Sei sulla pagina 1di 8
International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 2

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow

Vol. 2 No. 2

Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 2 Personality Of Teachers Dr Sandhya Mehta,

Personality Of Teachers

Dr Sandhya Mehta,

Abstract

Personality is a blend of internal as well as external traits acquired over a period of time. It grows continuously and can be developed over a period of time. Most classroom problems are people problems: hence, one requires insights into human behavior in order to teach successfully. There is a clash of personalities many a times. In addition to knowing oneself, the other person must be given consideration. Personality definitely affects us one way or the other. This demonstrates the need for understanding of personality .Understanding personality helps in better processing of student related problems in the classroom. The teachers are the role models for the students. The personality of the teacher adds to the overall classroom effectiveness. The ruthless and uninterested teacher creates a toxic environment filled with negativity and underachievers. On the contrary upbeat and inspirational teacher creates positive students who are able to embrace toughest challenges even in life. The present paper aims at understanding the personality of teachers.

Introduction

Personality is the unique and relatively stable pattern of behavior, thoughts, and emotions shown by individuals. It makes an individual unique and different from every other individual. It relates to people‟s characteristic tendencies to behave, think and feel in certain ways (Arnold et al., 1995). Personality traits are usually identified by what people do, and the behavior they exhibit (Mullins, 1996). An individual‟s behavior in a given situation is also better understood by his or her personality (Hall et al., 1997). These suggest that there is relationship between personality and behavior. Personality attributes could either be assets or liabilities in any given context ( Hanson, 1995).

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 1

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 2

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow

Vol. 2 No. 2

Over the past decade, personality has regained credibility in organizational settings. A variety of personal characteristics have been found to have significant effects on reports of job satisfaction including gender, race, age, marital status, children and education. Studies have also concentrated on the investigation of comparison effects on job satisfaction (Clark and Oswald, 1996; Sloane and Williams, 1996). Numbers of recent studies have looked at personality trait correlates of job satisfaction (Connolly& Viswesvaran, 2000; Hart, 1999; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999).

REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researchers agree, “that personality is the dynamic and organized set of characteristics of a person that uniquely influences his or her cognitions, motivations and behaviors (Hinton and Stockburger, 1991). An individual‟s behavior in a given situation is also better understood by his or her personality (Hall, 1997). These suggest that there is relationship between personality and behavior; Personality attributes could either be assets or liabilities in any given context (Borman, Hanson, & Hedge, 1997). A person‟s personality is a relatively stable precursor of behavior; it underlines an enduring style of thinking, feeling and acting (Costa, & McCrae, 1992). Personality is a unique characteristic of an individual (Rusting & DeHart ,2000; Furham 1999).

Barrett, Sorensen, and Hartung (1985) administered the MBTI to a group of 406 students in a college of agriculture, in order to describe the personality type of college of agriculture students and how and if they differ from the faculty. The students held preferences toward I (54%), S (84%), T(69%) and J (57%). Faculty tended to be more I (63%), N (52%), T (63%), and J (83%).Cano, Garton, and Raven (1992) investigated 25 pre-service teachers in terms of their learning style, teaching style and personality style at The Ohio State University. In terms of personality style (type), the group tended to be more E (60%), S (76%), T (56%)and J (60%). The large percentage of sensing is consistent with Watson and Hillison‟s(1991) study. Cano and Garton (1994) studied three years of pre-service teachers in terms of their learning styles, as operationalized by the MBTI. The study was consistent with Cano, et al. (1992), as the pre-service teachers tended to be more E (62%), S (74%), T (65%) and J (67%).In a study that encompassed nine years of undergraduate students, Kitchel and Cano (2001) found the group to be more E, S, T, and J, when looking at the opposite dichotomies individually. Out of the 16 combinations, ISTJ was the most frequent (20%), followed by ESTJ (17%) and ESFJ (12%). ESTJ. The career “Teacher” (with no designation as to the type of teacher) was found to be an attractive occupation for ISFJ, ESFP, ESFJ, and INFJ. Fairhurst (1995) suggested that knowing one‟s temperament and personality is important for teachers so that they can recognize the difference between their personality types and students learning style. Some researchers (Macdaid et al, Reid, 1999) found that the typical elementary school teacher has a preference toward the personality style of sensing feeling and judging. Macdaid et al (1986) examined a sample of 804 teachers and found that nearly 50 % had a combined preference for S & J .They also reported that SF combination was highly valued by 40 % of the teachers.

Bargar, Bargar & Clark(1990) suggested that specific personality profiles (ESTJ,ISTJ,ESFJ) were most often represented by individuals engaged in production agriculture .55% of the pre service teachers had a profile of either (ESTJ,ISTJ or ESFJ the least common were ENFJ (1.2 %) .INFJ and ISFJ ,INTJ ,ISFP and ENTP).The distribution of personality type profiles was consistent with those of agricultural groups in previous studies (Barrett, 1985; Barrett, Sorensen & Harting, 1987; McCann, Heird & Roberts 1989; Bargar & Clark,1990).Although the majority of students were ESTJ,ISTJ or ESFJ. American researchers (Barrett, 1991;Kent and Fischer,1997;Spragne,1997) examined teacher personality, characteristic using MBTI.They studied the effect of teachers, teaching style on student learning.(Fairhurst & Fairhurst,1995;Pankratius,1997). The ISFJ profile included the largest percentage of the 16 types. There have been various studies to identify personality characteristics related to occupation related outcomes (Barrick, Mitchel & Stewart, 2001; Borgen, 1999;Borman, Hanson & Hedge, 1997;Hogan & Blake 1996;Hogan & Holland,2003; Johnson, N & Holdaway 1994). There is Paucity of such research in indian settings;the present research will try to fill that gap.

Objectives

i. To study the and compare the personality for the private and government school teachers

ii. To study and compare the personality of male and female teachers

iii. To find the best suited personality type for teaching in private and government schools.

Sample

The sample of this study consisted of teachers working in government and private senior secondary schools restricted to the Ludhiana city.

It studied schools affiliated only to Punjab School Education Board belonging to government category and private run schools. The private schools belonging only to the aided category were taken into consideration. A sample of 150 teachers from government and 150 teachers from the private schools was taken into

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 2

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 2

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow

Vol. 2 No. 2

consideration. The convenience sampling technique was used for this purpose. detailed questionnaires MBTI form G relating to personality was administered on the teachers from schools. The sample design was as follows.

Sample design

Total Sample

300

sample design was as follows. Sample design Total Sample 300 Private School Teachers Government School Teachers
sample design was as follows. Sample design Total Sample 300 Private School Teachers Government School Teachers
sample design was as follows. Sample design Total Sample 300 Private School Teachers Government School Teachers

Private School Teachers

Government School Teachers

150

Male Teachers Female Teachers 75 75
Male Teachers
Female Teachers
75
75

150

Male Teachers Female Teachers 75 75
Male Teachers
Female Teachers
75
75

Data collection:

The primary data will be collected with the help of a questionnaire of a research tool known as

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers, & McCaulley, 1985) is a measure of personality based on Carl Jung‟s theory of psychological types. The MBTI uses four dimensions to assess an psychological individual‟s type: Extraversion (E) versus Introversion (I); Sensing (S)versus Intuition (I); Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F); and Judgement (J) versus Perception (P).These four different dimensions of personality reflect basic preferences that individuals have(Hoffman, 1997).

The MBTI, measures an individual‟s personality preferences over four dimensions, The sets act as polar opposites along a continuum. For each set, respondents fall somewhere in between the spectrum of the sets. Depending on the preference for each set, a person could be categorized into one of 16 types: ISTJ, ISTP, ESTP, ESTJ, ISFJ, ISFP, ESFP, ESFJ, INFJ, INFP, ENFP, ENFJ, INTJ, INTP, ENTP, and ENTJThe preference of each index is independent of the preference on the other three indices; thus there are sixteen possible combinations or types.

The comparative analyses between government and private school teachers and between male and female school teachers will be carried out. The personality profiles will be derived by using the MBTI instrument.

The various personality types will be compared on the basis of gender and sector (government and private) by using the percentage method.

Data analysis & interpretation

The results of the collected data have been mentioned below:

Table 1.1: Percentage comparison of personality types of overall teachers

   

Total school

S.No

Personality Types

Teachers

%

1.

ENFJ

7.33

2.

ENFP

3.33

3.

ENTJ

2.00

4.

ESFJ

8.67

5.

ESFP

2.33

6.

ESTJ

35.67

7.

ESTP

4.00

8.

ENTP

1.67

9.

INFJ

6.00

10.

INTJ

4.67

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 3

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 2

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow

Vol. 2 No. 2

11. ISFJ

7.00

12. ISTJ

9.00

13. ISTP

5.67

14. ISFP

1.33

15. INFP

1.00

16. INTP

0.00

Table 1.1:Depicts the personality comparison of overall teachers of government and private senior secondary school teachers.

In an overall sample ESTJ has the maximum representation at 35.67% followed by the personality type ISTJ at 9% and the personality ESFJ at 8.67%. The personality type INTP found no representation and the personality types INFP and ISFP found minimum representation at 1% and 1.33%.

Table 1.2: Percentage comparison of personality types of private and government school teachers Pvt school

S.No

Personality Types

teachers%

Govt school teachers%

1. ENFJ

 

6.67

9.33

2. ENFP

 

5.33

3.33

3. ENTJ

 

3.33

5.33

4. ESFJ

 

7.33

14.66

5. ESFP

 

2.67

5.33

6. ESTJ

 

34.6

38

7. ESTP

 

4.00

2.0

8.

ENTP

2.00

0

9. INFJ

 

4.00

6.67

10. INTJ

 

6.00

2.67

11. ISFJ

 

6.67

4.67

12. ISTJ

 

9.33

6.67

13. ISTP

 

5.33

1.33

14. ISFP

 

0.67

3.33

15. INFP

 

2.00

1.33

16. INTP

 

0.00

0

Table 1.2:Depicts the percentage comparison of the personality types of private and government school teachers of senior secondary schools.

In a combined sample of private school teachers the personality type ESTJ got maximum representation at 34.6% followed by ISTJ at 9.33% and ESFJ at 7.33%. In a combined sample of government school teachers the personality type ESTJ got maximum representation at 38% followed by ESFJ at 14.66% and ENFJ at 9.33%.

In both the groups INTP found no representation.

Table 1.3: Percentage comparison of personality types of overall male and female teachers

S.No

Personality

Male Teachers %

Female Teachers %

Types

1.

ENFJ

4.67

8.00

2.

ENFP

4.67

4.00

3.

ENTJ

6.00

2.67

4.

ESFJ

8.00

10.67

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 4

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 2

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow

Vol. 2 No. 2

5. ESFP

7.33

0.67

6. ESTJ

45.33

27.33

7. ESTP

2.00

4.00

8. ENTP

1.33

0.67

9. INFJ

1.33

9.33

10. INTJ

6.00

2.67

11. ISFJ

2.67

8.67

12. ISTJ

2.00

14.00

13. ISTP

4.67

2.00

14. ISFP

1.33

2.67

15. INFP

1.33

2.00

16. INTP

0.00

0.00

The detailed analysis of the personality profile of the teachers studied under the sample depicts the following results.

Table 1.3 : Depicts the percentage comparison of personality types of male and female teachers of senior secondary schools.

In a combined sample of female teachers the personality type ESTJ get maximum representation by 27.33% followed by the personality types ISTJ at 14% and ESFJ at 10.67%.

In a combined sample of male teachers the personality type ESTJ got maximum representation by 45.33% followed by the personality type ESFJ at 8% at ESFP at 7.33%.

Table 1.4: Percentage comparison of personality types private and government school teachers (male and female)

S.No

Personality

Pvt. Male Teachers

Govt. Male

Pvt. Female

Govt.Female

Types

%

Teachers %

Teachers %

Teachers %

1.

ENFJ

6.67

2.67

6.67%

9.33

2.

ENFP

2.67

6.67

8.00%

0.00

3.

ENTJ

1.33

10.67

5.33%

0.00

4.

ESFJ

6.67

9.33

8.00%

13.33

5.

ESFP

4.00

10.67

1.33%

0.00

6.

ESTJ

44.00

46.67

25.3 %

29.33

7.

ESTP

4.00

0.00

4.00

4.00

8.

ENTP

2.67

0.00

1.33

0.00

9.

INFJ

2.67

0.00

5.33

13.33

10.

INTJ

6.67

5.33

5.33

0.00

11.

ISFJ

5.33

0.00

8.00

9.33

12.

ISTJ

4.00

0.00

14.67

13.33

13.

ISTP

9.33

0.00

1.33

2.67

14.

ISFP

0.00

2.67

1.33

4.00

15.

INFP

0.00

2.67

4.00

0.00

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 5

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 2

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow

Vol. 2 No. 2

16.

INTP

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Percentage Distribution of different personality profiles.

The table 1.4. depicts the percentage of personality types depicted in the total sample of male and female teachers (both private and government) studied in the study.

In case of private female teachers the personality type ESTJ was represented by 25.3% which was followed by the personality type ISTJ with 14.67% and personality types ENFP, ESFJ and ISFJ at 8%.

In case of government female teachers the personality type ESTJ was again got the maximum representation by 29.33% which was followed by personality type ISTJ & INFJ at 13.33% and personality types ENFJ and ISFJ at

9.33%.

In case of private male teachers category ESTJ personality types got 44% representation which was followed by personality type ISTP at 9.33% and by personality type ENFJ, ESFJ and INTJ at 6.67%.

In case of government male teachers, personality types ESTJ got maximum representation at 46.67% followed by the personality type ESFP and ENTJ at 10.67% and by personality type ENFP at 6.67%.

Findings & Discussion

The percentage representation of overall teachers showed ESTJs at 35.67% representation. Followed by ISTJ at 9% and ESFJ at 8.67%.the personality type which found no representation was INTP.The personality types INFP,ISFP,INFJ, ESFP were also under represented at less than 2%.

Many researchers who have investigated teacher preferences and typology using the MBTI have consistently found that the „„typical‟‟ elementary school teacher has a preference toward the personality style of sensing, feeling, and judging (Lawerence, 1979; Lum, Kervin, Clark, K., Reid, & Sirola (1999). Lawrence‟s (1979) study explored education teachers at all education levels and found that 52% of them had an E and S style, and 63% of them had an F and J style. Similarly, Macdaid et al. (1986) examined a sample of 804 techers and found that ISFJ profile included the largest percentage of the 16 types. These researchers also sampled 100 preschool teachers and obtained comparable results. Of the sample 41% favored Sand J and, again, the ISFJ profile accounted for the largest (20%) percentage of all types.

Hinton and Stockburger (1991) and Marso and Pigge (1990) reported that the dominant elementary pre-service teacher scored as ESFJ. The personality type distribution is similar to the one presented by Bargar, Bargar & Clark (1990) who suggested that ESFJ ESTJ, ISTJ were most often represented by individuals engaged in production agriculture. 55% of the pre service teachers had a personality profile of ESTJ, ISTJ or ESFJ. In case of the present study 54% of the total sample has the personality profile ESTJ, ISTJ or ESFJ. The distribution of personality profiles was consistent with those of agricultural groups in previous studies (Barrrett, 1985; Barrett, Sorenson & Harting, 1987; Mc Cann, Heird and Roberts 1989; Bargar & clark, 1990). Roznowski and Hulin (1992) reported in a study of vocational teacher-preparation students that 58% had a preference for the S and J combination. More recently, Reid (1999) sampled 189 Florida elementary teachers and concluded that 57.7%favoured both S and J as preferences in their teaching, whereas the second most favored combination was SF at 55.0%. The ISFJ profile accounted for 30% of the total teachers. In contrast, the least preference at 12% was the NP combination. Fairhurst and Fairhurst (1995) suggest that almost one-third of elementary school teachers fit the ISFJ profile and over 57% of elementary teachers have a preference for S and J. They suggest that individuals with this particular typology are attracted to the teaching profession, particularly the primary levels, because of the nurturing and dependency young children require. Further, they suggest that the ISFJ teachers are usually loyal and devoted and have great patience in helping students learn to perform detail tasks. As introverts, they prefer a quieter learning environment than extroverts. Their S and J tendencies mean they prefer things to be under control, appreciating predictability to spontaneity. Rasor (1995) examined the relationship between personality types and found that ISTJ was the most frequent MBTI profile in a sample of executives. Walker (1997) in a study of Air Force commissioned officers also found „ST‟ pairs to be the most common for leadership positions.

The present results are also well supported by the study by Campbell (1995) who examined the personality profiles of 163 Army generals. The ISTJ and ESTJ profiles accounted for the 56% of the Generals sample. Macdaid et al (1986) in a sample of 804 teachers also found that 50% had a combined preference for S & J. Kitchel and Cano (2001) in their study found ISTJ and ESTJ had the maximum representation.

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 6

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 2

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow

Vol. 2 No. 2

Ian Ball (2000)found that amongst secondary school teachers the three most frequent types are all SJs: ISTJ, ESTJ and ISFJ. These are followed by a variety of NF and NT combinations. The three least frequent types (less than 3% each) are all SPs: ISFP, ESTP, and ESFP .The modal type was ISTJ. Some 42% of secondary school teachers preferred extraversion and 58% introversion. 52% show a sensing preference, with the other 48% favoring intuition. There are 53% with a thinking preference and 47% with a feeling preference. A large 64%have a judging preference, and 36% a perceptual preference. The trend was therefore for ISTJ to be the predominant preference pattern.

It can be seen that the most frequently occurring types are ISFJ amongst primary school teachers, and ISTJ amongst secondary school teachers. The distinction is their respective preferences on the thinking-feeling dimension. Four MBTI personality types -- ESTJ, ISTJ, ENTJ, and ENFJ accounted for 69% of all technology professionals included in this study. (Edmunds & Schultz, 1989; Roznowski and Hulin C 1992).

Recommendations

Teachers‟ personality contributes to overall effectiveness in classroom teaching. The teachers who are energetic, passionate and empathetic are able to bring the best in the students. Though a lot of people aspire to take teaching as a career it is recommended that along with teaching aptitude test, the personality test may also be carried out. The analysis and understanding of teacher personality can provide insights to the teacher to identify his or her strengths and areas of improvement.

Conclusion

Overall teachers showed ESTJs at 35.67% representation followed by ISTJ at 9% and ESFJ at 8.67%.the personality type which found no representation was INTP. The personality types INFP, ISFP, INFJ and ESFP were also under represented at less than 2%.the ESTJ are reported to extrovert, sensing, thinking and judgmental. ESTJs tend to be energetic, outspoken, friendly, and productive. They make sure that things get done, having firm standards that assist them in running things. They are often campus leaders and prefer traditional leadership styles. They can achieve a tremendous amount when given room to be in charge and when others cooperate. Their talents lie in bringing order, structure, and completion. Efficient organizers, ESTJs are adept at getting things done efficiently while taking care of routine details. They are opinionated, honest, and direct to the point, sometimes being too blunt. Other words to describe an ESTJs include practical, realistic,

matter-of-fact, traditional, and accountable; the qualities required of teachers.

and accountable; the qualities required of teachers. References  Arnold. Hart, P. M. (1995). Predicting

References

Arnold. Hart, P. M. (1995). Predicting employee life satisfaction: a coherent model of personality, work, and nonwork experiences, and domain satisfactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 564584.

Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., & Hedge, J. W. (1997). Personnel selection. In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley, &D. J. Foss (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, 48, 299337

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning Behavior. Personnel Psychology, 50, 145167

Bargar, J., Bargar, R., & Clark, R. (1990).Psychological type and aspirations of farm youth for careers in agriculture. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural Education, Columbus.

Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., & Hedge, J. W. (1997). Personnel selection. In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley, &D. J. Foss (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, 48, 299337.

Barrett, L. (1985). Personality type differences of students and faculty and their effect on student achievement. Journal of the American Association of Teachers and Educators in agriculture, 48-56.

Clark, A. (1996). Why are women so happy at work? Labour Economics, 4, 341372.

Cano, J., & Garton, B. L.(1994). The learning styles of agriculture pre-service teachers as assessed by the MBTI. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(1), 8-12.

Cano, J., Garton, B. L., & Raven, M. R. (1992). Learning styles, teaching styles and personality styles of pre -service teachers of agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 33(1), 46-60.

Cano, J., & Miller, G. (2001). A gender analysis of job satisfaction, job satisfier factors, and job dis-satisfier factors of agricultural education teachers. Journal of agricultural education 33(3):40-46

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653665.

Connolly, J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265281.

Campbell, J. D., & Knapp, D. J. (2005). Exploring the limits of personnel selection and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fairhurst, A. M., & Fairhurst, L. L.(1995). Effective teaching effective learning: Making the personality connection in your classroom (1st ed). Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black.

Furnham, A., (1992). Personality at Work. New York: Routledge.

Hall, R. H. (1997). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 29-47.

Hogan, J., & Holland, B.(2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100112.

Hart, P. M. (1999). Predicting employee life satisfaction: a coherent model of personality, work, and nonwork experiences, and domain satisfactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 564584.

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 7

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 2

International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow

Vol. 2 No. 2

Johnson, N., & Holdaway, E. (1994). Facet importance and the job satisfaction of school principals. British Educational Research Journal, 20(1), 17-33.

Hinton, S., & Stockburger, M.(1991). Personality trait and professional choice among preservice teachers in eastern Kentucky. Research paper presented at Eastern Kentucky University .

Kent, H., & Fisher, D.(1997). Associations between teacher personality and classroom environment. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,

Marso, R. N., & Pigge, F. L. (1990). The identification of academic, personal, and affective predictors of student teaching performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Pankratius, W. J. (1997). Pre-service teachers construct a view on teaching and learning styles. Action in Teacher Education, 18(4): 6876.

Rusting, C. L., & DeHart, T. (2000). Retrieving positive memories to regulate negative mood: Consequences for mood-congruent memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 737752.

Rojewski, J. W., & Holder, B. H. (1992). Personality type profiles of students in vocational education teacher preparation programs. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 15(2), 77-91.

ISSN: 2249-9962

February|2012

www.ijbmt.com

Page | 8