Psychological Diversity:Implications for Teaching and Learning

by Gerard J. Puccio, Associate Professor & Director, Center for Studies in Creativity, Buffalo State College; 1999

Recent times have shown an increased interest in the topic of diversity. Corporate America has focused on the powerful potential of a diverse workforce since at least the mid-1980's. The general belief is that a diverse workforce brings together a range of experiences, perspectives, and skills that when harmonized results in a stronger team or organization. When diversity is discussed in regard to organizational life, it is typically thought of as differences in gender and race (Loden & Rosener, 1991).

According to Loden and Rosener (1991) the primary forms of diversity include: age, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race, and sexual/affectional orientation. There is another form of diversity that is not as readily observable as most of these examples, but possesses implications just as profound as our more common conceptions of diversity. This additional form of diversity, which I refer to as "psychological diversity," relates to differences in the way people organize and process information. In other words, differences in the way people think. Although psychological diversity is not something that can be identified immediately, as is the case with age, gender or race, it nonetheless has an influence on how people behave.

Therefore, just like our gender, age, and race influence how we approach certain situations, so do the ways in which we differ psychologically. Furthermore, since psychological diversity refers to the way we think, it relates to all people. Thus two people of the same gender, age and race may not necessarily behave in similar ways. Psychological diversity adds further variety to the way we generally think of diversity; there is more to diversity than what meets the eye.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the implications of psychological diversity for teaching and learning. In this paper I review briefly two well-known theories of individual differences and discuss their particular implications for teaching and learning. One theory, Kirton's Adaptor-Innovator distinction, examines differences in terms of cognitive styles. While the other, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, is based on Carl Jung's thinking about psychological types. Both theories exemplify what I refer to as psychological diversity, but are not the only examples of theories that focus on differences in the way people think. Before examining these two theories, I will outline a number of important guidelines for interpreting the qualities described by these theories. They are as follows:

• Psychological diversity refers to the way in which people think and operate, it does not say anything about how well they think or operate.
• The various styles and types of people described by these theories are theoretically value neutral, meaning there is no best way to be. It is the situation that will determine the effectiveness of a particular style or type.
• People do not posses all of one style and none of another. Individuals' styles are determined by the degree of preference for one way of thinking or being over another.
• Psychological diversity cuts across all areas of life. Preferred ways of thinking and operating affect how we behave at work, at home, and in our leisure activities.

It is important to keep these guidelines in mind as I describe these theories. As with other forms of diversity, it can be easy to fall into the trap of thinking that one way of being is better than another. This can be apparent particularly when we interact with someone who possesses a different way of thinking from us. It is all too easy to slip into a pejorative mode of thinking and to conclude that because someone approaches a task in a different manner from you that he or she must not be doing it the right way. This is simply not the case.

Although they qualitatively differ from each other, all forms of cognitive style and psychological type have their own unique value. Finally, for ease of communication, and to draw clearer distinctions, I will describe the various styles associated with these theories as if they were completely separate entities. In reality people's style preferences are not so black and white. People possess all of the styles described in this paper; however, individuals typically report a stronger preference for one style over another. Let's now turn to the first of the two theories.

A British researcher named Michael Kirton (1976, 1994) posited a cognitive style continuum that contrasts a more adaptive orientation to a more innovative orientation. As a theory of cognitive style, this continuum relates to characteristically different ways in which people approach problem solving, decision making, and the act of creativity. A key distinction between these styles is that adaptors approach problems within the current paradigm, while innovators challenge the existing paradigm. Where the adaptor is more likely to initiate change that improves the current system, the innovator is more likely to introduce change that challenges the current system.

In a sense the adaptor takes a more incremental and evolutionary approach to change, while the innovator takes a more radical and revolutionary approach. Individuals who possess an adaptive preference are described as methodical, conforming, and approach problems in tried and understood ways. In contrast, innovators are described as undisciplined, nonconforming, and approach problems from unsuspected perspectives. Further characteristics of adaptors and innovators are found in Table 1.

Table 1

Capable of detailed work for only short bursts. Given the stark differences between the quintessential adaptor and innovator it is easy to image the respective criticism one camp might level against the other. Kirton (1994), for example, comments that adaptors may perceive people who have strong innovative preferences as neurotic, abrasive, trouble makers, and unfocused. In contrast, innovators may see strong adaptors as compliant, stuffy, wedded to systems, dull, and boring. Obviously these pejorative views, and lack of appreciation for psychological differences, can seriously impede productive collaboration. It can also hamper the teaching and learning process. One might wonder how these intrapersonal differences can influence a process as straight forward as teaching and learning.

Isn't it simple, we find the mechanisms to deliver our expertise and the student's responsibility is to learn it. It may not be so simple. Our cognitive style preferences influence how we go about delivering information and students' style preferences influence how they receive this information. Thus, there are sets of invisible filters between teachers and students. It is not too difficult to image what kinds of descriptors a student with a clear innovative preference might use to describe the adaptive instructor who rarely varies his or her delivery mode for sake of maintaining efficiency.

Conversely, it is easy to picture the shock a student with an adaptive orientation might experience when the innovative instructor indicates that there is no course syllabus and furthermore the topic for the term paper is completely up to the student to decide. In both cases the instructor believes he or she is operating with the best interest of the student in mind.

In the case of the adaptive instructor, more information can be conveyed when there is little change in how it is presented. The innovative instructor may believe that a more open teaching process will encourage students to think on their own. Both, however, may not realize the effect their teaching bias may have on students who possess cognitive styles that differ from theirs. Another potential pitfall associated with an instructor's personal orientation is the unconscious influence it has on expectations of what constitutes productive student behavior.

For example, the adaptive instructor may expect or demand orderly thinking and behavior, while the innovative instructor may define productive student behavior as one who challenges set assumptions and approaches tasks from unsuspecting angles. The potential danger lies in how rigidly instructors hold onto their expectations and the consequences dispensed for those who do not conform.

This is not to say that we should not have standards; rather, we need to be aware of how our personal style influences our expectations and to understand the extent to which they might actually punish students who do not share our orientation. In regard to practical suggestions to break out of one's one teaching paradigm, the adaptive instructor might wish to introduce some new content into his or her courses.

Another possibility is to create opportunities for students to explore new information related to the course, perhaps information that takes a different perspective from the main thrust of the course. Certainly one simple step an adaptive instructor might take is to encourage debate in the classroom which may provide the forum for more innovative students to engage in the course. Innovative instructors might find it useful to build more structure into their courses, such as providing students with clearly articulated course contracts and syllabi.

In regard to assignments it might be useful to provide clear guidelines so that adaptive students have sufficient structure to guide their work, but to also allow freedom to vary so that students with more innovative preferences can explore alternative approaches. Let's now consider a theory that offers a few more dimensions.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & McCaulley, 1985) was designed to operationalize Carl Jung's (1921/71) theory of psychological type. Since its initial development more than 50 years ago, the MBTI has become one of the most widely used and recognized personality measures. The MBTI contains four dimensions. The first dimension examines people's attitudes toward life and classifies them as either extraverted or introverted (EI). Extraverts get their energy from the outer world of people and things, while introverts gain energy from the inner world of ideas. The second dimension examines preferred modes of perception and identifies individuals as sensing or intuitive (SN). Sensing types prefer to work with the details and to take in information through direct experience. Intuitive types, in contrast, prefer to look at the big picture and to focus on possibilities. The third continuum examines two kinds of judgment, either thinking or feeling (TF). Thinking refers to a preference to base decisions on dispassionate logic, while individuals with a feeling preference take a more personal approach to decisions. The fourth scale is concerned with the way people orient their lives and sorts respondents into the categories of judgment and perception (JP). Those with a judging attitude strive for structure and closure. Conversely, those who prefer perception like to keep things flexible and open.

The combination of preferences across these four dimensions produces an individual's MBTI type (i. e. , INFJ, ENTP, etc. ). In all there are 16 MBTI types. There is insufficient space to examine the implications of the 16 different MBTI types for teaching and learning. Further since the SN and JP scales of the MBTI are related to Kirton's adaptor-innovator continuum (i. e. , sensing and judging types tend to show adaptive preferences and vice versa), I will limit my discussion of teaching implications to the EI and TF scales. These scales will allow us to explore psychological diversity in some ways that differ from Kirton's work.

The EI distinction is one of the most readily observable MBTI preferences among students. The extraverted student is more likely to respond immediately to the instructor's questions, engage with other students, and is quick to take action. The introverted student is more likely to take time to reflect on questions posed by instructor, enjoy working alone, and is thoughtful. Extraverted students tend to share immediately what they think and feel, while introverted students are more contemplative and refine their thoughts and feelings before sharing.

Given these differences one warning for instructors is not to automatically assume that only those students who show extraverted tendencies are engaged in the course. Although the introvert does not show overt involvement in course content, this does not mean he or she is not engaged. To the contrary, it may be the more introverted students who are internally stimulated by the concepts presented in a course who are actually the most engaged.

To effectively meet the preferences of both extraverts and introverts it is important for instructors to vary their teaching strategies. For instance, an instructor might wish to use strategies that allow time for individual reflection and on other occasions group work that facilitates social interaction. The goal should be a course that involves a mix of activities that accomadate both types of students. The TF dimension refers to how individuals go about making decisions. One of the ways the TF dimension shows itself is in the work students produce.

The student with a thinking preference makes logical connections among ideas, can be more objective when evaluating concepts, and is analytical. The student with a feeling orientation links ideas together based more on personal impressions, takes a more subjective approach to evaluating concepts, and is more concerned with human aspects of problems rather than technical. The instructor who has a thinking preference may judge the work of a student with a feeling preference as illogical, fuzzy-minded and bereft of sound reasoning. An instructor with a feeling preference may perceive the work of a thinking-oriented student as too analytical, stuffy, and impersonal. Where the thinking-minded instructor may want to see less subjective thought and more scientific support in regard to a topic, the feeling-minded instructor may wish to see more of the student's personal attitudes towards a subject and fewer facts cited from other sources.

How do we as instructors begin to effectively work with the fact that psychological diversity is a given in our classes? Borrowing from a creativity model proposed by Gary Davis (1986), I recommend a four step process. The four steps are: Awareness. The first step is to become aware of one's own cognitive style or psychological type. This can be accomplished by reviewing resources that provide a much more elaborate description of Kirton's theory (e. g. , Kirton, 1976, 1994) and the MBTI (e. g. , Myers, 1980; Myers & McCaulley, 1985) or by taking the measures associated with these theories. One could also examine other theories of individual differences.

• Understanding. The second step is to develop an understanding of how one's own preferences affect teaching. The purpose of this step is to pinpoint how personal tendencies influence how we deliver information, as well as how it influences the way we interact with students.
• Techniques. The next step is to broaden one's teaching strategies so that a greater diversity of students can be reached. An efficient means of broadening one's teaching strategies is to find instructors who have different personality preferences from one's own and ask them what strategies they use in the classroom.
• Application and assessment. The final step is to apply new methods of teaching in the classroom and then to assess their success.

I have treated a rather complex topic, psychological differences, in a rather cursory manner. My intent was to introduce the topic and perhaps stimulate further investigation on the part of the reader. The instructor-student interaction is complex and multi-faceted, I hope that this brief piece on psychological diversity has provided some insight into one of the many factors that influences the success of this interplay. It is important to recognize that differences exist in our classrooms and that our own personality influences how we manage the teaching process.

References

Davis, G. A. (1986). Creativity is forever (2nd. ed. ). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types (H. G. Baynes, Trans. revised by R. F. C. Hull). Volume 6 of The collected works of C. G. Jung. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published in 1921).

Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622-629.

Kirton, M. J. (Ed). (1994). Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving (revised ed. ). London: Routledge.

Myers, I. B. , (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.

Myers, I. B. , & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.

Loden, M. , & Rosener, J. B. (1991). Workforce America: Managing employee diversity as a viatal rescource. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.