Personality Type and Academic Performance of Undergraduates majoring in Engineering and Accounting

K.K. Ooi, C.H. Goh and Y.H. Beh INTI International College Penang, Malaysia care@intipen.edu.my
Abstract: The purpose of the current research is to explore the relationship between the personality types and academic performance of students majoring in Accounting and Engineering. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was administered to a group of 68 students from Diploma in Engineering Program and a group of 27 students from Diploma in Accounting Program at INTI International College Penang (IICP). Different dichotomies may influence the academic performance of the students in different programs. The finding showed that there was a significant difference in the academic performance of engineering students between the Thinking (T) and the Feeling (F) type. The finding also suggested that engineering students with the Thinking (T) type had better grades than the Feeling (F) type. As for accounting students it was shown that there was a significance difference between the Judging (J) type and Perceiving (P) type. The finding also indicated that accounting students with the Judging (J) type had better grades than the Perceiving (P) type. A larger sample is recommended for further research. The lecturers teaching methods and their relationship with academic performance of students with different personality types is also recommended for further research. The finding of this study can guide the engineering and accounting educators in designing curriculum and teaching approaches to respond to individual needs in learning.

Introduction Nowadays, Malaysian private colleges face many challenges in order to prepare graduates to be competent and employable in the industry or corporate sectors. More often than not, corporations in Malaysia require the graduates to be able to perform in the workplace immediately right after they are employed. Nowadays, many employers, apart from looking at the academic results of job applicants, are also evaluating the applicants personality, leadership inclination and other characteristics that are related to soft skills. As such, personality characteristics have become one of the areas for many researchers to research for the relationship between personality and academic performance in many disciplines, including accounting and engineering major (Wheeler, 2001). One objective of this study is to investigate whether there is any relationship between students personality types and their academic performance in the engineering (electrical & electronic major) and business (accounting major) faculty of INTI International College Penang (IICP). Many of the education researches are undertaken by Myers Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI (Myers and McCaulley, 1985) to identify the faculty (academic staff or lecturers) and students personality profile. Many researches in particular, surveyed the distribution of different personality types in the engineering schools (Rosati, 1997; Felder et. al, 1998; Felder and Brent, 2005). It was found that majority of engineering students were of Sensing (S) type. Many researches indicate that there was no major preference for accounting student but majority of accounting students was STJ dichotomy (Wheeler, 2001). The MBTI personality instrument consists of 93 forced choice questions that are self-scorable. The MBTI, based on Jungs personality theory (Jung, 1923) identified four basic dichotomous scales, namely: Extraversion

(E) v Introversion (I), Sensing (S) v. iNtuition (N), Thinking (T) v. Feeling (F), and Judging (J) v. Perceiving (P) (Clifford and Patrick, 1998). The E-I scale identifies an individuals primary orientation: who is active oriented to the people and things of outer world (E), or a person who is a reflective oriented to the images and ideas of inner world (I). In other words, those who prefer extraversion (E) get ideas and energy from their interactions with people and the external environment whereas those who prefer introversion (I) get ideas and energy from internal processing of information. The S-N scale identifies an individual perception of a stimulus, i.e. the mode of perception, whether an individual who pays attention to facts, detail and present (S), or pays attention to theory, possibilities and the future (N). Sensing (S) people trust and give weight to facts and realistic data whereas those who prefer intuition (N) tend to emphasize on patterns they see and associate to other ideas. The T-F scale identifies an individuals preferred basis for decision: logical analysis (T) or personal value (F). Those who prefer thinking (T) look at the pros and cons and examine the logical consequences of various decisions as compared to feeling (F) people who include a wider range of criteria in their decision-making, regardless of logic sometimes. The J-P scale indicates whether an individual favors a lifestyle that is more decisive and planned (J) or a lifestyle that is more flexible and spontaneous (P) (Myers and McCaulley, 1985). People who have the preference for judging (J) like to arrive at decisions and move on whereas those preferring perceiving (P) value spontaneity and dislike everything settled and closed. These four dichotomies give rise to sixteen possible permutations of personality type (e.g. INTJ, ESFP, ISFJ, ENTP etc.). Investigations were carried out to ascertain the relationship between personality type and academic performance of engineering and accounting students, and to find out the influence or effect of the four dichotomies on those students. It was hypothesized that one or more than one dichotomies might influence academic performance of students. Preliminary analysis of the MBTI profiles collected showed no significant difference between the performance (measured by cumulative average marks) of extraversion (E) vs. introversion (I), sensing (S) vs. intuition (N), and judging (J) vs. perceiving (P) students in the engineering program. However, there was a significant difference for the students in the engineering program with the thinking (T) vs. feeling (F) dichotomy. This result implied that other dichotomies do not have any influence on engineering students except the thinking (T) vs. feeling (F) dichotomy. This indicated that the different ways of decision making may have influence on the academic performance of engineering students. As for accounting students the preliminary analysis of the MBTI profiles collected showed no significant difference between the performance (measured by cumulative average marks) of extraversion (E) vs. introversion (I), sensing (S) vs. intuition (N), and thinking (T) vs. feeling (F). However, the judging (J) vs. perceiving (P) did show a significant difference for the accounting students in their academic performance. Other researches also indicated that the judging (J) students normally perform better than the perceiving (P) students (Schurr and Ruble, 1988; Woodruff and Clarke, 1993). Methodology The MBTI Form G was administered through several workshops for the students from engineering (electrical and electronic) and business (accounting) disciplines at IICP. A total of 68 students from engineering and 27 students from accounting major completed the MBTI

Form G. The academic results based on cumulative average of the participants had been recorded and analyzed. Participation was voluntary. Comparisons between personality profiles and academic performance were done using SPSS application by running the t-tests for four dichotomies to find out whether there were any significant differences between the four dichotomies with respect to the academic performance of engineering and accounting students. Table 1: Independent samples t-test on Cumulative Average for E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P of Engineering students Dichotomy Sample Mean Standard t d.f. p-value Size Deviation E 37 57.04 14.57 0.609 66 0.545 I 31 59.22 14.87 S 40 57.41 14.46 0.418 66 0.677 N 28 58.92 15.12 T 22 65.41 13.45 3.047* 66 0.003 F 46 54.50 13.98 J 27 55.72 16.93 1.001a 45.43 0.322 P 41 59.56 12.92 *Significant at alpha level of 0.05 a Equal variances not assumed, as Lavenes test for equality of variance was rejected at alpha level of 005 Table 2: Independent samples t-test on Cumulative Average for E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P of Accounting students Dichotomy Sample Mean Size E 14 67.77 I 13 74.67 S 18 70.93 N 9 71.42 T 16 72.00 F 11 69.78 J 15 76.58 P 12 64.23 *Significant at alpha level of 0.05 Standard Deviation 8.52 10.43 9.48 11.41 9.71 10.61 9.32 5.54 t 1.890 0.117 0.564 4.046* d.f. 25 25 25 25 p-value 0.070 0.908 0.578 <0.001

Results and discussion Independent samples t-tests were used to compare the academic performance (cumulative average) of engineering students with E and I dichotomy, S and N dichotomy, T and F dichotomy, and J and P dichotomy. The result is shown in Table 1.

There was no significant difference in academic performance between E and I, between S and N, and, between J and P of Engineering students. However, the difference in academic performance of students who preferred thinking (T) (mean=65.41, std. dev.=13.45) and students who preferred feeling (F) (mean=54.50, std. dev.=13.98) was highly significant ( t(66)=3.047, p=0.003). The 95% confidence interval for mean difference was 3.76 to 18.06. The effect size was d=0.79. According to Cohen (1988), for the social sciences and organizational research, a small effect is viewed as a d of about 0.2, a medium effect as about 0.5, and a large effect as 0.8 or more. In this case, the performance of T students was significantly better than F students, and the effect size was large. The result showed that in IICP the academic performance of engineering students who were of thinking type performed significantly better than those of feeling type, and the margin of difference was considerably large. This might suggest that the nature of the engineering subject (electrical and electronic) is more favorable for the T type students but may not be appealing to the F type students. The engineering curriculum requires students learn through logical material, use cause-and-effect reasoning and analyzing experiences, and this relatively impersonal nature of engineering curriculum may be disadvantageous to the students who learn best through personal relationships. This result suggests that there is a need for engineering lecturers to look into the course design or the method of teaching to help the F type students in their study in IICP. The t-tests were also repeated to find out whether there is any relationship between the personality traits identified by the MBTI and academic performance of accounting students. The result is shown in table 2. There was no significant difference in academic performance (cumulative average) between E and I, between S and N, and between T and F of accounting students. However, the difference in academic performance of students who preferred judging (J) (mean=76.58, std. dev.=9.32) and students who preferred perceiving (P) (mean=64.23, std. dev.=5.54) was highly significant (t(25)=4.046, p<0.001). The 95% confidence interval for mean difference was 6.07 to 18.64. The effect size was d=1.57. In this case, the performance of J students was significantly better than P students, and the effect size was very large. The result showed that in IICP the academic performance of accounting students who were of judging type performed significantly better than those of perceiving type, and the margin of difference was very large. This might suggest that the nature of the accounting subject is more attractive for the J type students but may not be appealing to the P type students. The nature of accounting curriculum requires students learn the subjects which are more structured and instructive and to strictly adhere to pre-defined accounting standards. This restrictive nature of accounting curriculum may be disadvantageous to the students who learn best through simulating of something new and different and looking for exploration. The P type students may feel that accounting subjects are dull and uninteresting due to the rules and standards that they need to remember and follow. This result suggests that there is a need for accounting lecturers to look into the course design or devise a variety of teaching methods to inspire P type students in their study in IICP.

Conclusions The main conclusion that we can draw from this study is that personality type does appear to have an effect on the performance of engineering and accounting students. The result in IICP showed that T type engineering students were averagely 10.91 marks higher than F type engineering students. The result also showed that J type accounting students were averagely 12.35 marks higher than P type accounting students. Previous studies on engineering students have highlighted that T type students, who normally make decisions based on objectivity and logical analysis, outperform F type students (Rosati, 1993; Rosati, 1997, Felder, 2002). Our research findings are consistent with those findings. Previous studies on accountants have highlighted that STJs are the most prevalent type (Shackleton, 1980; Jacoby 1981; Otte, 1983; Kreiser et al., 1990; Scarborough, 1993). However, Oswick and Barber (1998) pointed out that this does not necessarily mean that STJs make the best accounting students and it is important to distinguish between aptitude and inclination. Our study conducted in IICP showed that J type accounting students had advantage over the P type accounting students in terms of academic performance, but there was no significant difference between S type and N type, and also no significant difference between T type and F type. The findings in our research are by large in support of the view of Oswick and Barber, that is, although STJs are the most prevalent type among accountants, NF students are as likely to perform well as their ST counterparts. Our research findings also showed that in terms of academic performance there was a significant interaction between the personality type and the nature of the courses taken by the students; T type students performed better than F type students in engineering, but this finding was not observed in students with accounting major. Likewise, J type students were superior in their academic performance as compared to P type students in the field of accounting, but this finding was not observed in students with engineering major. Further research can be carried out to find out whether the personality type of lecturers and students have a bearing on academic performance of students. Another possible research, as an extension of this study, would be to find out whether the teaching style adopted by lecturers, the personality type of students as well as the nature of the curriculum have any effect on the level of achievement of students.

References Oswick, C. and Barber, P. (1998) Personality type and performance in an introductory level accounting course: a research note, Journal of Accounting Education, 7:3, 249-254. Cohen, J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences(2nd Edn), Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Felder, R.M. and Brent. R. (2005) Understanding Student Differences, Journal of Engineering Education, 94:1, 57-72. Felder, R.M., Felder, G.N. and Dietz, E.J. (1988) The Effects of Personality Type on Engineering Student Performance and Attitudes, Journal of Engineering Education, 91:1, 3-17. Jacoby, P.F. (1981) Psychological types and career success in the accounting profession, Research in Psychological Type, 4, 24-37. Jung, C. (1923). Psychological Types. New York, Harcourt Brace. Kreiser, L., McKeon, J.M., and Post, A. (1990) A personality profile of CPAs in public pratice, Ohio CPA Journal, 49:4, 29-34. Myers, I. B. and McCaulley, M. H. (1985) Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (2nd edn), Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychological Press. Otte, P. (1983) Do CPAs have a unique personality: Are certain personality types found more frequently in our profession?, The Michigan CPA, 42:1, Spring, 29-36. Rosati, P. (1993) Student Retention from First-Year Engineering Related to Personality Type, Proceedings, 1993 Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE. Rosati, P. (1997) Psychological Types of Canadian Engineering Students, Journal of Psychological Type, 41, 33-37. Scarborough, D.P (1993) Psychological types and job satisfaction of accountants, Journal of Psychological Type, 25, 3-10. Schurr, K.T., Ruble, V.E., Henriksen, L.W. (1988) Relationships of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality characteristics and self reported academic problems and skills rating with scholastic aptitude test scores, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 243-252. Shackleton, V. (1980) The accountant stereotype: myth or reality?, Accountancy, 113:11 November, 122-123. Wheeler, P. (2001) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Applications to Accounting Education Research, Journal of Accounting Education, 16:1, 125-150. Woodruff, R.G.V., and Clarke, F.M. (1993) Understanding the academic needs of minority students at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, Psychological Type and Culture East and West: A Multicultural Symposium, 199-205.

Paper presented by Kok Keong Ooi at: International Conference on Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2007) Achieving Excellence in Education through Quality Teaching and Learning November 15-16, 2007, Putrajaya Marriott Hotel, Putrajaya, Malaysia Organised by INTI International University College, This 2-day conference aims to provide a forum for educators, researchers, technologists and students to share their knowledge and expertise in teaching and learning; to stimulate high quality research work in teaching and learning so as to develop state-of-the-art educational technologies; and to promote intellectual discourse among the conference participants from around the world. http://ictl.intimal.edu.my/ictl2007/index.php