Tertiary Education and Management

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 200–214 | Cite as

Guiding a diverse mix of first-year business students: implications for university administrators, instructors and students

  • Kate McGovern
  • Wallace LockhartEmail author


This article describes a collaborative research project by the institutional research group and a team of faculty members at a Canadian university. In response to an increasingly diverse mix of students, the researchers set out to develop an understanding of relationships between student characteristics, categorized as demographic differences, personal attributes and academic preparedness, and student outcomes measured by both grades and student perceptions. Significant differences were found in grades outcomes based on characteristics such as international status, secondary school grades, study habits and writing skills. However, these differences were not evident in student perceptions of course value or learning achievement. This study has important implications for university administrators (recruiting, intake assessment and student support), instructors (understanding of diversity characteristics and how students perceive learning experience) and for students, who can be given an opportunity to better understand how their own personal characteristics might affect their learning experiences and outcomes.


curriculum design and development diversity student experience teaching methods 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amato, C. H., & Amato, L. H. (2005). Enhancing student team effectiveness: Application of Myers-Briggs personality assessment in business courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). (2011). Trends in higher education: Volume 1 — enrolment. Ottawa: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, S. (2012, March 8). Nontraditional students are the new majority. Library Journal, From the Bell Tower. Retrieved from Scholar
  4. Boud, D. (1988). Moving towards autonomy. In D. Boud (Ed.), Developing student autonomy in learning (2nd ed., pp. 17–39). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  5. Clinebell, S., & Stecher, M. (2003). Teaching teams to be teams: An exercise using the Myers-Briggs® type indicator and the five-factor personality traits. Journal of Management Education, 27, 362–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conti, G. J., & McNeil, R. C. (2011). Learning strategy preference and personality type: Are they related? Journal of Adult Education, 40(2), 1–8.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, S. E., & Miller, J. A. (1991). Mbti learning style-teaching style discongruencies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 699–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geary Schneider, C. (2011, November). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Presentation to the Mount Royal University Centennial Teaching Institute, Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Goby, V. P., & Lewis, J. H. (2000). Using experiential learning theory and the Myers-Briggs type indicator in teaching business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 63, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hubball, H., & Clarke, A. (2010). Diverse methodological approaches and considerations for SoTL in higher education. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), Article 2. Retrieved from
  13. HumanMetrics. (2014). Jung typology test. Retrieved June 18, 2014, from Scholar
  14. Justice, E. M., & Dornan, T. M. (2001). Metacognitive differences between traditional-age and nontraditional-age college students. Adult Education Quarterly, 51, 236–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. With introduction by Carol Geary Schneider. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  16. Li, G., Chen, W., & Duanmu, J. (2010). Determinants of international students’ academic performance: A comparison between Chinese and other international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14, 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Macaskill, A., & Taylor, E. (2010). The development of a brief measure of learner autonomy in university students. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 351–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael, W. B., & Shaffer, P. (1979). A comparison of the validity of the Test of Standard Written English (TSWE) and of the California State University and Colleges English Placement Test (Csuc-Ept) in the prediction of grades in a basic English composition course and of overall freshman-year grade point average. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39, 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Page, D., & Donelan, J. G. (2003). Team-building tools for students. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rideout, C. A., & Richardson, S. A. (1989). A teambuilding model: Appreciating differences using the Myers-Briggs type indicator with developmental theory. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 529–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Salter, D. W., Evans, N. J., & Forney, D. S. (2006). A longitudinal study of learning style preferences on the Myers-Briggs type indicator and learning style inventory. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saskatchewan Ministry of Education. (2010). Grade 11 online writing pre-assessment package. Retrieved from Scholar
  24. Steele, K. (2010). Chapter 2: The changing Canadian PSE landscape. In J. Black (Ed.), Strategic enrolment intelligence: Canada’s first book on strategic enrolment management (pp. 27–50). London: Academica Group.Google Scholar
  25. Trueman, M., & Hartley, J. (1996). A comparison between the time-management skills and academic performance of mature and traditional-entry university students. Higher Education, 32, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Waltman, J. L., & Smeltzer, L. R. (1988). Do good grammar skills predict success in a business-communication course? Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2, 59–69.Google Scholar
  27. Weimer, M. (2012). Cultivating more autonomous, motivated learners. Faculty Focus: The Teaching Professor Blog. Retrieved from Scholar
  28. Wesch, M. (2007). A vision of students today. YouTube. Produced by Michael Wesch and the students of Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, Class of Spring 2007. Kansas State University. Retrieved from Scholar
  29. Wilson, B., & Plutsky, S. (1997). Predicting success in upper-division business communication classes. Journal of Education for Business, 72, 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Higher Education Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business AdministrationUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada

Personalised recommendations