Analysis of learning environment satisfaction and learning style by MBTI personality type and preference index for non-face-to-face remote classes
JeongEun Choi,MyungJin Kim,YunBum Kim,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2023.23.7.855
2023-04-15
Korean Association For Learner-Centered Curriculum And Instruction
Abstract:Objectives This study aimed to analyze learners' reactions to non-face-to-face classes using the MBTI personality type test and learning style test as tools for students who entered high school during the COVID-19 crisis. In detail, the focus was on revealing the differences in perception, satisfaction, and learning styles for non-face- to-face classes according to the intensity of each preference index of the MBTI personality type. Ultimately, in designing non-face-to-face remote classes, the purpose was to be used as a material to improve the learning effect of learners by considering individual personality differences.
Methods The MBTI personality type test was conducted by sampling 207 second graders of K High School located in Guro-gu, Seoul, who experienced remote and school classes at the same time after entering high school. Afterwards, the recognition and satisfaction of non-face-to-face remote classes and learning style tests were conducted, and the results of a total of 140 students, 61 boys and 79 girls, who agreed to this study, were analyzed. The results derived through factor analysis and variance analysis (ANOVA) using the statistical program SPSS 22 are as follows.
Results First, there was no significant difference in perception of the learning environment by 16 types of MBTI, but there was a significant difference in perception function among preference indicators. Depending on the strength of the recognition function, differences were recognized for the face-to-face and non-face-to-face learning environments in the order of obvious intuition (N), slight sense (S), and slight intuition (N). Second, there was no significant difference in satisfaction with the non-face-to-face learning environment by strength of both MBTI personality type and preference index. Third, cooperative, participatory, and avoidance types showed significant differences in learning styles by 16 personality types of MBTI, but competitive types did not show significant differences. ENFJ for cooperative type, INTJ for participatory type, and ENTP for avoidance type showed the greatest tendency. Fourth, there was a significant difference in the learning styles of cooperative, participatory, and avoidance according to the strength of the MBTI preference index. Cooperative types were clearly extroverted (E), clearly intuitive (N), clearly emotional (F), clearly recognized (P), participating types were clearly/slightly introverted (I), slightly intuitive (N), slightly judged (T), slightly avoided (P), slightly extroverted (E), clearly sensed (S), and clearly recognized (P).
Conclusions This study suggested that there is a clear difference in the learning environment and learning style according to the strength of the 16 MBTI personality types and preference indicators. Accordingly, it suggests that it is important to prepare conditions to effectively increase the learning effect by providing a learning environment and learning type suitable for the learner's personality type and tendency.