STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN CHOSEN ENGINEERING DISCIPLINE RELATED TO PERSONALITY TYPE

As part of a seven year longitudinal study, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been completed by most students entering first year engineering at The University of Western Ontario during the years 1987 through 1993. This data from over 1800 students has already provided a stable personality profile of the entering class which has been compared with the personality profile of the group of students who were successful in the first year program showing significant differences in type. This seven-year entry cohort was also divided on the basis of grade 13 high school marks into an "above 80%" entry group and a "below 80%" entry group and the student retention by type was different for the two groups. Male and female student groups were also compared at entry and passing showing significant type differences. These profiles for Canadian students have also enabled a cross-cultural comparison with similar MBTI data reported for American students from an ASEE consortium of six United States schools.

Most of the students from the first five years of this seven-year cohort have now graduated and it is now possible to consider the data from these 1314 students in this smaller cohort and analyse their choice of engineering discipline and subsequent academic performance in that discipline in terms of personality type. This paper summarises the more significant results from the UWO study firstly for first year engineering students showing significant type differences on the basis of entry/retention and Canadian/American comparisons and secondly presents results for upper-year students in their choice of engineering discipline and subsequent success in that discipline to graduation.

A recent survey¹ of engineering education in Canada predicts an increased future demand for engineers who not only have broad-based technical competence but also the adaptability to cope with societal and technological change. These future engineers would need an appreciation of society's environmental concerns, a commitment to the solution of environmental problems and the interpersonal skills to work effectively in groups towards their solution. It would therefore be of serious concern if the Canadian engineering schools were unable to attract, or maybe retain, those students whose personality preferences would dispose them to be good communicators, outgoing, creative and naturally attuned to consider the human aspects of any situation.

A longitudinal study of a seven-year cohort of entry engineering students at the University of Western Ontario (UWO) is analysing the academic performance, the choice of engineering discipline and, eventually, the job satisfaction after graduation as a professional engineer in terms of personality type as recorded by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

This paper summarises the first year results for the full seven-year cohort and presents choice of discipline and graduation results for the first five years of the total cohort. The final part of the project is a survey of the job satisfaction of the graduated professional engineers which will begin next year.

Jung's theory of psychological types assumes that much apparently random human behaviour is really quite orderly and consistent and reflects the different ways persons take in information and make decisions. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a self-report instrument based on Jung's theory of psychological types. The instrument returns the respondent's preferences on each of the four dimensions extraversion/introversion, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling and judging/perceptive. Thus the MBTI describes sixteen possible types such as INTJ, ENFP, etc. which result from the dynamic interplay of these four preferences. All types are good, all types are normal, and none is superior to the others. However, the preferences of one type may match the demands of particular situations better than the preferences of other types.

The eight MBTI preferences are well described in the literature, especially by McCaulley², and the following are simply brief descriptions of these preferences. Some people are oriented to a broad-brush approach with quick action; others are oriented towards thoughtful reflection of concepts and ideas. Jung calls these orientations extraversion(E) and introversion(I). Some people are attuned to the practical, hands-on, common-sense view of events whereas others are more attuned to implications, possibilities and meanings of events. These styles of perceiving are known as sensing (S) and intuition (N). Some people typically draw conclusions or make judgements objectively, dispassionately and analytically; others weigh human factors, consider societal implications and make judgements with personal conviction as to their value. These decision-making styles are called thinking (T) and feeling (F) respectively. Lastly, some people gather only enough information to make a decision, then stay on a direct path towards that goal whereas others are more open to changing situations and new developments which might require changing strategies or setting new goals. These preferences are called judgement (J) or perception (P).

The sixteen MBTI types for a group of respondents are usually displayed as a 4X4 arrangement known as a type table. Such MBTI type distributions may readily be compared with other type tables using the Selection Ratio Type Table (SRTT) analyses. A typical SRTT output is shown at Table 2. The SRTT computer software uses 2X2 chi square tests to check for significant differences between the two distributions.

RESULTS

The relationships described below between MBTI type and success in first year engineering for Canadian students are summaries of more detailed results published elsewhere³.

Canadian/American comparisons in first year engineering

MBTI data collected from an ASEE consortium of six American schools² has shown that American engineering students contain considerably more T and J types than the general group of freshmen from the CAPT data base. This TJ type emphasis holds for both males and females and is a predictable fit with the "TJ" content of engineering programs which contain mostly logical, objective, problem-solving courses in a tight schedule of laboratory reports and assignments.

An SRTT analysis comparing the Canadian entry students with the American students shows them to be significantly more I and P than the Americans. The Canadian male engineering students are also significantly more F than the American males.

The cross-cultural differences on the I and P dimensions support the view that American students are generally more outgoing and realistic, organised and goal-oriented ( i.e. more E and J) than their Canadian counterparts. Such differences also suggest that MBTI research findings should only be generalised cross-culturally with caution.

Performance in first -year engineering and type for UWO students

The SRTT analyses for the seven-year cohort of UWO Canadian engineering students successful in first year compared with their total entry population shows the successful group to be more I, T and TJ (p < 0.001) and more J and IN (p < 0.01). This compares quite closely with similar data for American students in the ASEE consortium which showed their retained student sample to be more I and IJ (p < 0.001). These results are also generally consistent with Schurr's conclusions⁴ from a study of the performance of 2700 freshmen at Ball State University. He found that I,N students had more academic aptitude and that IN_J students performed better in the general first year program. The personality type letters associated with academic success are IN_J and with success in first year engineering are INTJ.

The performance of the Canadian students was also analysed in two ability groups; the first group who entered the program with Grade 13 averages above 80% (80 % +) and the second group who did not (not 80 % +). It was found that the 80% + group passed the first year program with a success rate of 80.1% but were not filtered by MBTI type whereas the (not 80 % +) group passed with a success rate of 55.1% and the passing students were predominantly I,IN and IJ (p < 0.001), T and TJ (p < 0.01). In other words, the students who were stronger academically passed first year irrespective of their type but the students who were weaker academically were more likely to be successful in first year engineering if their type was INTJ.

Performance in first year engineering and type for female students

The SRTT analyses for female UWO engineering students shows them to be more EJ and FJ( p < 0.001) and more J and SF (p <0.01) than the male students. This difference exists when the two entry groups are compared and also when the two passing groups are compared. The MBTI type of the female students is therefore more ESFJ than the male students and as success in first year engineering seems to be associated with INTJ types it would predict that the female students should be less successful. This is not the case. The success rate for females (67.7%) is at least as high as that for males (65.1%). Perhaps the female students tend also to be stronger academically and so pass through the program "unfiltered by type". This view is supported by a separate SRTT analysis of the female first -year performance which shows that the passing students are not significantly different by type from the female entry students. However this lack of statistical significance might also be due to the small numbers of female students who represent only 14% of the total entry cohort.

Graduation success and type for UWO students

The students from the first five years of the seven-year student cohort have now mostly graduated or withdrawn from the university. So this five-year cohort is used for the following graduation data. The type table for this entry group of 1314 students is shown at Table 1 below. The ISTJ emphasis shown in Table 1 is common for first year engineering students and the high TJ proportion of 42% is characteristic of engineering groups generally.

The majority (64%) of the students in this five-year group have now graduated. The remainder have withdrawn (23%) or are still pursuing degree studies at UWO (13%).

If an SRTT analysis compares the sample (708) of students who have now graduated in engineering with the entry population (1314) the output, shown in Table 2, again shows an INTJ type emphasis in the graduating group. The most significant single type letter is J, which predominates in the graduating group, and underlines the finding that students who are more organised and systematic in their studies graduate earlier and in greater numbers. If the graduation performance of the female students is analysed separately it is found that the graduating group does not display the same I_TJ emphasis in comparison with the entry group, perhaps due to the smaller numbers involved. However, female students graduate (66%) in significantly greater proportions than the male students (52%). As discussed above, the female students are more J than the male students, and this might well contribute to their greater proportion of earlier graduates.

Type and choice of engineering discipline at TWO

After the common first year program the engineering students select one of the five disciplines; chemical, civil, electrical, materials or mechanical. The two most popularly selected disciplines were electrical and mechanical and a small proportion of students (about 10%) choosing these disciplines, although qualified, were unsuccessfull in getting into these disciplines. The results of SRTT analyses by discipline show that the type preferences of the students selecting electrical (IN_J) and mechanical (_NT_) suggest that the more academically able student types as in first year (INTJ) are selecting these two disciplines.

The students selecting chemical or materials engineering were not significantly different by type from the entry group. The students selecting civil were significantly more S, which probably demonstrates their preference for the real, practical, hands-on aspects of civil engineering.

The were no significant male/female type differences in discipline selection but a significantly greater proportion of the female students chose chemical engineering.

Students who withdrew from engineering after being accepted into an engineering discipline were significantly _NTP. Even though these students self-report two of the preferences (N and T) associated with success in the engineering program they are ,as a group, highly P. These perception types, easy-going, divergent thinking and more interested in exploring topics than completing them do not succeed so easily in the engineering program full with assignments, lab reports and due dates.

Implications for changes to the engineering programs

The personality types of those students who are successful in first year engineering and also through to graduation tend to be more INTJ especially for those students who are weaker academically. Therefore program additions which accommodate the preferred learning styles of ESFP's should result in increased retention in engineering. An added bonus would be that any changes made to accommodate ESF_ preferences would appeal especially to female students who are significantly more ESF_ than the male students.

Specific suggestions⁵ for modification of the program would be to incorporate more active group work (E and F); more spontaneous discussion, informal problem-solving and creative discovery tasks (P); discussion of aesthetics, ethics and social factors, work with mentors and groups (F); and more specific, practical, hands-on realistic tasks (S). Insofar as student withdrawals from the engineering disciplines are highly P, the single most important change to increase student retention would be to help students to organise their time, systematically allocating it to different subjects and to the prompt completion of assignments and lab reports.

This study suggests that the MBTI provides an insightful perspective on the personality preferences of different groups of engineering students. More studies are needed to confirm the following results:

1. Canadian engineering students are more I__P than American engineering students.

2. Students successful in the engineering program both in first year and through to graduation are more INTJ than the entry group.

3. Although female engineering students are more ESFJ than the males, they are equally successful in the engineering program.

4. Students withdrawing from the UWO engineering disciplines are significantly more P.

1. Meisen A., and Williams K.F. (eds), "The Future of Engineering Education in Canada", report prepared by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers and the National Committee of Deans of Engineering and Applied Science, 116 Albert Street, Suite 401, Ottawa, Canada, 1992.
2. McCaulley, M., Macdaid, G. and Walsh, R., "Myers-Briggs Indicator and Retention in Engineering", Int. Jrnl of App. Engin. Ed,, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1987, pp. 99-106.
3. Rosati, P.A., "Psychological Type of Canadian Engineering Students", Jrnl of Psych. Type, to be published 1997.
4. Schurr, K.T. and Ruble, V.E, "The MBTI and first year college achievement: a look beyond aptitude test results", Jrnl of Psych. Type, Vol. 12, 1986, pp. 25-37.
5. McCaulley, M., "The MBTI and individual pathways in engineering design", Engin. Ed., Vol. 80, No. 5, 1990, pp. 537-542.

The Sixteen Complete Types
ISTJ n=42 (18.4%) +++++ +++++ +++++ +++	ISFJ n=50 (3.8%) ++++	INFJ n=37 (2.8%) +++	INTJ n=115 (8.8%) +++++ ++++
ISTP n=105 (8.0%) +++++ +++	ISFP n=44 (3.4%) +++	INFP n=56 (4.3%) ++++	INTP n=126 (9.6%) +++++ +++++
ESTP n=81 (6.2%) +++++ +	ESFP n=40 (3.0%) +++	ENFP n=57 (4.3%) ++++	ENTP n=101 (7.7%) +++++ ++
ESTJ n=135 (10.3%) +++++ +++++ +	ESFJ n=41 (3.1%) +++	ENFJ n=24 (1.8%) +	ENTJ n=60 (4.6%) ++++

Dichotomous Preferences
E	539	(41.0%)
I	775	(59.0%)
S	738	(56.2%)
N	576	(43.8%)
T	965	(73.4%)
F	349	(26.6%)
J	704	(53.6%)
P	610	(46.4%)

Preferential Pairs/Temperaments
IJ	444	(33.8%)
IP	331	(25.2%)
EP	279	(21.2%)
EJ	260	(19.8%)
ST	563	(42.9%)
SF	175	(13.3%)
NF	174	(13.2%)
NT	402	(30.6%)
SJ	468	(35.6%)
SP	270	(20.6%)
NP	340	(25.9%)
NJ	236	(18.0%)
TJ	552	(42.0%)
TP	413	(31.4%)
FP	197	(15.0%)
FJ	152	(11.6%)
IN	334	(25.4%)
EN	242	(18.4%)
IS	441	(33.6%)
ES	297	(22.6%)

The Sixteen Complete Types
ISTJ n=140 (19.8%) I=1.07 +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++	ISFJ n=24 (3.4%) I=0.89 +++	INFJ n=22 (3.1%) I=1.10 +++	INTJ n=76 (10.7%) **I=1.23 +++++ +++++ +
ISTP n=50 (7.1%) I=0.88 +++++ ++	ISFP n=21 (3.0%) I=0.89 +++ +++++	INFP n=30 (4.2%) I=0.99 ++++	INTP n=72 (10.2%) I=1.06 +++++
ESTP n=44 (6.2%) I=1.01 +++++ +	ESFP n=23 (3.3%) I=1.07 +++	ENFP n=25 (3.5%) I=0.81 ++++	ENTP n=35 (4.9%) ***I=0.64 +++++
ESTJ n=81 (11.4%) I=1.11 +++++ +++++ +	ESFJ n=20 (2.8%) I=0.91 +++	ENFJ n=10 (1.4%) I=0.77 +	ENTJ n=35 (4.9%) I=1.08% +++++

Dichotomous Preferences
E	539	(41.0%)	*I=0.94
I	775	(59.0%)	*I=1.04
S	738	(56.2%)	I=1.01
N	576	(43.8%)	I=0.98
T	965	(73.4%)	I=1.03
F	349	(26.6%)	I=.093
J	704	(53.6%)	**I=1.08
P	610	(46.4%)	**I=0.91

Pref. Pairs/ Temperaments
IJ	262	(37.0%)	**I=1.10
IP	173	(24.4%)	I=0.97
EP	127	(17.9%)	**I=0.84
EJ	146	(20.6%)	I=1.04
ST	315	(44.5%)	I=1.04
SF	88	(12.4%)	I=0.93
NF	87	(12.3%)	I=0.93
NT	218	(30.8%)	I=1.01
SJ	265	(37.4%)	I=1.05
SP	138	(19.5%)	I=0.95
NP	162	(22.9%)	**I=0.88
NJ	143	(20.2%)	*I=1.12
TJ	332	(46.9%)	***I=1.12
TP	201	(28.4%)	*I=0.90
FP	99	(14.0%)	I=0.93
FJ	76	(10.7%)	I=0.93
IN	200	(28.3%)	*I=1.11
EN	105	(14.8%)	***I=0.81
IS	235	(33.2%)	I=0.99
ES	168	(23.7%)	I=1.05

Back to Table of Contents