Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 89–95

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Internet and Higher Education

MBTI personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online versus
face-to-face instruction
Rick Harrington ⁎, Donald A. Loffredo
The University of Houston-Victoria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Online college classes are being offered at a rate that far exceeds the growth of overall higher education
Accepted 25 November 2009 classes. However, much can still be learned about how to create a better online classroom environment by
determining why a large percentage of students continue to prefer face-to-face classes. One factor among
Keywords:
many that may have an influence on preference is personality since it relates to learning style and comfort
MBTI
level. A poor fit in learning style or a low comfort level can lead to student dissatisfaction and attrition. The
Personality type
Online Instruction
current study gave 166 mostly female college students, two-thirds of whom were taking or had taken four or
Face-to-face Instruction more online classes, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and a Likert-type questionnaire asking why they
Introversion preferred one teaching modality delivery over the other. Results revealed that a statistically significant
Extraversion majority of Introverts preferred online classes and Extraverts face-to-face classes. A trend with a small effect
size toward Perceiving types preferring face-to-face classes was also found. Overall, students who preferred
online classes indicated their rank ordered preference was because of convenience, the enjoyment of
computer technology, and a desire for innovation whereas those who preferred face-to-face classes reported
they were influenced by the class structure appealing to their need to learn through listening and by their
desire to better gauge the emotional reactions of others in the class. Implications for design of online classes
to appeal to students who prefer face-to-face learning environments and for academic counseling and
advising are discussed.
© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Higher education online instruction enrollments have increased at
a steady pace as technological improvements and lower costs have led
to greater convenience and ease of access for students who are no
longer bound by geographical distance. For example, the Sloan
Consortium (Allen & Seaman, 2008) found that higher education
online instruction enrollments in the United States increased by 12.9%
from 2006 to 2007, far surpassing the overall higher education growth
in enrollments of 1.2% for this same period. Though online classes
have grown at a phenomenal rate, many students continue to prefer
face-to-face classes, especially if their comfort level is higher with this
modality and they believe it maximizes their potential learning
outcomes. The belief in higher learning outcomes for face-to-face
classes is a common research finding (O'Malley & McGraw, 1999;
Zeng & Perris, 2004). For example, Young and Norgard (2006) found
that the majority (58%) of the university students they surveyed
believed they learned more in their face-to-face classes than their
online classes. In light of such beliefs, it is not surprising to find that
online students may view their classes more negatively even as
⁎ Corresponding author. The School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Houston-
Victoria, Victoria, Texas 77901, United States. Tel.: +1 361 570 4257.
E-mail address: harringtonr@uhv.edu (R. Harrington).
researchers determine that their grades are comparable to their peers
in face-to-face equivalent classes (Summers, Waigandt, & Whittaker,
2005). Innovative online instructors may use information to make
adjustments that increase the appeal and comfort level of students
taking their online classes once they have a better understanding as to
why students prefer one modality over the other. As Young and
Norgard (2006) found, students who became more experienced with
online instruction had increased comfort and in turn gave higher
satisfaction ratings to these classes. The current study assessed the
reasons students preferred one modality over the other, including
reasons related to personality, in the hope that this information may
serve as a springboard to inspire instructors to enhance their online
instruction in ways that appeal to students whose primary preference
is face-to-face instruction.
1.1. The influence of personality type
One variable that may play a role in preference for one modality over
another is personality type. The concept of psychological types was first
proposed by Carl Jung (1971) whose ideas were later developed by
Katherine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers into a practical self-
report instrument called the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
(Myers, 1987). The MBTI measures personality along four bipolar
psychological dimensions called Introvert (I)–Extravert (E), Sensing

1096-7516/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.11.006
90 R. Harrington, D.A. Loffredo / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 89–95
(S)–Intuition (N), Thinking (T)–Feeling (F), and Judging (J)–Perceiving
(P). Each person assessed with the MBTI receives a four letter type
which captures their preferences for each dimension.
Kroeger and Thuesen (1988) discussed the characteristics associ-
ated with the four type dimensions in their book entitled Type Talk:
The 16 Personality Types That Determine How We Live, Love, and Work.
According to these authors, the Introvert–Extravert dimension
involves how people derive their energy. The Introvert types draw
energy from the inner world of their thoughts and ideas and Extravert
types from the outer world of people and action. Thus, Extraverts are
more likely to be gregarious and social across a wide spectrum of
relationships whereas Introverts are likely to be more reserved and
limit their social activities to a smaller number of relationships.
The Sensing–Intuition dimension refers to the information gathering
function. Sensing types have a preference for gathering information
through their five senses usually in a sequential fact-oriented manner
whereas Intuitive types tend to gather information in a more random
fashion with the larger implications in mind. Whereas the Sensing types
are more present focused, the Intuition types are more future focused.
Sensing types are seen as more practical and down-to-earth while
Intuitive types are often seen as having ingenuity but their “heads-in-
the-clouds.”
The Thinking–Feeling dimension is responsible for the decision-
making function. Thinking types tend to be more analytical, detached,
and objective when making decisions whereas Feeling types are more
likely to base decisions on interpersonal factors such as how others
will be affected by the decisions. Feeling types would like to maintain
harmony and are more concerned about subjective factors such as
how relationships will be affected by their actions than are Thinking
types.
Finally, the Judging–Perceiving dimension refers to the desire for
structure and closure with Judging types preferring to have things
planned and decided while Perceiving types would like to keep things
flexible and open ended. Judging types would like to have their days
scheduled and predictable whereas Perceiving types like to go with
the flow and have room for spontaneity.
Since its early inception, the MBTI has been applied to gain a better
understanding of how personality type relates to educational aptitude
and achievement. Upon reviewing the MBTI literature on education,
learning styles, and cognitive styles, DiTiberio (1996) concluded, “The
results seem to indicate that each type has both strengths and
vulnerabilities in educational settings, depending on the require-
ments of the setting” (p. 155). The author noted that the MBTI has
been used to assess characteristics of learners including learning
styles, teacher/learner interactions, and their academic aptitude and
achievement across elementary, secondary, and higher education
settings including those with computer-assisted instruction. For
example, based on the research he reviewed, DiTiberio concluded
that Extraverts prefer collaborative learning whereas Introverts like
lectures and do well with computer-assisted instruction. Intuition
types generally perform better than Sensing types on standardized
tests of verbal and mathematical reasoning, but SJ types persist and
learn in classrooms at levels equal to Intuitive types, including
outperforming them in certain clinical situations.
Terrell (2005) noted that his prior research and the work of Kolb
(1984) have “shown persons with particular learning styles and
preferences are more inclined to failure in an online learning
environment (i.e., OLE)” (p. 214). The author used the MBTI IE
dimensions to measure information focus and the SN scales to measure
information perception to examine the learning styles and attrition
rates of doctoral students in a distance education program and found
“that students favoring a sensing approach regardless of their focus
preference, complete the program at rates nearly double that of their
classmates preferring the intuitive approach” (p. 216). He attributed
these differences to the good match between the linear and utilitarian
assignments of the program and the learning style preferences of
sensing types. Therefore, a mismatch between the way the distance
instruction is delivered and personality type can have very real negative
consequences for students.
As discussed earlier, this study's focus is on preference for online
versus face-to-face instruction and its implications for modifying an
online teaching environment. Only two studies using the MBTI to date
have examined the issue of preference for online instruction and both
found minor Feeling (F) versus Thinking (T) type differences in
limited samples. The first by Dewar and Whittington (2000) asked 21
graduate students who were familiar with the MBTI and who had
experience with online classes to participate in an online discussion
about how their MBTI type related to their online experiences. The
students reported that both Introverts and Extraverts experienced the
online environment as appealing but for different reasons, likewise for
the Judging versus Perceiving types. The Sensing types were grossly
under-represented in Dewar and Whittington's study with only three
participants, so useful information could not be gathered on S versus
N preferences for online learning. Of the four type dimensions, the
researchers found clear preferences only on the Thinking–Feeling
dimension, with the F types preferring face-to-face instruction and
describing online communication as “cold and impersonal” (p. 396).
Thinking types preferred the online environment because they
enjoyed the discussion of ideas. The authors noted also that the
Feeling types who participated in the study tended to use informal
areas for posting whereas the Thinking types tended to use the more
formal areas. They suggested that the informal areas were more
conducive to developing relationships which might be more appeal-
ing to the Feeling types than the Thinking types.
In the only other study of its kind, Lucas (2007) also only found
differences in the Thinking–Feeling dimension in an examination of
students in two graduate online courses. However, she found results
opposite to those found by Dewar and Whittington (2000), with
greater satisfaction reported by Feeling types over Thinking types in
two forms of online interactions (Learner-to-Learner and Learner-to-
Content). Thus, whereas there is suggestive evidence for MBTI types
as predictors of preference for online versus face-to-face instruction,
the results have been disappointing and contradictory. Both the
Dewar and Whittington (2000) study and the Lucas (2007) study
used very small groups. The former study was largely exploratory, and
the latter study did not address the online versus face-to-face
question directly. To adequately address the question, a study was
needed with a larger sample size that assessed students on the MBTI
and directly asked about modality preference. The current study was
designed with that aim in mind.
1.2. The influence of non-personality variables
In addition to assessing the influence of personality variables, the
present study was designed to determine the influence of non-
personality variables on preference for online versus face-to-face
instruction. A number of important variables not necessarily related to
MBTI type may influence preference for one learning modality over the
other. Many of these variables relate to practical concerns. For example,
many students report that online classes have an advantage over face-
to-face classes in convenience and schedule flexibility (Daugherty &
Funke, 1998; Northrup, 2002; Young & Norgard, 2006) and that online
classes are more accessible to students who would otherwise have to
travel a distance to campus (Swan et al., 2000). There may also be other
practical concerns, such as flexibility with family and work that make
asynchronous online classes more appealing. For some attracted to
online learning, it may simply come down to an enjoyment of the use of
computer technology. The degree of comfort with online technology has
been reported by students as a factor that influences their success in
online classes (Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004).
Expected learning outcome is another area that can affect preference
for online versus face-to-face instruction. The modality that students
 R. Harrington, D.A. Loffredo / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 89–95
believe best increases their chances of successful learning would
logically be seen as most appealing. For example, some may believe
they learn better in the physical environment of a classroom than at
home; some may believe that the instructors are more proficient in
teaching face-to-face since that is the traditional style of teaching;
others may see one or the other type of class as having a higher level of
difficulty. Another related variable of interest concerns the concept of
preference for visual or auditory learning. Some have labeled those who
prefer the visual modality visual learners and those who prefer the
auditory modality auditory learners (Jensen, 1971; Tallmadge & Shearer,
1969). Since most online classes tend to teach primarily through a visual
medium, the online modality might not be as appealing to students who
prefer the auditory sensory channel for learning. These auditory learners
may prefer the face-to-face learning environment since it relies heavily
on the auditory sensory modality.
The current study examined both MBTI personality types and non-
personality variables such as convenience, enjoyment of technology,
and expectation of enhanced learning to determine the reasons why
students have a preference for online or face-to-face college
instruction. Based on MBTI theory and the very limited research in
the area, it was predicted that Introvert types would prefer online
instruction due to their preference for working alone and focusing on
the inner world of ideas and that Extravert types would prefer face-to-
face instruction due to their outward focus and desire for social
contact. This idea is somewhat supported by Macgregor (2000) who
found when using a different instrument, the 16 PF, a greater number
of introverts in online classes. No predictions were made regarding
Sensing types versus Intuition types since each type could find online
classes appealing for different reasons (Sensing types because it
appeals to their practical side and Intuition types since it appeals to
their innovative side). Thinking types were expected to prefer online
instruction since it would appeal to their cognitive fact-based
decision-making orientation. On the other hand, Feeling types were
hypothesized to prefer face-to-face instruction due to their interest in
monitoring how their behavior affects others. Finally, Judging types
were expected to prefer online classes due to their increased need for
planning and organizing, whereas Perceiving types were expected to
prefer the more spontaneous and extemporaneous environment of a
classroom. A discriminant analysis was used to determine the most
parsimonious set of variables within the largest domain of plausible
possibilities that would classify students by their stated preference for
online or face-to-face instruction.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
A total of 166 (91% female, 9% male) psychology, nursing and
education university students (72.3% undergraduates, 27.7% graduates)
from an upper level university that fields more than 40% of its class
sections online volunteered to participate in the study after reading a
recruitment announcement posted in their online classes. All partici-
pants had previously taken or were currently taking at least one
university class online and over two-thirds had taken or were taking at
least four or more online classes. See Table 1 for a breakdown of the
Table 1
Student characteristics.
Gender Age Ethnicity Number online
classes
Male = 9% b 25 = 26.5% Caucasian = 58.4% 1 = 11.4%
Female = 91% 26–35 years = 27.7% African American = 14.5% 2–3 = 19.9%
36–45 years = 29.5% Hispanic = 15.1% 4–6 = 18.7%
46–55 years = 13.9% Asian American = 6% 7–10 = 19.3%
56–65 years = 2.4% Other = 6% N10 = 30.7%
91
demographic information. The participants completed the survey via
the WebCT e-learning management system while enrolled in their
respective online classes during the fall, spring, and summer of 2007 and
the fall and spring of 2008. Participation in discussion board activities
was required in all online classes.
2.2. Procedure
Students completed an online consent form, a demographic
information survey, a questionnaire asking their general preference
for online instruction versus face-to-face instruction, and a set of follow-
up questions designed to assess the reasons why they prefer one
instructional delivery modality over the other. Finally, they completed
an online version of the MBTI Form M. There were no interventions.
2.3. Measures
Demographic information was obtained using items presented in a
multiple choice format, likewise for the item assessing preference for
online versus face-to-face classes. The item assessing preference for
online versus face-to-face classes was worded accordingly: “In general I
prefer (a) online college classes (b) face-to-face college classes.”
Interestingly, exactly 50% (n = 83) of those sampled preferred online
classes and 50% (n = 83) face-to-face classes.
The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers, 1987) measures
four dichotomous dimensions of Introversion–Extraversion, Sensing–
Intuition, Thinking–Feeling, and Judging–Perceiving based on Myer's
interpretation of Jung's (1971) type theory. Each person measured by
the instrument receives a four letter code type from a possible 16
combinations with each letter of the code representing type preference
on one dimension. Upon reviewing the studies that examined the
psychometric quality of the MBTI, Murray (1990) concluded that the
instrument has acceptable reliability and validity. Several large sample
MBTI factor analytic studies have affirmed the four factors predicted by
the theory thus providing good evidence for the MBTI's construct
validity (Harvey, Murray, & Stamonlis, 1995; Tischler, 1994). The
current study used form M that has internal consistency reliabilities in
the .90 range or higher based on a large sample of 3009 participants
(Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998). Form M is available in an
online format for ease of administration and scoring. The online version
was used in the present study.
The follow-up questions asked the reasons for their preference
using a 4-point Likert-type scale that included the options “Strongly
Agree,” “Agree,” “Disagree,” “Strongly Disagree.” An example of a
follow-up question is “My preference for this type of class is because
this type of class fits my schedule better.” There were 28 follow-up
questions written by the authors derived from their extensive
experience in online teaching, the research literature (e.g., Young &
Norgard, 2006), the MBTI scale descriptions, and experts' writings on
MBTI type theory, with 18 tapping into MBTI type-related reasons for
their preferences, three assessing reasons related to convenience, six
measuring reasons related to maximizing learning outcomes, and one
determining the degree that enjoyment of computer technology
related to their preferences. The idea was to capture the universe of
possible personality and non-personality based reasons for modality
preference and to use this information to explain: (1) any personality
differences found; and (2) with as few variables as possible the
reasons for their preferences.
Derived from the works of Jung (1971), the MBTI scale descriptions,
and the MBTI literature, 18 follow-up items were written that deal with
the prominent elements of the constructs of each of the four bipolar
scales. For example, since a salient feature of the construct of
Introversion is a desire for privacy, a follow-up question was crafted
that stated “My preference for this type of class is because I enjoy the
privacy aspect of this type of class.” Among these items, six were written
that dealt with the I–E type dimension and four each were created that
92 R. Harrington, D.A. Loffredo / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 89–95

dealt with the remaining three type dimensions (S–N, T–F, J–P). The I–E frequency count for any of the other type dimensions, the J–P type
dimension warranted two more items than the other three dimensions approached significance, chi-square (1, N = 166) = 2.89, p = .09,
since it appears to be the most robust construct and required more items phi = .13 indicating a small effect size. Within this type dimension,
to comprehensively cover the construct. An example of an I–E item is the trend was more pronounced for Perceiving types than Judging types
“My preference for this type of class is because this type of class better with a majority of Perceiving types preferring face-to-face instruction
satisfies my need to work alone.” An item that exemplifies the S–N (58.9%, N = 33) and a minority preferring online instruction (41.1%,
dimension is “My preference for this type of class is because this type of N = 23) while Judging types showed an opposite pattern with a majority
class is better at stimulating my imagination.” The T–F dimension was preferring online instruction (55.0%, N = 60) and a minority preferring
represented by items, one of which is “My preference for this type of face-to-face instruction (45.0%, N = 49).
class is because with this type of class I can gauge the emotional
reactions of others in the class better.” Finally, a sample item for the J–P
3.2. Reasons for preference for online versus face-to-face instruction
dimension was “My preference for this type of class is because this type
of class is generally more spontaneous.”
A step-wise canonical discriminant function test was run for the 28
Follow-up questions related to convenience as a reason for
follow-up items dealing with the reasons participants preferred
preference of online versus face-to-face classes were derived from
online versus face-to-face instruction, and one significant function
the research literature (e.g., Young & Norgard, 2006) and included the
emerged containing six standardized canonical discriminant function
item “My preference for this type of class is because the amount of
coefficients (see Table 2). The canonical correlation was .870, chi-
travel for this class works better for me.” Likewise, the remaining
square (6, N = 166) = 225.36, p b .001. It should be noted that the
items were derived from relevant research literature discussed
highly significant discriminant function test demonstrates a high level
previously. Items related to the teaching modality best fitting the
of construct validity (i.e., method of distinct groups) (cf., Kaplan &
objective of maximizing learning outcomes included “My preference
Saccuzzo, 2005) for the items written that contribute to the step-wise
for this type of class is because this type of class appeals more to my
equation. In other words, these items were validated by the
need to learn through listening.” Note two of these six items dealt
discriminant function test as meeting the criterion of being able to
with preference to learn through one type of sensory modality or the
separate students into the two groups they were designed to do. The
other (visual or auditory). The one item dealing with computer
discriminant function was positively weighted (prefer online) by
technology was “My preference for this type of class is because I enjoy
“This type of class fits my schedule better” (.49), “The amount of travel
using computer technology.”
for this class works better for me” (.28), “I enjoy using computer
technology” (.22), “This type of class is more innovative” (.23), and
2.4. Research design and statistical analyses
negatively weighted (prefer face-to-face) by “This type of class
appeals more to my need to learn through listening” (−.42), and
The study's design based on survey data was quasi-experimental. A
“With this type of class I can gauge the emotional reactions of others
chi-square test for independence was performed to determine if there
in the class better” (−.38). These standardized canonical discriminant
was a statistically significant difference between each MBTI type
function coefficients were able to correctly classify 98.8% of those who
dimension (I–E, S–J, T–F, J–P) on instruction preference (online versus
preferred online classes and 91.6% of those who preferred face-to-face
face-to-face). Pertinent descriptive statistics were used to organize,
classes. The overall structure matrix of all 28 follow-up item variables
summarize, and simplify data. A step-wise canonical discriminant
can be seen in Table 3.
analysis was used to classify or distinguish participants by instruction
preference (online versus face-to-face) on instruction preference
reasons. Discriminant analysis is a procedure used to classify individuals 4. Discussion
into groups on the basis of one or more measures (Green, Salkind &
Akey, 2000). The quantitative variables for discriminant analysis are 4.1. MBTI personality findings
typically referred to as independent variables or predictors and the
group membership variable is referred to as the dependent variable or The current study is the first of its kind to find as predicted that a
criterion variable (Green et al., 2000). The independent variables in the statistically significant majority of Introverts prefer online college
discriminant analysis used in this study were the follow-up questions classes while a majority of Extraverts prefer face-to-face college
and the criterion variable was instruction modality (online versus face- classes. This finding is consistent with MacGregor's (2000) finding
to-face). that online students were more likely to be introverted than face-to-
face students. There was also a strong trend and small effect size
3. Results indicated in the chi-square analysis, as predicted, for Perceiving types
to prefer face-to-face classes over online classes. No statistically
3.1. Preference for online versus face-to-face within MBTI dimensions

Statistical assumptions were met for all inferential statistics. A chi- Table 2
square test for independence was performed to determine if there were Step-wise standardized canonical discriminant function analysis of variables used in
differences within each MBTI type dimension in preference for online the analysis of reasons for preferring online versus face-to-face by category and
function value.
versus face-to-face class instruction. Of the four type dimensions (I–E, S–
J, T–F, J–P), only the I–E dimension was significant, chi-square Reason Category Value
(1, N = 166) = 7.07, p b .01, phi = .21 indicating a small effect size. This type of class appeals more to my need to learn through Learning −.415
Examination of the frequency counts revealed that a majority of listening.
Introverts prefer online instruction (61.6%, N = 45) and a minority This type of class fits my schedule better. Convenience .493
The amount of travel for this class works better for me. Convenience .277
prefer face-to-face instruction (38.4%, N = 28), whereas the opposite
I enjoy using computer technology. Technical .259
pattern occurred for Extraverts with a majority preferring face-to-face This type of class is more innovative S–N .232
instruction (59.1%, N = 55) and a minority preferring online instruction With this type of class I can gauge the emotional reactions T–F −.375
(40.9%, N = 38). Analyses were run on the follow-up questions dealing of others in the class better.
with the I–E dimension but were inconclusive regarding motivation for S–N is the MBTI Sensing–Intuition type dimension. T–F is the MBTI Thinking–Feeling
preference. Though there were no significant differences in the type dimension. Value is the standardized canonical discriminant function coefficient.
 R. Harrington, D.A. Loffredo / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 89–95 93

Table 3 the start more likely to be comfortable with computer-assisted

Structure matrix for a step-wise standardized canonical discriminant function analysis learning while their Extravert counterparts may take a little longer to
of reasons for preferring online versus face-to-face by category and function value.
warm-up to the online learning environment.
Reason Category Value What about the Perceiving type students? How can they be made to
This type of class fits my schedule better.a Convenience .760 feel more attuned to the online learning environment? Perceiving types
The amount of travel for this class works better for me.a Convenience .623 have a higher need for spontaneity and playfulness, so instructors can
This type of class works better with my family needs. Convenience .555 add more synchronous activity (e.g., chat rooms) to their classes as well
With this type of class I can gauge the emotional reactions T–F −.458
as game activities directed at increasing learning outcomes to appeal to
of others in the class better.a
This type of class makes me feel more emotionally T–F −.434 these students. Chat rooms may also appeal to Extraverts, but for
connected to the people in the class. different reasons, such as need for social collaboration.
This type of class appeals more to my need to learn through Learning −.417 Academic counselors and advisors who have access to MBTI results
listening.a of students may find results of the I–E dimension and J–P dimension
I enjoy the privacy aspect of this type of class. I–E .371
helpful in counseling students who have little exposure to or are
I get to know the instructor better in this type of class. I–E −.348
This type of class better satisfies my need to work alone. I–E .312 struggling in the online environment. Such results may suggest an
This type of class better satisfies my need to work with I–E −.295 initial discomfort level for Extraverted or Perceiving type students
people. with online instruction and could be used to assist these students in
I enjoy the social contact I get in this type of class. I–E −.258
understanding and adjusting to the online medium. MBTI results
This type of class is generally more spontaneous. J–P −.237
I believe this type of class appeals to my playful side. J–P −.224 would not be used to simply point students to one instructional
I enjoy using computer technology.a Technical .221 format or another. Though these personality findings are useful, they
This type of class is more innovativea S–N .219 should be applied with caution, given that a full one-third or more
The physical environment for this type of class is more Learning −.211 preferred the opposite modality to the majority within each type for
conducive to my learning.
both dimensions. In addition, as found in previous research and the
This type of class is better at stimulating my imagination. S–N −.206
This type of class stimulates my thinking better. T–F −.205 discriminant analysis, other non-personality variables play a signif-
This type of class appeals more to my need to learn through Learning −.181 icant role in modality preference, and these variables should also be
visual means. given due consideration in the advising process.
This type of class is more practical. S–N .152
I am able to learn more in this type of class. Learning −.146
The instructors are more proficient at teaching this type of Learning −.117
4.2. Non-personality findings
class.
This type of class is less difficult. Learning −.097 When considering the non-personality reasons why students may
I feel more comfortable participating in discussions in this I–E .083 prefer online instruction, the step-wise discriminant function analysis
type of class.
not surprisingly revealed that convenience issues such as schedule,
I believe this type of class has a more planned structure. J–P −.073
This type of class is more fact oriented. S–N .043 followed by travel play the largest role in preference. Interests in
This type of class seems to be more objective. T–F .032 computer technology and in innovation were revealed as the next two
This type of class better appeals to my work ethic. J–P −.017 most important variables. These four variables (convenience of
I–E is the MBTI Introversion–Extraversion type dimension. S–N is the MBTI Sensing– schedule, convenience of travel, enjoyment of computer technology,
Intuition type dimension. T–F is the MBTI Thinking–Feeling type dimension. J–P is the and interest in innovation) were able to correctly classify over 98% of
MBTI Judging–Perceiving type dimension. Value is standardized canonical discriminant those who preferred online classes. The finding that convenience is the
function coefficient.
a primary attraction to online classes replicates and supports the results of
Indicates the item was used in the analysis.
previous studies (Daugherty & Funke, 1998; Northrup, 2002; Swan et al.,
2000; Young & Norgard, 2006). The third most important reason for
significant differences were found for the Sensing–Intuition MBTI type online preference, interest in computer technology, is logical given the
dimensions as predicted. Likewise, no differences were found for the heavy use of computers in online classes. This reason is also in accord
Thinking–Feeling MBTI type dimension as would be suggested by the with Song et al.'s (2004) finding that students relate success in an online
findings of Dewar and Whittington (2000) or those reported by Lucas environment with comfort in using online technology. The fourth most
(2007). important reason for online preference, interest in innovation, is also
Online instructors cannot change the personalities of their logical given the innovative nature of online instruction.
students, so how can they best accommodate the needs of personality Those who prefer face-to-face instruction appear to believe they
types who are more inclined to prefer a face-to-face teaching can learn better in a teaching environment that has a substantial
environment? Instructors can start by enhancing their online auditory component, a component that is often missing in an online
environments and their assignments to create opportunities for environment. This is an important new finding and suggests that
Extravert and Perceiving students to feel more at home. As discussed online instructors, if they have not done so already, should add a
by DiTiberio (1996), Extraverts are drawn to learning environments meaningful auditory component to their courses to make them more
that involve collaborative learning. A constructivist approach (Rovai, appealing to these students. Second, students who prefer face-to-face
2004) to pedagogy that allows for asynchronous and additionally instruction appear drawn to an environment where they can best
synchronous student–student and student–instructor interactions is gauge the emotional reactions of others, a component that is also
more likely to appeal to Extravert students. In addition to holding largely absent in an online classroom environment. Although it might
online office hours, Extravert students would benefit from instructors appear trivial, an online platform that would allow ready use of
also holding face-to-face or phone office hours when feasible to emoticons or other indicators of emotions on discussion boards may
facilitate their desired student–instructor interaction. Though online make this medium more appealing to these students. These two
instructors who incorporate group activities and other online variables (learning through listening and being able to gauge the
collaborative course assignments are more likely to appeal to their emotional reactions of others better) were able to correctly classify
extraverted students, they should maintain enough flexibility to allow over 91% of those who preferred face-to-face classes.
their introverted students, who generally prefer to work alone, to There were six follow-up items dealing with the delivery modality
have their needs met as well. As with most things, a healthy balance is of the class best supporting the learning objectives of the student. The
optimal. Instructors should also be cognizant of the idea that many structure matrix of the step-wise standardized canonical discriminant
Introverts who are new to the online classroom environment are from analysis revealed that all six items dealing with learning objectives
94 R. Harrington, D.A. Loffredo / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 89–95
had coefficient values indicating preference for face-to-face instruc-
tion. This suggests that the perception is more common among those
preferring face-to-face instruction that they can meet their learning
objectives better in a face-to-face environment than in an online
environment. Such a perception may be influencing their preference.
This finding dovetails with those of Young and Norgard (2006) and
others (e.g., O'Malley & McGraw, 1999; Zeng & Perris, 2004) who
found students in general believe they learn more in their face-to-face
classes than their online classes. It should be noted, however, that
only one of these six learning objective items had coefficients that
ranked in the top 15 reasons for preference. That was the item “This
type of class appeals more to my need to learn through listening.”
Thus, with the exception of the face-to-face class supporting those
who desire a more auditory-rich environment for learning, ironically
most of the important reasons for preferring online versus face-to-
face had nothing to do with a perception that the modality preferred
could best facilitate learning. In addition, there was no evidence that
students might prefer online classes because they perceive them as
easier than their face-to-face equivalents. In fact, with respect to the
item “This type of class is less difficult,” the item ranked 23rd out of 28
and leaned toward the face-to-face direction rather than the online
direction.
4.3. Study limitations
As with all studies, the current one has some limitations. Results can
be generalized only to individuals with the same demographics as the
sample. The primary limitation is that the sample was not gender-
balanced. Though we can generalize to a female college population, one
should use caution when generalizing to males. Sometimes gender
differences have been found in preference for certain types of online
activities. For example, Young and Norgard (2006) found that females
were more likely to express that interaction between instructor and
student is important to online learning than males. Though there is no
reason to suspect gender played a role in the current study's findings,
future researchers may want to replicate this study with a more gender-
balanced sample to determine if there is a gender effect. Helpful to the
sample's external validity, however, is its proportional representation of
age ranges and ethnicities. Also, it should be noted that these students
were well qualified to offer opinions about their preference for online
versus face-to-face instruction given that all were taking or had taken at
least one online class and over two-thirds were taking or had taken four
or more online classes.
One potential validity issue concerns potential subject bias in favor of
online classes since all the students were sampled from online classes.
For comparison purposes the current researchers looked at Young and
Norgard (2006) who sampled 233 students university-wide from both
online and face-to-face classes from the same institution as the 166
students sampled in the current study. Their study found that 59% of
students favored online classes over face-to-face classes whereas the
present study found only 50% favored online. Therefore, a smaller rather
than larger number of students favored online in the current study, an
outcome that runs contrary to the expected outcome associated with a
biased sample. This finding is not surprising since the vast majority of
students who completed the current study were in online classes that
did not have a face-to-face alternative. Thus, they were enrolled in
online classes not because they favored them but because they had no
alternative, a result reflected in their even divide in preference between
the two alternatives.
Future researchers may also want to explore the J–P difference with a
larger sample. As is typical with the population at large, the number of
Perceiving types represented was less than a third of the total in the
sample. The smaller number of Perceiving types could have lowered the
power of the chi-square test making significance more difficult. If power
is the issue, a larger sample may find significant differences between
Judging and Perceiving types whereas the current study only found a
trend. Also, as noted previously, though significant differences were
found between the I–E types in preference for online versus face-to-face
instruction, over one-third of the Introverts and Extraverts expressed a
preference for the opposite of that expressed by the majority for each
type. Therefore, caution is advised before overgeneralizing about
preference with regard to MBTI type. Nevertheless, an important
follow-up study would be to determine if personality type relates to
academic outcome. In other words, would Extraverts perform better
academically in a face-to-face environment and Introverts in an online
environment? The present researchers are currently undertaking this
investigation.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
The present study is the first of its kind to determine that: (1)
personality type plays a significant role in preference for online versus
face-to-face instruction; (2) as few as six rank ordered within
preference variables can be used with remarkable accuracy to predict
preference for online versus face-to-face instruction; and (3) two newly
targeted variables appear to be the primary drivers of preference for
face-to-face over online instruction. Upon determining why students
prefer face-to-face instruction over online instruction, online instructors
can enhance their classes in ways that make them more appealing to
these students. Past research indicates that accommodating the
teaching environment and assignments to match a variety of learning
styles and comfort levels leads to greater student satisfaction and
reduced program attrition.
Specifically, the current study found that a statistically significant
majority of MBTI Introvert type university students preferred online
classes and Extravert type students preferred face-to-face classes.
There was also a trend toward Perceiving types preferring face-to-face
classes. Four variables were able to best discriminate 98.8% of
students' preference for online versus face-to-face. These were in
order of magnitude, schedule convenience, travel convenience,
enjoyment of computer technology, and desire for innovation. The
two rank ordered variables of “need to learn through listening”
followed by a desire to be in an environment where they can “gauge
the emotional reactions of others” were able to discriminate 91.6% of
students who preferred face-to-face classes.
Online instructors may want to increase the comfort levels of
Extravert and Perceiving students with the online environment
through employing a variety of strategies including collaborative
learning opportunities, games, and synchronous activities (e.g., chat
rooms). Adding more face or voice time with students who express
high social needs when feasible is likely to satisfy these students in
ways that perhaps may not be as available in the virtual world.
Academic counselors and advisors may want to share MBTI results
with students who have had little previous exposure to online
classroom environments to help them transition better into this type
of environment. General students who prefer face-to-face classes are
more likely to have their needs met by adding a substantial auditory
component and adopting an online classroom platform that allows
emoticons to be used in classroom discussions. Providing a better
match to the preferences and learning styles of online students has
the very real consequence of reducing the likelihood of academic
failure and attrition (Terrell, 2005).
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States,
2008. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Daugherty, M., & Funke, B. L. (1998). University faculty and student perceptions
of web-based instruction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1) (Retrieved from
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/134/411).
Dewar, T., & Whittington, D. (2000). Online learners and their learning strategies.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 385−403.
 R. Harrington, D.A. Loffredo / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 89–95
DiTiberio, J. K. (1996). Education, learning styles, and cognitive styles. In A. L. Hammer
(Ed.), MBTI applications: A decade of research on the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
(pp. 123−166). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T. M. (2000). Using SPSS for windows: Analyzing and
understanding data, 2nd. ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harvey, R. J., Murray, W. D., & Stamoulis, D. T. (1995). Unresolved issues in the
dimensionality of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 55, 535−544.
Jensen, A. R. (1971). Individual differences in visual and auditory memory. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 62, 123−131.
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. In R. F. C. Hull (Ed.) & H. G. Baynes (Trans.), The
collected works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 6, Bellinger Series XX). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press. (Original work published in 1921).
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and
issues, 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kroeger, O., & Thuesen, J. M. (1988). Type talk: The 16 personality types that determine
how we live, love, and work. New York: Dell Publishing.
Lucas, D. J. W. (2007). Personality type (MBTI) relationship to performance and
satisfaction in web-based instruction (WBI). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68
(6-A), 2304.
Macgregor, C. (2000). Does personality matter: A comparison of student experiences in
traditional and online classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(5-A), 1696.
Murray, J. B. (1990). Review of research on the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 70, 1187−1202.
Myers, I. B. (1987). The Myers Briggs Type Indicator — Form G. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A
guide to the development and use of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, 3rd ed. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
95
Northrup, P. T. (2002). Online learners' preferences for interaction. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 32, 219−226.
O'Malley, J., & McGraw, H. (1999). Students perceptions of distance learning, online learning
and the traditional classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(4)
(Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/winter24/omalley24.html).
Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. Internet and Higher
Education, 7, 79−93.
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student
perception of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet and Higher Education, 7,
59−70.
Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of student
achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics
class. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 233−250.
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredricksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building
knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the
virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 234, 359−383.
Tallmadge, G. K., & Shearer, J. W. (1969). Relationships among learning styles, instructional
methods, and the nature of learning experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60,
222−230.
Terrell, S. R. (2005). A longitudinal investigation of the effect of information perception and
focus on attrition in online learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 8,
213−219.
Tischler, L. (1994). The MBTI factor structure. Journal of Psychological Type, 31, 24−31.
Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the
students' perspective. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 107−115.
Zeng, W. Y., & Perris, K. (2004). Researching the efficacy of online learning: A collaborative
effort amongst scholars in Asian open universities. Open Learning, 193, 247−264.