Abstract
Introduction
Learning objectives are a common learning guide but little is known regarding which students may benefit from their use. We have previously reported that male medical students benefit from the use of learning objectives more than female students. We next tested whether specific Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) benefitted from using these objectives.
Materials and Methods
Student’s MBTI types were determined by standard methods, and student use of online learning objectives was tracked in Blackboard. We then determined which types of students benefitted from learning objective use based on course exams and a standardized test.
Results
Although all MBTI types who downloaded objectives except intuitives (I) had better course exam scores, only sensing (S) types had enough benefit to significantly affect standardized test scores. Sensing types who downloaded learning objectives had a 30 % gain in score over non-downloaders on the course exam (80.7 ± 1.3 versus 68.7 ± 1.3; P = 0.001). The sensing–intuitive axis appears dominant over gender since sensing-type females benefit but intuitive-type males do not. MBTI type does not appear to affect the decision to download learning objectives as there is no significant difference in objective downloading rates between types.
Conclusions
Students with specific Myers-Briggs types, particularly sensing, benefit from downloading learning objectives more than other students. These results support the notion that multiple learning methods may be needed to teach students with diverse learning needs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kassebaum DG, Eaglen RH, Cutler ER. The objectives of medical education: reflections in the accreditation looking glass. Acad Med. 1997;72:648–56.
Webb EM, Naeger DM, Fulton TB, Straus CM. Learning objectives in radiology education: why you need them and how to write them. Acad Radiol. 2013;20:358–63.
Holt JT, Ghormoz J, Sung Y-J, Szarek JL, White ML. Targeting pedagogies for appropriate learners: downloading learning objectives increases exam scores for men. Med Sci Educ. 2015;25:45–51.
Harasym PH, Leong EJ, Lucier GE, Lorscheider FL. Relationship between Myers-Briggs psychological traits and use of course objectives in anatomy and physiology. Eval Health Prof. 1996;19:243–52.
King K, Gurian M. Teaching to the minds of boys. Educ Leadersh. 2006;64:56–61.
Holt JT, Szarek JL. Organ Recitals: a large active group learning activity. In: Active Learning Pedagogy for Large Group Teaching, IAMSE Resource Guide. In press.
Perlis SM, Smego Jr RA. A case-based learning format for a swine flu ‘hot topic’ learning block. Int J Infect Dis. 2010;14 Suppl 3:e369.
Woloshuk W, Mandin H, Harasymp P, Lorscheider F, Brant R. Retention of basic science knowledge: a comparison between body system-based and clinical presentation curricula. Teach Learn Med. 2014;16:116–22.
Morrison CA, Ross LP, Fogle T, Butler A, Miller J, Dillon GF. Relationship between performance on the NBME Comprehensive Basic Sciences Self-Assessment and USMLE Step 1 for U.S. and Canadian medical school students. Acad Med. 2010;85:S98–101.
Jung CG. Psychological types. In: The Collected Works of C.G. Jung. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976, vol.6.
Myers IB, McCaulley MH. Manual: a guide to the development and use of the Myers-Brings type indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists; 1985.
Zimmerman DW. A note on interpretation of the paired-samples t test. J Educ Behav Stat. 1997;22:349–60.
Mehta CR, Patel NR, Tsiatis AA. Exact significance testing to establish treatment equivalence with ordered categorical data. Biometrics. 1984;40:819–25.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988.
Wilson SA, Becker LA, Tinker RH. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) treatment for psychologically traumatized individuals. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995;63:928–37.
Stilwell NA, Wallick MW, Thal SE, Burleson SA. Myers-Briggs type and medical specialty choice: a new look at an old question. Teach Learn Med: Int J. 2009;12:14–20.
Myers IB, Davis JA. Relation of medical students’ psychological type to their specialties twelve years later. Princeton: Educational Testing Service; 1965.
Schurr KT, Ruble VE. The Myers-Briggs type indicator and first year college achievement: a look beyond aptitude test resu1ts. J Psychol Type. 1986;12:25–37.
Tharp GD. Relationship between personality type and achievement in an undergraduate physiology class. Am. J. Physiol. 262 (Adv. Physiol. Educ. 7): Sl-S3, 1992.
Vittoe MC, Hooker E. Learning style preferences of allied health practitioners in a teaching education program. J Allied Health. 1983;12:49–55.
Haak DC, Lambers JH, Petra E, Freeman E. Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science. 2011;332:1213–5.
Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafora N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP. Active learning increases student performance in engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, www.pnas.org/cgi. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holt, J.T., Ghormoz, J., Sung, YJ. et al. Medical Student Benefit from Learning Objectives Correlates to Specific Myers-Briggs Types. Med.Sci.Educ. 25, 249–254 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0133-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0133-7