1. Online Learners and their Learning Strategies
Dr Tammy Dewar, Calliope Learning, Calgary, Canada
Dr Dave Whittington, University of Glasgow, Scotland
Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 415-433. 2000
Correspondence address
Tammy Dewar
tammy@calliopelearning.com
1

2. Online Learners and their Learning Strategies
Tammy Dewar and Dave Whittington
Abstract
The authors have used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI®), a personality assessment tool,
to look at online learning styles. MBTI is briefly explained and some work on how MBTI has
been applied to online behavior in general is outlined. The paper describes and discusses an
experiment that looked at how adult learners make use of their MBTI type to cope with the
challenges of learning in an online environment. Results of the experiment are presented and
some tentative conclusions are drawn. The authors go on to provide notes related to the four
psychological dimensions of the MBTI that might be useful to course designers, course
facilitators and students. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of where further work might
prove useful.
Introduction
If we do not devote equal energy - yes, and equal money - to the release of the
potential of the individual person then the enormous discrepancy between our
level of physical energy resources and human energy resources will doom us to a
deserved and universal destruction. Carl Rogers 1993 [1]
Rogers goes on “...unless we give strong positive attention to the human interpersonal side of our
educational dilemma, our civilisation is on its way down the drain.”
Rogers may be overstating his case, it is unlikely that civilisation will meet “universal
destruction” if the “the human interpersonal side” of education is not given due attention.
However, the authors believe that time should be taken to carefully examine the interpersonal
side of online learning and attention should be given to the construction and delivery of online
courses.
This paper reports on an investigation into how different people learn online. It suggests that
simply looking at learning styles is insufficient if we are to understand the complex interpersonal
relationships that develop in facilitated online learning. The authors use the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) to help understand how different personalities interact in online learning
situations.
Background
Billings [2] has suggested that the sociological aspects of learning style have greatest importance
on distance education course completion. It might be natural to extend this to say that we need to
think much more holistically if we are to understand how different people learn online.
Rogers [1] very eloquently makes the case for the necessity of close interpersonal relationships
within education. He argues that only within trusting, real and empathetic relationships can true
education take place. If we are to develop relationships such as these, especially in an online
context, then some understanding of how relationships between different people are formed is
vital. Tools such as the MBTI help us to think about these issues, to discover ourselves and to
help discover others.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an inventory used to determine personality
dispositions and preferences based on Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types. Carl Jung
2

3. postulated that apparently random behaviour on an individual’s part is really not random at all but
has a pattern to it. This pattern will reflect the person’s preferences for taking in information and
making decisions. It will also reflect the world in which a person feels most comfortable - the
outer world of action or the inner world of ideas. Jung suggests that this behaviour is inborn,
much like being born right or left-handed.
Based on Carl Jung’s’ work, Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers devoted a lifetime
to making his theory accessible and relevant to the average person. They developed the MBTI®,
a self- report inventory with four psychological dimensions, eight preferences and 16 types [3].
The four psychological dimensions are energizing, attending, deciding and living. The eight
preferences are extravert (E)-introvert (I) (energizing dimension), sensing (S)-intuition (N)
(attending), thinking (T)-feeling (F) (deciding) and judging (J)-perceiving (P) (living). (Note:
Myers and Briggs maintained Jung’s original spelling of extravert with an A.)
An individual’s four letter type is determined by which end of each dimension they tend towards.
An individual’s type does not indicate strength of preference, but rather which combination of
preferences they would ordinarily use in various situations. The 16 types are based on the 16
possible combinations of preferences. For example, both authors’ type is ENFP. More
explanation of each of the eight preferences follows.
The Extravert-Introvert dimension refers to where people get their energy. Extraverts are focused
on the outer world of people, things and action while introverts are focused on the inner world of
ideas and feelings. Because of this, extraverts tend to express emotions freely, are energized by
interacting with people and seek out feedback from others. They have a tendency to act first and
then reflect. Introverts, on the other hand, store up their emotions (choosing when and with whom
they will show emotions), are sometimes exhausted by interacting with large groups of people,
and will think things through first before acting [3].
The Sensing-Intuition dimension refers to how we gather information. Sensing types gather
information through their five senses and by focusing on the here and now details and
practicalities. Intuitive types gather information by their sixth sense, by focusing on the big
picture and searching for connections, patterns, relationships and meanings. Sensing types like
things that are definite, measurable, and practical while intuitives like opportunities for dreaming
and being inventive. Sensing types live in the present while intuitives live toward the future
anticipating what could or might be. Sensing types rarely make errors about factual things and
details; intuitives frequently miss the details while searching for the grand design behind
something [3].
The Thinking-Feeling dimension refers to how we make decisions. Feeling types base their
decisions on subjective personal values while thinking types base their decisions on logic, facts
and objectivity. Thinking types see things as an on-looker from outside a situation and are
concerned with ideas and principles. Feeling types, on the other hand, see things as a participant,
from within a situation and are concerned with harmony and relationships. Thinkers tend to
question the conclusions of other people, while feelers agree with those around them, thinking
them to be right [3].
The Judging-Perceiving dimension looks at our drive for closure and organization. Perceivers like
open-ended, free-flowing, almost structureless environments, while judgers like things definite,
settled and organized. Judgers like to have life under control while perceivers prefer to
experience life as it happens. Judgers expect an organized routine and will push for decisions to
be made and then carry them out. Perceivers, on the other hand, usually need to gather more
information and will postpone decisions. Judgers are self-regimented, purposeful and exacting
while perceivers are flexible, adaptable and tolerant [3].
3

4. The MBTI has become a widely used tool in both education and business to explore leadership
styles [4], teaching/learning styles [5-7], communication styles [8], and vocational choice [8].
The MBTI and Online Learning
Much has been written about learning styles and the MBTI [5-7, 9], but little has been written
specifically about MBTI learning styles in the online environment. Reviewing the literature on
the MBTI and Internet behavior does provide a starting point.
Of the few articles about type and online behavior, most of them tend to suggest that introverts
are over represented (over represented meaning as compared to the statistics overall of type in the
North American population) generally in terms of Internet use. They also enjoy the online
environment because it creates the space and privacy they don’t usually find in our regular face to
face (f2f) environment [10-13]. Livingood notes
The future looks superficially grim for society’s introverts. With the continuous
enhancement of pagers, teleconferencing, cellular phones, and the development of
personal communicators, a growing verbal inferno threatens to engulf the world’s quieter
individuals. Yet, silent as they may be, introverts can have a lot to say given the right
forum. They’ve found that the Internet can help them communicate in their preferred
manner; a written dialogue with time to pause for thought and analysis.
Palloff and Pratt [13] suggest there’s a difference in how extraverts and introverts enter into a
virtual community. They suggest that “It is more comfortable for an introvert to spend time
thinking about information before responding to it. It is more difficult—but not impossible—for
extroverts [sic] to interact this way, perhaps because they have less need to.” [13, p. 22] Further,
Pratt (as quoted in Palloff and Pratt) notes that “Consequently, the introvert may have less
difficulty entering the virtual community, whereas the extrovert [sic], with a need to establish a
sense of social presence, may have more trouble doing so. [13, p. 22] The authors note that it is
not clear that Palloff and Pratt are using the terms extravert/introvert consistent with MBTI
theory, as evidenced by their spelling of extraversion with an “o”.
A notable exception to these observations about introversion is Owen and Liles [12], whose
research about the relationship of psychological type and the adoption and use of the Internet,
found that field faculty who are extraverts are more likely to use the Internet. They suggest the
reason is that the Internet facilitates the extravert’s inclination to be connected with large numbers
of individuals and accommodates their need for group work, cooperative projects and discussion.
They suggest that introverts prefer to work individually or with small groups, thereby reducing
their use of group communications technologies (as opposed to email communication).
Intuitives are also over represented [10, 12], with a possible explanation that the holistic and
hypertext environment is more suited to intuitives as opposed to sensing types, who seek a linear
or step by step environment.
Thinkers are also over represented [10], although little explanation is provided for this.
Only Ellis Harsham [10] has commented at all on the judging/perceiving preference. He notes
that, “Because there’s a good deal of playing around on the Internet, I thought there might be an
even greater overrepresentation of Perceivers—but I also expect that many Perceivers never got
around to sending their e-mail response to Jon.” [10, p. 22]
4

5. One article by Frederick Bail, written in 1995 [14], looked specifically at type and computer-
mediated communications. He analyzed the personal email communications and group
communications of 55 undergraduate students over three semesters. His main results:
• students expressing a clear preference for extraversion sent more messages to peers than
those showing a clear preference for introversion
• students with either a clear preference for extraversion or for intuition tended to write more
replies to peers’ conference notes than students with either a clear preference for introversion
or for sensing, respectively
• those with a clear intuition preference also tended to write more nonrequired replies to peers’
conference notes and wrote longer notes themselves [14, p. 224]
An earlier exploratory study analyzing the content of personal email sent to him by students
(1992) suggested that:
• majority of those containing significant self disclosure were written by students who
expressed a preference for introversion
• three-quarters of the messages requesting clarification of requirements were written by those
who expressed a preference for judging [14, p. 221]
While Bail’s results are interesting, they do not address the challenges and complexities of
learning online, from the learners’ perspective. An initial study was designed to get at these
concepts.
Experimental Evidence
This study was conducted with a group of learners who are graduate students at Royal Roads
University in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada to address the question “How do individuals use
MBTI® learning style concepts to help them in the online environment?” (see
http://opstrain.com/calliope/mbti/over.htm for complete details.) One of the authors, a qualified
MBTI facilitator, had provided introductory MBTI workshops to five cohorts of over 55 people
each over the last three years. Their program was structured around two summer residences and
online courses delivered in the fall and winter semesters. All potential participants, therefore, had
both an understanding of MBTI concepts and experience with online learning.
An email was sent out inviting people to participate in a virtual discussion over a three week
period. Twenty-six completed a consent form indicating their interest. Of those 26, 21 signed on
to the conferencing system, one of whom did not participate beyond testing it. One of the 21
active participants is also one of the co-researchers. The other co-researcher acted as a facilitator.
Participants were presented with a discussion paper outlining possible applications of their
awareness of their own MBTI type to the online environment (see
http://opstrain.com/calliope/mbti/ls.htm) and a list of learning style characteristics pertinent to
each of the eight preferences based on Lawrence’s work [5]. These are highlighted in the tables
below:
Table 1 – Extravert/Introvert Learning Characteristics
Extravert (E) Introvert (I)
• chooses to work with others, with large groups • chooses to work alone or with one person
• plunges into new experiences • holds back from new experiences
• is relaxed and confident • chooses written assignments over oral presentations
• readily talks over events and ideas with others • performs better in written work than in oral presentations
• is interested in other people and their doings • pauses before answering, and shows discomfort with
• readily offers opinions spontaneous questioning
• shares personal experiences • asks questions to allow understanding something before
5

6. • wants to experience things so as to understand them attempting to do it
• is enthusiastic about activities involving action • is hard to understand, quiet and shy; seems deep
• asks questions to check on the expectations of the group or • is intense, bottling up emotions
teacher • prefers setting his/her own standards when possible
• has a relatively short attention span • spends time in thought, before and after actions
• dislikes complicated procedures and gets impatient with • has a small number of carefully selected friends
slow jobs • likes quiet space to work
• is interested in the results of the job, in getting it done, and • works intently on the task at hand
in how other people do it • works on one thing for a long time
• eagerly attends to interruptions • prefers jobs that can be done “inside the head”
• acts quickly, sometimes without thinking • dislikes interruptions
• likes to work by trial and error • may spend too much time in thought and neglect to get into
• communicates well and greets people easily action
Table 2 – Sensing/Intuition Learning Characteristics
Sensing Intuition
• is realistic and practical • seems to like something new all the time
• is more observant than imaginative • is more imaginative than observant
• wants to have senses fully engaged and satisfied • attends more to the whole concept than to details
• enjoys owning things and making them work • is aware only of events that relate to current interests
• prefers memorizing to finding reasons • becomes restless, impatient with routines
• is aware of environment and changes moods as physical • is an initiator, promoter, inventor of ideas
surroundings change • sees possibilities that others miss
• learns best from an orderly sequence of details • is quick with finding solutions
• interested in facts and what is really true • doesn’t always hear you out; anticipates your words
• keeps accurate track of details, makes lists • likes to have and do things differently from others
• is patient • likes problems that require new ways of being solved
• is good at checking, inspecting, and precise work • dislikes precise work with many details
• likes to know the “right way” to solve problems • enjoys learning a new skill more than using it
• likes an established routine • works in bursts of energy, with slack periods in between
• enjoys using skills already learned more than learning new • jumps to conclusions; makes factual errors
ones • finds reading easy
• works steadily, not in fits and starts • readily grasps meanings of words and symbols
• is impatient or frustrated with complicated situations
• seldom uses imagination or has inspirations
Table 3 – Thinking/Feeling Learning Characteristics
Thinking (T) Feeling (F)
• wants logical reasons before acccepting new ideas • is personal, likes warm personal relationships
• tries to be fair; is impersonal, impartial • is more interested in people than things or ideas
• finds ideas and things more interesting than people • is more tactful than truthful, if forced to choose
• is more truthful than tactful, if forced to choose • is likely to agree with others in the group
• is brief and businesslike • thinks as others think, believing them probably right
• takes very seriously facts, theories, and the discovery of • finds it difficult to be brief and businesslike
truth • takes emotional relationships and ideals very seriously
• takes seriously the solution of objective problems • is offended by a lack of personal consideration in other
• treats emotional relationships and ideals quite casually • is motivated by others
• contributes intellectual criticism • may comply or conform to avoid disharmony
• exposes wrongs in the habits and beliefs of others • permits feelings to override logic
• is offended by illogic in others • forecasts how others will feel
• holds firmly to a policy or conviction • arouses enthusiasm
• hurts other people’s feelings without knowing it • is upset by conflicts; values harmony
• has a low need for harmony • dislikes telling people unpleasant things
• is upset by injustice • relates well to most people
• seems not to know how his or her own actions affect other • is sympathetic
people’s feeling
Table 4 – Judging/Perceiving Learning Characteristics
Judging (J) Perceiving (P)
• likes to have things decided and settled • is more curious than decisive
• is more decisive than curious • lives according to the situation of the moment
• lives according to plans • may not plan things, acts spontaneously
• lives according to standards and customs not easily or • is comfortable in handling the unplanned, unexpected, or
lightly set aside incidental
6

7. • tries to make situations conform to his or her own • looks for new experiences, expects to be interested
standards, “the way they ought to be” • samples many more experiences than can be digested or
• makes definite choices from among the possibilities used
• is uneasy with unplanned happenings • takes a “live and let live” attitude
• bases friendship upon beliefs, standards and tastes which • bases friendships on propinquity and shared experience
are assumed to be shared • takes on friendships easily; may also neglect, drop, and
• has enduring friendships resume them easily
• sets up “shoulds” and “oughts” and regularly judges self • aims to miss nothing
against these • is flexible, adaptable and tolerant
• aims to be right • wants to understand things more than manage them
• is self-regimented, purposeful and exacting • leaves things open
• is orderly, organized and systematic • has trouble making decisions
• likes assignments to be clear and definite • starts too many projects and has difficulty in finishing them
• has settled opinions • postpones unpleasant jobs
• may be tolerant of routine procedures • welcomes new light on a thing, situation or person
Participants were then invited to respond to the following questions:
1. As a(n) {fill in one of the eight preferences) learner, I appreciate a learning environment that
....
2. The online learning environment helps or hinders my [fill in one of the eight preferences]
learning needs in that ...
3. The strategies I developed to address these learning needs are ...
4. What I think I need to develop to better work with the online environment is ...
Results – Participant Experiences
Although Lawrence’s observations about the MBTI and learning styles were specific to f2f
environments, research participants validated the learning characteristics as applicable to their
experience in the online environment, with a notable exception of the thinking and feeling
preference, which is explained in more detail below. Comments such as the following were quite
typical:
Lawrence’s list suits me pretty much to a “T”. (ENFJ)
Yes, the above list applies to me .. what else can I say? (ESFJ)
I was certainly able to see myself in the profile provided - describes me to a T! (INTJ)
Oh my goodness. That Lawrence person with all the lists has got me pegged! (ENFP)
Participants also commented on how some adaptations were made for the online environment and
what strategies they developed. The following tables and discussion highlight how the online
environment facilitates and hinders each preference, and the strategies participants have
developed to help them online.
Extraversion/Introversion
The following two tables highlight the differences between extraverts and introverts (in that
order) in the online environment. It is interesting to note that while writers have suggested that
introverts are more at home in the online environment, that extraverts have found it appealing for
different reasons, although both introverts and extraverts identify challenges that need to be
addressed.
7

8. Table 5 – Extravert preferences online
Facilitates Preference Hinders Preference Strategies Developed
• Flexibility and pacing • Miss nonverbals and body language of • Recall faces and voices
accommodates short attention span f2f
• Spend more time reflecting
• Ability to “skip” messages if tired • Online can “suck energy” at times before posting
or bored
• Hates missing anything so finds online • Develop thinking and writing
• No need to worry about too time consuming in terms of reading skills
monopolizing air time every message
• Read instructions before leaping
• Provides opportunity for increased • Waiting for feedback from others when into something
interaction and connection with posting to an asynchronous discussion
distance learners* • Use real time online chats to
energize
• Time to re-read, reflect before
contributing ** • Need to take time to “meet”
people virtually and discover
interests if they haven’t met
someone f2f previously
• Form f2f groups where courses
were non interactive
*NOTE: Refers specifically to learner/learner interactions; it was noted that instructor/learner
interaction was not as energizing. It was compared to a faster version of correspondence, which
had a negative connotation.
**NOTE: This is an out of preference observation. This trait is characteristic of introverts in
MBTI theory.
Table 6 – Introvert preferences online
Facilitates Preference Hinders Preference Strategies Developed
• Flexibility and pacing • Sometimes miss nonverbals and body • Be clear about expectations and
accommodates need for time to language of f2f parameters
reflect/refine ideas
• Waiting for feedback from others when • Create draft copies before
• Not put “on the spot” to respond posting to an asynchronous discussion posting a message
quickly
• Easy to withdraw from discussions • Reply to one person to help to
• No need to fight for “air time” as develop ease with larger group
with f2f • Often “over reflect” and not get into
action • Limit number of times to edit
• More comfortable sometimes than work
f2f which facilitates speaking out • Humour not understood
more • Challenging to develop trust *
• Capitalizes on ease with written
work
• Can enjoy contributions of others
without pressure to respond
*NOTE: There was an interesting discussion among two participants about trust and risk as it
relates to online learning. This was not mentioned in the extravert discussion.
Sensing/Intuition
There were only three sensing types in the study, one of whom did not participate beyond testing
the system. One sensor validated the Lawrence list as accurate, suggesting “Yes the above list
applies to me … what else can I say?” The other sensor observed that her sensing and intuitive
8

9. scores were quite close, and, therefore, she only related to half of the characteristics. None of
them commented specifically on how the online environment related to a sensing preference. It is
interesting to note, however, that three intuitives commented on sensing, suggesting they had
developed some sensing traits to help them in the online environment.
The following table highlights the observations made by intuitives. What is of particular note is
that a number of the strategies intuitives identified had to do with developing their opposite
preference, sensing.
Table 7 – Intuition preferences online
Facilitates Preference Hinders Preference Strategies Developed
• Allows for the play with • Keeping interested in courses that are • Jot down notes on details and
words/symbols and creative more detail oriented organize thoughts before posting
element in exploration so others can follow train of
• Easy to skip over messages that appear thought
• Internet learning is a new and dull
exciting thing in and of itself • Post shorter messages and more
• Can easily ignore events not interested in often
• Able to create new
adventures/possibilities and use • Some parts of online work are detailed • Complete “detail” or mundane
one’s imagination • Challenging to communicate mental assignments by creating
leaps to others challenges and moving outside
• Reading other people’s work of comfort zone– eg. Submitting
sparked interest and creativity assignment as a web page
• Asynchronous nature facilitates • Attend to details of assignment
working in bursts of energy, with instead of jumping to
slack periods in between which conclusions about it
addresses dislike of routine
• Attend to messages that appear
• Ability to bounce around in “dull”
conversations and not follow
sequences • Find systematic ways of tracking
conversations
• Develop routine to deal with
assignment deadlines
• Develop patience
Thinking/Feeling
Of the four dimensions of the MBTI, the thinking/feeling preference is the only one that shows a
marked sex difference, because feeling characteristics have stereotypically been assigned to
women, while thinking characteristics to men. Briggs, Myers and Myers [3] note, “The
generalization tends to pass over the women with thinking and the men with feeling, partly
because types that do not fit the stereotypes have often learned the art of protective coloration.”
[3, p. 66] This notion probably accounts for the difficulty in arriving at conclusions about online
work in this dimension. A number of the research participants debated the accuracy of
Lawrence’s characteristics, and there were a number of feelers posting in the thinking area, and
thinkers posting in the feeling area.
Two additional factors appear to be at play. One is that the research participants are enrolled in a
leadership program, which emphasizes the value of developing collaborative relationships, a
feeling characteristic according to Lawrence. Also, given the number of extraverted feeling types
and introverted thinking types, a number of observations in the feeling area were related to
extraversion, and those in the thinking area related to introversion.
9

10. There are only a couple of observations, therefore, that could be teased out with any certainty
about this dimension. Feelers did tend to agree that they found online communication cold and
impersonal and, given a choice, would choose f2f over online. The thinkers did not mention this.
A notable exception is one feeler who found online communication to have more depth, more
feeling, and more honesty than f2f. The feelers highlighted similar strategies to the extravert list
above to deal with this. They also noted that as they started interacting with people online and
got to know them, they could make meaningful connections.
The main theme in the thinking preference related to the excitement and love of debating ideas,
with the corresponding caution of how this may be received by others. While several thinkers
noted they did value harmony in relationships and paid attention to people’s feelings, several
others suggested they needed to learn how to temper their directedness and interest in ideas
online, so as not to be misinterpreted.
Judging/Perceiving
The following two tables highlight the differences between judging and perceiving (in that order)
in the online environment. Both types indicate an appreciation for how the online environment
meets their learning needs in this dimension. The perceivers, however, appear to have a love/hate
relationship with it. While it does facilitate their need for open-ended exploration, they struggle
to keep themselves focused and within overall course structures and deadlines. As with the
intuition preference, their strategies are very closely related to developing their opposite
preference, judging.
Table 8 – Judging preferences online
Facilitates Preference Hinders Preference Strategies Developed
• Can organize and complete tasks on • Have to work overtime at the beginning • Have learned to skim postings
their schedule as opposed to to figure out expectations
another’s; very few occurrences
that will throw off the plan • Sometimes attending to too many
messages throws off the schedule
• Feel in control of the learning
environment and not at the mercy
of other learners who may have a
different pace
Table 9 – Perceiving preferences online
Facilitates Preference Hinders Preference Strategies Developed
• Lots of room for new experiences, • Flexibility and openness can lead to • Develop time and task
exploration and play procrastination of unpleasant tasks management
and/or feeling overwhelmed
• Open ended nature of Internet • Complete unpleasant tasks first
appeals to curiosity and spontaneity • Too much structure or too little structure
in course design • Start work early, so have time to
• Some structure forces on task change direction if needed
behavior
• Send off assignments as soon as
• Pubs and chat areas facilitate need completed to avoid endless
for play while working revisions
• Set limits on interests
• Develop focus and self-
discipline
10

11. Results – Participation Patterns
Reviewing the overall participation of the various types revealed some interesting type behavior
patterns. The following table highlights the distribution of participants and their postings among
the 16 types.
Table 10 - Participation by Type
ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
N=0 N=0 N=1 N=2
I=2 I=1
W=8 W=4.5
C=2 C=4.5
ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
N=0 N=0 N=2 N=3
I=6 I=1
W= 4.5 W=5.3
C=1 C=2
ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
N=0 N=0 N=4 N=0
I=7.5
W=6.25
C=3.25
ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
N=1 N=2 N=2 N=4
I=0 I=0 I=2 I=0.25
W=0 W=4.5 W=5.5 W=3
C=0 C=1 C=2.5 C=0
Key to Table One
N - Number of participants of given type
I - Average number of postings in Introductory and Pub areas (does not include compulsory self
introduction)
W - Average number of postings in main work area of the conference
C - Average number of postings in closing area of the conference
Despite the small number of participants and the lack of spread of types, it is evident that the
feeling types are showing a clear preference for the more informal areas of the conference where
their postings reveal them developing relationships with other research participants. The thinking
types, on the other hand, posted little in the informal areas, and confined their comments to the
ideas of the research when they did post. This is in keeping with the MBTI theory which
suggests that the thinking types attend more to ideas and concepts while feeling types are
concerned with creating relationships [3, p. 68]. (As noted earlier, however, there was much
debate among participants about the validity of this observation.) Comments from participants
that suggest this are:
Glad to see that so many people are visiting the pub. I should have bought shares in this
place when I had the chance. (INFP)
Warmth in relationships is important to me and I find the online environment quite cold.
(INFJ)
I forget that people are an important part of the theory that needs to be explored. (ENTJ)
11

12. What I think I need to develop to better work with the online environment is to temper
my somewhat less frequent brutal style with respect and consideration for the ideas of
others. (ENTJ)
Designers and facilitators of online courses need to be aware of, and have respect for, the diverse
needs of their learners. In particular, informal chat areas in online courses are vital to the overall
positive learning environment for feeling types. Making participation in these informal areas
compulsory, however, might disadvantage the thinking types.
Commentators have noticed that whereas introverts have been disadvantaged in face to face
classrooms, the online classroom levels the playing field. As Livingood [11] notes, “[introverts]
are connected, they are communicating, and they are comfortable in the new world of
cyberspace.” Our quantitative evidence reveals that introverts and extraverts participate
somewhat equally in this medium, although they do experience it differently, as identified
previously and as evidenced in the following quotes:
I appreciate the online learning situation’s flexibility and space. I have time to read, re-
read, write, edit, and refine contributions in order to be as clear as I can be. Just the
process of doing this provides a certain amount of satisfaction. (INFJ)
The online learning environment helps my introverted learning needs in that it is flexible
with time for answering or responding to questions or statements. I don’t feel I have to
fight or wait for my turn to “speak”. (INTP)
One of the few drawbacks for me is I miss the toe to toe, knee to knee, face to face
contact with others. What I have done to overcome this a bit is with folks I know I simply
recall their voice or face and that in a way brings their written message to life for me.
(ENFJ)
When I have found myself needing more “E” contact, that’s when I slip into ICQ... like
right now... I’ll be back.. ooops, here I am, a wee “E” -charge and I am all set for a while.
(ENTJ) (Note: ICQ is a synchronous communication tool.)
This points to the importance of including real time tools in an online classroom for the
extraverts. As noted above, however, the key is to provide the option as opposed to mandating its
use.
It also seems that there is a slight preference for extraverts to enter more into the informal areas
while the introverts entered more into the assigned tasks as long as the sensing/intuition
dimension is controlled for. Since there were no introverted sensing types, this seems reasonable
to do. However, if one doesn’t control for that, then the introverts entered into the whole thing
considerably more than the extraverts, with a very slight exception in the first category
(pub/intro) where they are almost the same.
Implications
Learning styles have received a great deal of attention in recent years. On the one hand, this has
led to an increased understanding and acknowledgement that not everyone learns in the same
way. On the other hand, it has led to a rigid insistence by some adult learners that "this is the
way I learn and it must be accommodated" and an incredible "juggling" act for designers and
12

13. facilitators who are trying to accommodate a whole range of learning styles. This is no less true
in the online environment. The list of learning characteristics above attests to this.
While designers and facilitators of online learning can use a variety of instructional techniques to
engage as many learning styles as possible (a number of which have been highlighted above),
they cannot accommodate every learning style. The real power of using learning styles is to
provide learners with the appropriate tools and insight to:
• explore and identify their preferred approaches to learning
• recognize when a particular experience may not meet their learning style
• take steps to change the situation to suit their learning style, whether that be through
individual effort, through seeking help from fellow learners or from asking for help from a
facilitator
• or, consciously move out of their comfort zone to develop competence in a variety of learning
styles.
This study has confirmed the value of this approach and provided a useful, if incomplete, list of
strategies that could be shared with learners and designers/instructors alike.
Conclusions
This research confirms that Lawrence’s ideas on the MBTI and learning styles do translate to the
online environment. The authors acknowledge the limitations of this initial study. Not all types
are represented and, in particular sensing types are underrepresented. There were a limited
number of participants. They knew each other and one of the researchers, which may not be
typical. It was also difficult to tease out participant observations as they related to each
preference of the MBTI. How each preference interacts with others within a particular type is a
challenging concept to control for in a study, as noted in the thinking/feeling discussion above.
Also, there are other models for online courses [15] and these need to be studied. The authors
found it useful to use MBTI to think about how different people learn online, but this is only one
way of framing the issue.
Overall, this study contributes to a body of experimental evidence about effective online course
design and delivery, which, to date, has been largely anecdotal.
References
1. Carl R. Rogers, ‘The interpersonal relationship in the facilitation of learning’, in Culture and
the Processes of Adult Learning, ed. R. Edwards et al, London, Routledge, pp. 228 - 242.
1993
2. D. Billings, Learning style preferences and distance education: A review of literature and
implications for research. American Center for the Study of Distance Education Research
Monograph (8, Part 2) 1993
3. Isabel Briggs Myers and Peter Myers, Gifts Differing. Palo Alto, Consulting Psychologists
Press. 1980
4. Sandra Hirsh and Jean Kummerow, Introduction to Type in Organizations, 2nd Edition. Palo
Alto, Consulting Psychologists Press. 1990
5. Gordon Lawrence, People Types and Tiger Stripes. Center for Application of Psychological
Type, Gainesville, Florida. 1979
13

14. 6. Charles Meisgeier, Elizabeth Murphy and Constance Meisgeier, A Teacher’s Guide to Type.
California, Consulting Psychologists Press. 1989
7. Judith Provost and Scott Anchors, Applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in Higher
Education. California, Consulting Psychologists Press. 1987
8. Jean Kummerow, Nancy Barger and Linda Kirby, WORKTypes. New York, Warner
Books. 1997
9. Timothy Sewall, The Measurement of Learning Style: A Critique of Four Assessment Tools,
University of Wisconsin. 1986
10. Ellis Harsham, Psychological type on the electronic highway (Internet). Bulletin of
Psychological Type, 17(3), 20-22. 1994
11. Jeb Livingood, Revenge of the introverts. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine.
[Accessed online at http://metalab.unc.edu/cmc/mag/1995/apr/livingood.html]. 1995
12. M.B. Owen and R.T. Liles, Relationship of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to Internet use
by educators. Proceedings of APT-XIII, the Thirteenth Biennial International Conference of
the Association for Psychological Type (pp. 65-70). Scottsdale, AZ. 1999
13. Rena Palloff and Keith Pratt, Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. 1999
14. F.T. Bail, An exploration of relationships among psychological type, ethnicity, and computer-
mediated communication. In R. A. Moody (Ed.), Psychological Type and Culture—East and
West: A Multicultural Research Symposium (pp. 221-228). University of Hawaii, January
1993. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type. 1995
15. Robin Mason, Models of Online Courses. ALN Magazine 2 (2) October 1998 [Accessed
online at http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/maga_v2_i2.htm] 1988
14