. (1986). Research networks, scientific communication, and the personal computer.
IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communications,
29, 30-33.
Pfeifer, J. (1983). The effects of personality on success in student teaching.
Paper presented at the National
Field Directors Forum of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators
, Jan. 29 - Feb. 2,
Orlando, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 228 199).
Pitt, T. J. & Clark, A. (1997). Creating powerful online courses using multiple instructional strategies,
http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcc-conf/pres/pitt.html
Rogers, Everett M. (19950.
Diffusions of Innovations
, 4
th
Ed., New York: The Free Press.
83
Appendix 1
Relationship of Respondents' Finding Course to be Exciting to Other Survey Variables Using Gamma, A
Nonparametric Measure Of Relationship
Name of Question Gamma Comment
Previous Experience Teaching
by Distance by video or TV
.030 Only 23% of respondents had any experience teaching
by distance - this Gamma may be suggestive rather than
significant
Previous Experience Teaching
by Internet
.05 Because of the nature of the group, very few individuals
had previous experience in teaching by Internet so this
Gamma would not be expected to be a strong value.
Previous Experience Learning
by Distance
-.255 Other distance learning course experiences may have
been different from the instructors' experiences in
teaching the TTL follow-up course
Previous Experience Learning
by Internet
-.393 Internet learning by its nature will bring forth different
attitudes than will Internet teaching, and possibly even
distance learning.
Previous Experience Using
Computer Based
Communications in Ed.
-.311 These respondents apparently had a different previous
experience in using computer based communications
than they did in this course
Found the Course to be
Stimulating
.75 Exciting and stimulating are strongly related to these
responses
Found the Course to be
Frustrating
.60 Can be exciting and frustrating at the same time
Found the Course to be
Difficult
.40 Difficulty does not preclude excitement for many of
these teachers
Found the Course to be worth
time invested
.464 These respondents had a strong correspondence between
being excited about the course and investing time in
teaching the course
Willing to teach another TTL
Course On-Line
-.123 Excitement about this course does not imply a
willingness to work on another TTL on-line project
Interested in teaching more
Internet based courses
.228 The respondents are excited and interested in teaching
more Internet based courses
Interested in taking Internet
based courses
.220 Likewise, the respondents are excited and interested in
taking more Internet based courses, but may feel a time
constraint due to other teaching duties
Would recommend this form of
teaching to Colleagues
.355 Being excited about teaching the course goes along with
recommending this form of teaching to other colleagues.
Would Recommend Internet
based courses to Adult
Learners
.269 The respondents are excited about the course but may
recommend such courses based on their individual
knowledge of other adult learners
Gregorc AR - CR -CS
- .138 CS more likely to be excited
MBTI: E or I
0.5 2 E's disagreed, no I's disagreed
N or S
- .267 More N's agreed or Strongly Agreed than S's
F or T
- .733 More F's agreed or Strongly Agreed than T's
J or P
0.269 Almost equal J's agreed or Strongly Agreed
Years of Education
0.077 More years of education, slightly more positive
Age
0.29 Older respondents were more excited about the delivery
method
Gender
0.164 Does not seem to be an issue on the other measures in this
84
Appendix 2
Relating Willingness To Teach Another TTL Course And Interest In Teaching More Internet- Based
Courses To Other Variables Measured
Name of Question Gamma
1
Gamma
2
Comment
Previous Experience Teaching
by Distance
.75 .375 The more previous experience the respondent had in
teaching by distance the more willing and interested the
respondent is in teaching Internet based courses
Previous Experience Teaching
by Internet
.244 .138 The more previous experience the respondent had in
teaching by Internet the more willing and interested the
respondent is in teaching Internet based courses, but not
as strongly as previous experience teaching by distance
promotes
Previous Experience Learning
by Distance
.379 .220 Some experience learning by distance improves the
willingness to teach another course
Previous Experience Learning
by Internet
.071 Little previous experiences mean less of a willingness
to teach another TTL course
Previous Experience Using
Computer Based
Communications in Ed.
.403 .625 Using computer based communications in education
seems to have a positive influence on willingness to
teach another TTL course, and on willingness to teach a
distance education based course.
Found the Course to be
Stimulating
.517 .645 There seems to be a definite relationship between
finding the course stimulating and being willing to
teach another Internet based course
Found the Course to be
Frustrating
.294 *** Frustration does not imply that respondents are not
willing to teach another Internet based TTL course.
Found the Course to be
Difficult
-.219 -.385 There seems to be some relationship between finding
the course difficult and not being willing to teach
another Internet based course
Found the Course to be worth
time invested
.569 .944 All respondents found the course to be worth the time
invested, yet more strongly when they expressed
willingness to teach another Internet based course.
Interested in taking Internet
based courses
.577 .924 Respondents are definitely more willing to take Internet
based courses when they are willing to teach another
Internet based course.
Would recommend this form of
teaching to Colleagues
.314 .769 Respondents are more willing to recommend teaching
Internet based courses when they are willing to teach
another Internet based course
Would Recommend Internet
based courses to Adult
Learners
.625 .973 Respondents are definitely more willing to recommend
Internet based courses to Adult learners when they are
willing to teach another Internet based course.
Gregorc AR -CR - CS
.079 -.446 AR's seem more willing to teach TTL Internet based
course than are CS's
MBTI: E or I
-.25 .277 The I's were more willing to teach another TTL Internet
based course than the E's, but E's were more willing to
teach another Internet based course
N or S
- .371 - .692 Neither N nor S are especially willing to teach another
Internet based course
F or T
.609 .067 F is more interested in teaching another TTL course
than is T
J or P
.444 .564 Both J and P are willing to teach another on-line course
- TTL or other
Years of Schooling
.214 .250 More years of schooling seem to correspond with more
willingness to teach on-line courses
Age
.125 .314 Greater age seems to correspond with slightly more
willingness to teach on-line courses
Gender
-.323 - .574 More females tend to agree on willingness to teach
more Internet based courses than do males, based on
this study
85
Gamma
1
= Willing to teach TTL Internet course again
Gamma
2
= Willing to Teach Internet Courses in General
*** The relationship here is unitary since this is the same variable.
(Authors will provide an additional table showing other Gammas for less strong relationships upon request.)
