文献名称：
PERSONALITY TYPE AND PARTICIPATION IN NETWORKED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

中文译名：网络学习环境中的个性类型与学习参与

作者简介：
　　Ainslie E Ellis.澳大利亚，墨尔本（Melbourne）的Monash大学信息技术部部长，高级讲师。主要从事计算机在教育中应用的研究。其中Monash大学是澳大利亚一所专门致力于高效教育和研究的大学。

文章简介：
　　 原文出自英国的泰勒和弗兰西斯有限公司（Taylor & Francis Group）旗下的Routledge分部出版的《教育媒体国际》（Educational Media International）杂志。
　　 本文刊登在《教育媒体国际》（Educational Media International）2003年3-6月的第40期,P101-114面。

评论：
　　 本文旨在研究基于网络的环境下进行异步的基于主题的讨论学习时，学生个性类型与学习参与的关系。
　　 研究通过网络电脑学士第三年的一门选修课来实施。该课程同时以面授和在线形式开展，其中在线学习通过基于Web-board的在线课程会议论坛来开展，学生自己查找、评价和批判性的分析信息并互相讨论来探究各类主题。
　　 在课程学习前使用MBTI表来测量确定学生类型与相应特征资料；在课程学习过程中通过对学生在论坛中张贴的消息、登陆日志、学生在论坛中的体验反思报告以及面授班级中对学生的观察来收集学有关学生参与行为的资料；最后多角度地对收集的学生参与行为数据进行分析。
　　 分析得出学生个性类型影响了他们的参与行为。其中如直观型（sense）喜欢结构良好的在线环境和事实信息，论坛的异步本质使得他们有时间理解概念并阐述他们的回答，而抽象型（intuition）喜欢探究可能性；思维型（thinking）喜欢书写以及不考虑面对面反应的在线讨论，而情感型（feeling）偏好面对面交流等。最后根据结论提出在线环境的建设建议，如建设良好的在线环境结构等，具有实践指导意义。
　　 本研究的学生样本量小（20人）且专业单一，不具有很好的代表性。其他因素如学生的学习风格、文化等对在线学习参与的影响有待进一步研究。

评论人简介：

　　袁松鹤，男，汉族，1983年4月出生于湖北省黄石市。华南师范大学教育信息技术学院2004级硕士研究生，研究方向为现代远程教育。
E-mail:ysh528@126.com

原文：

PERSONALITY TYPE AND PARTICIPATION IN NETWORKED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Ainslie E. Ellis
FLITE Centre, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University

ABSTRACT
For networked learning environments, it is necessary to consider different aspects of this environment,such as the collaborative environment, the nature of activities and resources, the technological environment and the learner’s characteristics, if quality learning is to take place online. This paper focuses on one aspect of the learner’s characteristics; that of personality type as determined using the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1984). It investigates the relationship between personality type and a student’s participation (both passive and active) within a networked learning environment using asynchronous threaded discussion for a university course run both online and face-to-face. Qualitative results show patterns in student attitudes to participation related to personality type, particularly on the dimensions of introversion / extraversion, sensing / intuition and thinking / feeling. The paper also discusses implications of the findings in relation to the development of the networked learning environment, to ensure better online participation from all students.

INTRODUCTION
When considering a networked learning environment, there are many aspects that influence the nature of a student’s participation, one of which may relate to the differences in personality type as determined by the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1984). Student observations of online forums indicate that they consider the online environment to be more equitable, with more students participating, particularly those observed to be quiet in face-to-face classes. They also note that some students prefer asynchronous discussion as it allows them to make a more considered response, while others find the lack of immediacy of response a disadvantage (Ellis, 2000; Tiene, 2000; Lewis, Treves and Shaindlin, 1997).

Such observations may be related to the introvert / extravert dimension. Palloff and Pratt (2001) indicate that students who might be best suited to learning online are ones who “need time to think and reflect before responding to questions and ideas” (p.108), while Day and Batson (1995) found that “reticent students … do not participate [in face-to-face-class discussion], simply because they do not “think on their feet” as quickly as some of the other students” (p.38). Conversely, Livingood (1995) quotes from a conversation with Janet Theusen, the co-author of Type Talk, who says “Extroverts often seem too impatient for computers; they get frustrated. They would rather be out talking to someone or performing some action” (p.8). Myers and Myers (1980) suggest that “Because introverts’ energies are powerfully directed by their ideas, it is supremely important for introverts to have the “right idea” about things. Their characteristic pause before action, which extraverts carelessly call hesitation, serves a real purpose. It gives time to study and classify a new situation so the action taken will make sense in the long run” (p.54). Could it be that such characteristics dictate a person’s preference for the online environment, and might other aspects of personality also affect a student’s participation online? This paper investigates whether personality type (using the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1984)) bears a relationship with students' participation (both passive and active) within a networked learning environment that uses asynchronous threaded discussion as part of a university unit run in mixed mode (both online and face-to-face).
BACKGROUND OF THE MYERS BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR
The exploration of personality in this paper is based on the work of Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Meyers, who developed the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) first published in 1962-a personality typing mechanism based on Jung’s personality theory. The MBTI is based on the difference between “the way people perceive and the way they make judgments. Perceiving here is understood to include the processes of becoming aware of things, people, occurrences and ideas. Judging includes the processes of coming to conclusions about what has been perceived.” (Myers, 1980, p.1) These two ways of functioning together determine how people behave – that is, what they observe or see in any situation and what they do about it.

For each of perceiving and judging there are two ways of achieving these processes. For perceiving, information can be gained directly through the senses (sensing S) or it can be by made indirectly through association of ideas and the possibilities they present (intuition N). For judging, there are also two ways of making decisions. One is through use of logic (thinking T) while the other is based on personal values (feeling F). People will have one aspect of each of these dimensions as a dominant dimension and will use the other dimension in a subordinate or auxiliary way. For example, those people who perceive using their senses and make decisions using logical thought processes, but let the logical thinking take preference over what they perceive, will have the TF dimension as dominant (in this case thinking) and the SN dimension (in this case sensing) as auxiliary or subordinate.

Two further dimensions complete the personality typing. The first is related to whether a person prefers to direct their interest to the inner world of thoughts and ideas (introversion I) or the outer world of people and things (extraversion E). The second is a preference for whether the person prefers to interact with the world by perceptive methods (perceiving P) or by judging methods (judging J). This last dimension determines whether the SN dimension is dominant (for perceiving types) or whether the TF dimensions is dominant (for judging types). As this last dimension refers to the interaction with the outer world, the dominant dimension will be evident for extraverts, while for introverts the auxiliary dimension will be evident. Thus an extroverted thinker with an auxiliary of intuitive perception will be of type ENTJ, while an introverted thinker with an auxiliary of intuitive perception will be of type INTP (Myers, 1980, chapter 1). The four dimensions give rise to 16 possible combinations summarized in Table 1 (Myers and Myers, 1980, chapter 9).

STRUCTURE OF THE UNIT
Unit Outline
A new unit titled "Issues for Human Communication Across the Internet" was introduced into the Bachelor of Network Computing as a third year elective in July 2000. The unit addressed issues arising from the use of the Internet as a source of human communication. It explored how human

Table 1: The sixteen personality types from the MBTI

Personality Type	Function	Description
ESTJ	Extraverted thinking supported by sensing	Tend to be matter of fact and practical, well grounded in reality and the present.
ENTJ	Extraverted thinking supported by intuition	Intellectually interested in possibilities, curious about new ideas and like solving problems
ISTP	Introverted thinking supported by sensing	Tend to be analytical and impersonal, organizing facts and data to gain meaning. Often quiet and reserved.
INTP	Introverted thinking supported by intuition	Tend to be theorists, abstract thinkers and problem solvers with intellectual curiosity and ingenuity.
ESFJ	Extraverted feeling supported by sensing	Value harmony with others, practical, conscientious and orderly and like to have things decided and settled.
ENFJ	Extraverted feeling supported by intuition	Curiosity for new ideas and possibilities, often preferring oral to written communication. Show a combination of warmth and insight towards people.
ISFP	Introverted feeling supported by sensing	Value a feeling of inner harmony with deep feeling often not expressed. See the needs of the moment, particularly related to others.
INFP	Introverted feeling supported by intuition	Value inner harmony and like to deal with possibilities for people. Imaginative and insightful with an urge to communicate and share ideas, often through the written word.
ESTP	Extraverted sensing supported by thinking	Realistic and practical with a capacity for facts and details. Prefer action to conversation and judgment is accurate and reliable.
ESFP	Extraverted sensing supported by feeling	Realistic, friendly, communicate well, like to enjoy life have lots of experiences. Usually do better in life than in school.
ISTJ	Introverted sensing supported by thinking	Systematic, thorough and hard working, very practical and like dealing with facts. Are logical and decisive. Need to see the reason for doing something.
ISFJ	Introverted sensing supported by feeling	Systematic, thorough and hard working. Loyal, considerate and values others. Likes things factual and stated clearly.
ENTP	Extraverted intuition supported by thinking	Open to possibilities, creative, independent and analytical. Hates routine. Can be impersonal in relations with people.
ENFP	Extraverted intuition supported by feeling	Versatile, enthusiastic, easy with people, and full of ideas about many things, hates routine, strong initiator but may have difficulty with completion of projects.
INTJ	Introverted intuition supported by thinking	Intensely individualistic, can be stubborn, likes problem solving, open to possibilities, good with strategy, values competence and excellence.
INFJ	Introverted intuition supported by feeling	Individualistic, independent, likes fellowship and harmony with others, open to insights and possibilities related to people, takes a global perspective, seeks understanding

communication occurs, and investigated the Internet as a human communications medium, with particular emphasis on the World Wide Web.Students were required to critically analyze and evaluate issues that related to the Internet as a human communications medium (e.g. intellectual property rights, piracy, equity, ethics, privacy, online identity). They also investigated the Web as a communication medium, looking at how this was achieved using different media forms (e.g. text, visual images, sound) for various uses (e.g. electronic commerce, marketing, entertainment, education).

Cohort of Students

This paper focuses on the delivery of the unit in March 2002, which ran in both Australia and Sweden, with twenty-five students enrolled in the subject in Australia and eight students enrolled in Sweden. The Australian cohort was from a range of different ethnic backgrounds, including Asia, South East Asia, Scandinavia, Europe and the Middle East as well as Australia. Of these twenty-five, twenty completed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) as part of the topic “Perceptions of Self”. One student then left the course. All students were studying computing, either as a single degree or as part of a double degree. As a consequence, all students were competent in using computers and most had Web development skills as a prerequisite. The Swedish students did not complete the MBTI and so have not been included in this study.

Learning Approach to the Unit
The learning approach used for the unit was student-centred and collaborative. Students were expected to find information for themselves, evaluating and critically analyzing that information and discussing it with one another to explore the various topics under discussion. It used a constructivist approach, one of “learning as an active process rather than a result of transmission of knowledge from program to student” (Herrington and Standon, 2000 p.202). The main role of the lecturer in both face-to-face classes and in the online environment was that of a facilitator.

Method of Delivery for the Subject
The delivery of the unit was achieved in two forms - through face-to-face small classes and via an asynchronous on-line discussion forum. It should be noted that the two forms covered different content areas of the unit.

Face-to-face Classes
Twelve two-hour face-to-face classes were scheduled for the unit. In Australia the unit was run over 13 weeks, but due to the unit running in both Australia and Sweden, face-to-face components were run in weeks one, two and nine through twelve (the lecturer was in Sweden during weeks 3 – 8). Each student was expected to attend two 2-hour face-to-face classes per week. A time slot for all students was also scheduled. This was used to introduce the subject (week 1), for conducting student debates (weeks 9 - 12) and a revision session (week 13).

The topics covered human communication, evaluation of information on the Web, the Internet as a communications medium and the use of different media forums for Web communication. Classes had seeding information provided by the lecturer (this was in various forms; video and audio tapes, content from books and articles, material from the Web). The students participated in discussion relating to this information, with various activities to reinforce the information or promote further discussion. For Web related areas, students were asked to find Web sites that illustrated the content being discussed, and the class would view these and discuss them in terms of the topic area. Discussions occurred in both small groups (three or four students) and the whole class group (lecturer included).

Online forum

The conferencing facility used for the online forum was Web-Board (O’Reilly and Associates). This facility allows a Web accessible conferencing forum (a web-board) to be set up for a unit, with multiple conferences within that forum. For each conference, a moderator can specify the level and type of human and technological access (i.e. asynchronous (default), email, chat). The unit web-board was restricted to enrolled students. Only the asynchronous medium was used.

Various support conferences were run for the unit.
● Subject Details conference – a read-only conference maintained by the lecturer providing up-to-date details of the subject
● Messages conference – a message facility for the unit used by students and the lecturer _ Questions conference – a forum for students to ask questions relating to the unit
● Useful URLs conference – where online references, provided by both students and the lecturer, for the topic covered in both face-to-face classes and online discussions were contributed

A Web site was also set up (accessible via the web-board) displaying a photo and personal details (contributed by the student) of each student in the class. As there were two cohorts of students, and two separate face-to-face groups in Australia, students encountered others in the online forum they hadn’t met face-to-face. This was done as part of the topic “Perceptions of self” and as a mechanism for students to meet within the online forum. One student commented:

The actual student details part on the web page was interesting in finding out what other student’s personalities are like. By reading through each person’s profiles, I could get a better understanding of each student. This helped in the understanding of the messages and opinions each individual posted on the discussion forum. [student]

The main function of the online environment was to provide an online forum for discussing the issues relating to human communication across the Internet. Three separate forums were run:
● Intellectual property rights and piracy
● Equity and access
● Online identity

The three discussion forums were run and seeded in different ways:
● Intellectual property rights and piracy:Readings were specified and posted as a separate message. Then a discussion was started by posing questions related to the readings specified and presenting a case study on this topic (that of the organisation Napster). The Swedish and the Australian groups had their own separate forums, with students from one group unable to access the forum of the other group.
● Equity and access:The Swedish and Australian students still had separate forums for this discussion. The forum was run in five small groups for the Australian students. Each group had its own separate forum for discussion, and a forum for the whole class was available for the small groups to post a group response. The first activity was set for the groups, and they posted a group response after small group discussion, which was then summarized by the lecturer. Then a second activity was set for students to complete in their small groups and respond as a group to the main forum, which were then summarized by the lecturer.
● Online identity:Readings were embedded in the opening message that posed a number of points for discussion and asked some questions. An activity relating to online identity and deception was also posted, which allowed students to experience taking on another identity online. This was also discussed. For this forum students posted as individuals, with the Swedish and Australian groups combined within the one forum.
DATA COLLECTION
As well as the students sitting the MBTI, data was collected from the posted messages of the discussion forums, the daily logs, which showed who had logged onto the forum, the students’ reflective reports about their experience in the online forum, and observations made in class.
RESULTS
The results have been broken down into three categories, to reflect the different aspects of the MBTI. The first category is based on dimension; that is whether a student is introvert or extravert, sensing or intuitive, thinking or feeling and perceiving or judging. The second category is based on the dominant function, that is, whether the person has a judging or perceiving type dominant and, for judging whether it is thinking or feeling, and for perceiving whether it is sensing or intuition. This dominant function has been shown for all types together and also split on the introvert / extravert dimension. This split may be significant as extraverts show their dominant function to the world, whereas introverts show their auxiliary function. The last category is based on personality type. While this causes the quantitative data for each type to be very small, the qualitative data based on personality type may be important.

In each group quantitative results are provided to show the average number of posted messages and the average number of logins. The small group work for the equity and access forum is also discussed as well as qualitative information from the students’ reflective reports and posted messages.

Category One - Dimension
Table 2 shows the number of students and average number of posts and logins for the four type
dimensions.

As can be seen, there were considerably more students who had thinking as their dimension rather than feeling. This is not surprising, as it would be expected that computing courses, especially those at the more technical end of the spectrum, would attract more of the thinking types. There are small differences in number of posts, with introverts posting more than extraverts, intuitives more than sensors, thinking types more than feeling types and perceiving types more than judging types.

Each of these differences is consistent with the behaviour of the types as described for the MBTI (Myers and Myers, 1980, Ch. 4-7). It would be expected that:

● introverts would prefer a medium that allows expression of inner ideas in this form and that would give them time to compose more detailed responses
● intuitives would prefer the nature of the discussion of ideas more that sensors (although the case study nature of some of the forums may have made an impact for sensors thus giving the much closer values than for other dimensions)
● the intellectual nature of the discussion and the need to express this in writing without any reference to people’s face-to-face responses would appeal more to thinking types than feeling types and
● the exploratory nature of the discussion would be more comfortable for perceiving types than judging types

Such conclusions are tenuous at best, due to the small number of students involved in the study and the small differences observed.

Other researchers have found similar supporting evidence. On the extravert / introvert dimension Ellsworth (1995) reported that “some fairly introverted students (as assessed by the Myers Briggs personality inventory; Myers 1984) found that interactions with peers and professors were facilitated using CMC [computer mediated communication]” (p.35). On the thinking / feeling dimension, Whittington and Dewar (2000) found that those identified as thinking types preferred to confine their comments to the task set and the research explored while those identified as feeling types preferred the more informal areas available for posting.

The distinction on the introvert / extravert dimension is more marked when one examines the small group work for the equity and access forum. The groups were made up as shown in Table 3. Those students who did not complete the MBTI were classified from class observation of their behaviour.

For the two groups that had four introverts (groups 2 and 3) only two threads were used for each group, and the members replied and responded to one another’s postings. Group 2’s threads corresponded to the two activities set with most of the messages contributed by the introverts (17 compared to one). There appeared to be no distinct leader in the group, yet summaries were written, agreed upon and posted. For group 3, one thread was used for group introductions and one for the activities. Message postings were more evenly spread, with the extravert taking on the leadership role. For the group with three introverts and two extraverts (group 5), all messages were posted as individual new postings. The introverts provided the content to the task, with one

Table 2: Average number of posts and logins by MBTI dimension

MBTI Dimension	Number of Students	Average Number of Posts	Average Number of Logins
Introvert	10	6.4	28.3
Extravert	9	5.0	26.8
Sensing	10	5.7	29.3
Intuition	9	5.8	25.7
Thinking	14	6.1	28.9
Feeling	5	4. 8	23.8
Perceiving	8	6.3	26.6
Judging	11	5.4	28.3

Table 3: Small group makeup on extravert / introvert dimension

Group	Number of members	Extraverts			Introverts
		MBTI	Class Observation	Total	MBTI	Class observation	Total
1	5	4	1	5	0	0	0
2	5	1	0	1	4	0	4
3	5	1	0	1	2	2	4
4	4	1	1	2	1	1	2
5	5	2	0	2	3	0	3

extravert only posting a query regarding the task, while the other categorised information provided by the introverts.

For the group with two introverts and two extraverts (group 4) only two messages relating to the topic were contributed within the small group forum. The introvert gave a very detailed considered response. Another unidentified contributor (i.e. used the group name rather than his / her own) indicated one aspect only. No discussion occurred online at all, in fact this group actually posted as individuals in the main forum, rather than discussing it within the small group forum and coming up with a group decision. For the group that had all extraverts (group 1) only two members contributed to the discussion. Messages tended to be posted as new postings rather than threaded from the previous message. From this particular cohort of students, it was clear that groups made up of predominantly introverts function best as a cohesive group online, with substantial content relating to the task contributed by them.
Comments made in the students’ reflective reports also indicate that extraverts found the online environment less comfortable. These comments were from three different extraverts.

It is my personal opinion that the whole idea of a web board is one of the worst and most unenjoyable means of communication ever thought of.

I believe that there are still too many disadvantages to an on-line forum setup to make it fully worthwhile. Of course there are a few disadvantages to a face-to-face situation as well, but in general whilst in an on-line forum setup with the only form of communication being that of a written one it is still hard to get a proper discussion going.

I found that I prefer reading other peoples comments on the web board rather than posting comments myself. This surprised me at first, as I normally tend to talk a lot when talking to people face-to-face or on the telephone. I still had opinions and arguments I wanted to post on the web board, but it was difficult for me to put it in writing.

Introverts, on the other hand, indicated a preference for the forum. Therefore I took the opportunity to express my views and ideas in the forum. …To me I find it particular useful as I am an introvert.

Category Two - Dominant Function
Table 4 shows the average number of posted messages and logins by dominant function. As indicated above, the introvert / extravert split has also been shown within the dominant function, as an introvert’s auxiliary function is the one most easily perceived.

For the dominant function with introverts and extraverts together, perceptive types (both sensing and intuition) posted more messages, yet accessed the forum a similar number of times than the judging types. Despite small numbers, this is consistent with the MBTI as discussion to explore many possibilities is more likely to interest perceptive types than judging types. It is interesting that there is almost no difference between the sensing and intuitive types. This may be due to the small numbers, or the nature of the forums as both ideas and real cases were discussed.

For the split on introvert / extravert within dominant function, there is a marked difference in number of postings for the thinking dimension where the introverts rated similar numbers of postings as other groups while the extraverts were considerably lower. It is possible that the

Table 4: Average number of posts and logins by dominant function

Dominant Function	Number of Students	Average Number of Posts	Average Number of Logins
Judging one of Feeling
ENFJ ESFJ INFP ISFP	1	3.0	28.0
ENFJ ESFJ	1	3.0	28.0
INFP ISFP	0	0	0
Judging one of Thinking
ENTJ ESTJ INTP ISTP	6	4.7	27.3
ENTJ ESTJ	3	3.3	27.3
INTP ISTP	3	6	27.3
Perceptive one of iNtuition
ENFP ENTP INFJ INTJ	6	6.5	27.3
ENFP ENTP	4	6	25.5
INFJ INTJ	2	7.5	31
Perceptive one of Sensing
ESFP ESTP ISFJ ISTJ	6	6.5	28.0
ESFP ESTP	1	8.0	29.0
ISFJ ISTJ	5	6.2	27.8

asynchronous nature of the forum suits introverted thinkers better than extraverts.The small group data revealed no particular patterns related to the dominant function and online participation, however students’ comments in their reflective reports indicated some interesting aspects.

Those who had sensing as their dominant function expressed a liking for the greater amount of time available to read and analyse postings and construct a response. This is an expected response of those with dominant sensing function. They need time to feel comfortable to determine meaning, often not trusting their intuition, which is needed for interpreting and understanding complex ideas (Myers and Myers, 1980). The face-to-face environment puts time constraints on these students that often cause them to be “tongue-tied” in discussion, while the online asynchronous environment removes these constraints. Class observations noted that these students were particularly quiet in class, and much more eloquent in the online environment, posting quite long responses. Comments such as the following were common among sensing students.

I feel on-line discussion allows students enough time to clear responses with much more depth and consideration than in a face-to-face discussion situation where the participant must analyze the comment of another on the spot otherwise loose the chance to contribute to the discussion.

Some [who] are active in [the] forum are not necessary[il]y active in class. Often when I tried to speak up, someone else got ahead of me. … I can take my time [in the online forum] to plan what I have to say.

Although in face-to-face discussions students are still able to communicate with each other freely, but because the time allocated for those discussions is limited, we are limited to the number of ideas that we get from a particular session. However by using the web boards, the time limit for the discussion for a particular topic is virtually unlimited.

Intuitives, on the other hand, liked the opportunity to explore ideas and possibilities.

You can also get an idea in the middle of the night and post it without risking to annoy anyone because of the time. [INTJ student]

Topics could then be analysed in many different ways as how one perceived it. [INTJ student] This was interesting just to look at what “professionals” thought on the issue and by reading their thoughts, it was good to see what other people had to say [ENFP student]

I enjoyed looking through all the different information one could find at the forum. There was always new information, or information I had not yet read, to be found. This made the forum appealing and motivated me to log on frequently. [ENFP student]

For those with either dominant function of feeling, or auxiliary feeling, comments were made about the lack of personal contact.

Reflecting upon my participation in posting on the online forum, I have definitely taken a more active approach to class discussion in the face-to-face classes as opposed to the forum. I think this is because I prefer to discuss issues in person rather than on the web. ESFJ student]

… the web board seems very impersonal. I always try to communicate with people on a more personal level such as face-to-face contact. [ENFP student]

The biggest difference with online group discussions as opposed to face to face is the nonverbal gestures, pauses and signs. … Humour is also missing in an online environment … These little insignificant things need to be incorporated into an online environment. … A chat facility could be used where users can view each of the users online, speak directly to one another and have that sense of another person online encouraging more of a discussion. [ISFJ]

Category Three - Personality Type
Table 5 shows the number of students (N) the average number of posted messages (P) and the average number of logins (L) for each of the 16 personality types.Because of the small numbers, it is difficult to draw any conclusions from the quantitative results shown in Table 5, except to note that there were very few who had feeling as part of their personality. The qualitative results (given for personality types where numbers are two or more) provide a much greater insight.

ESTJ.The ESTJ type’s focus on facts and knowledge, and the sharing of that information, was evident in the comments made in reflective reports.

I admire the idea where one can read all the information posted by fellow peers to gain knowledge and also to post any opinions that they might have.

Another advantage of the web board was that all subject information such as assessment, references, contacts and other useful information were posted which could be viewed at any time.

This personality type likes organised structure as evidenced in these comments.

Every visit that I made [to the online forum] included a routine check for new messages and allocations of tasks that needed to be done.

I always believed they slowed down information processing, since they took too long to search and find answers you were looking for. I believe this is still quite true in my mind, since I still have the occasional problems in finding all the new and old information. In particular I have had problems in finding the right information, since the actual organization of this information has been structured into differing topics.

Table 5: Average number of posts (P) and logins (L) by personality type

ISTJ N=4 P(6.8) L(29.5)	ISFJ N=1 P(4.0) L(21.0)	INFJ N=0	INTJ N=2 P(7.5) L(31.0)
ISTP N=1 P(7.0) L(39.0)	ISFP N=0	INFP N=0	INTP N=2 P(5.5) L(21.5)
ESTP N=1 P(8.0) L(29.0)	ESFP N=0	ENFP N=3 P(5.7) L(23.3)	ENTP N=1 P(7.0) L(32.0)
ESTJ N=2 P(4.0) L(29.0)	ESFJ N=1 P(3.0) L(28.0)	ENFJ N=0	ENTJ N=1 P(2.0) L(24.0)

At first using the web forum was a bit confusing, I wasn’t quite sure on how to post a message under the relevant headings.
Their postings tended to be formal in nature, focussing on the task at hand, and very impersonal. One of the students did not post anything in the online identity forum, and the other only contributed to the discussion on company online identity rather than personal online identity.

ISTJ.The ISTJ type also has a focus on facts and practicalities and this was evident in their comments made in reflective reports.

I found one thing that interests me in the on-line forum is that some of people sometimes may argue with others
people contribution and gives some evidence to prove their contribution, which makes the forum more interesting and puts more information into the forum as well.

You can through [the online forum] communicate with more the experienced. This will improve your self-esteem and give valuable information.

I like the web board because you get all the information about the subject updated. Even, got to know about the all student who enrolled in this subject.

Their contributions in the forums were very much limited to stating facts and giving concrete
examples. Below is a typical posting.
Without internet connectivity
● It excludes households in remote and sparsely settled areas where there are no wire connectivity.
● Low income earners
● As age increased, the likelihood that an adult was either a computer user or an Internet user decreased
● Used telephone for they bill payments
● Low education level
● Old age people

INTJ.INTJ types by comparison, have intuition as their dominant function. Their comments about the content of the forum focussed much more on opportunities for analysis and insight. Besides that, the response from other students did widen my horizons in particular topics. It thought me to see and analyse certain things in a different light. This was also reflected in more analysis in posted messages. This is shown in this message from an INTJ student on the same topic as the message from the ISTJ student shown above.

Two groups spring to mind, the elderly and people with little money. Older people are often reserved when it comes to new technology, and are not likely to have a younger person in their household who can introduce them to computers and the internet. I also think that a lot of older people don’t see the need for such an expensive investment. I believe that older people take the view that they have done just fine without computers or the internet their whole life and will continue to be fine.

When it comes to people with little money the reasons gives itself. If you have very little money you are not likely to be able to buy a computer or connect to the internet. However people in a low socio-economic situation may in some instances have their own computer but it is likely to be too out of date to support the internet.

Thinking judgement is shown to the outside world and competency is very important for INTJs. The following comment from a reflective report shows this.

You have also more time to both check out details and to formulate a reply before posting it, for who hasn’t been in the situation where you have realized as soon as the words are out, that it wasn’t the right thing to say? I know I have, many times. These kinds of mistakes would be easier to avoid when using a web board, since you would then have the time to review your message before posting it, than in a face to face conversation.

INTP.This drive for competence or excellence is also a dominant feature of the INTP type. One of the students whose type was INTP made a similar comment regarding “doing the right thing” in his reflective report.

I myself also face some problem when trying to do the activity [introducing yourself], especially when I see some of my fellow classmates posting messages in the incorrect thread. My first instinct is there is a high possibility that I will end up like them but after thoroughly reading through the instructions given, I just tell myself to go ahead with it and whipped up a small introduction of myself in the introduction thread. Thankfully, my first attempt of posting succeeded and I was glad to see my message appearing on the webBoard.

Both students with this type contributed nothing to the individual discussion forums and only one
contributed to the small group forum. This may have to do with the decision dimension (thinking)
being the dominant function, hence the auxiliary function of intuition, which is presented to the outside world, is difficult to express in the online asynchronous forum. There is perhaps a need for another person to discuss insights with in order for these to be brought out. This is reflected in the following comment.
I have to admit that I am not much of a writer, and have posted few messages in relation to the issues. I try to read every message posted by my fellow students in respect to their efforts, and once in awhile when I do find something related to the issue being discussed I try to post it up for the reading pleasure of everyone. But personally I am more of a talker, and would definitely prefer face-to-face discussions when I can share information verbally with my fellow students.

This student did not, in fact, contribute any postings to the discussion forums.

ENFP.For all students of this type, the reflective reports were expressed in the first person and indicated the students’ feelings about the online forum environment. This is true to type, as reports are usually presenting conclusions, and the ENFP type uses their feeling dimension for this. They also expressed a marked preference for face-to-face communication, which is a typical extravert response.

I noticed that when they had to do the work it appeared not as much effort went into it, as did the face-to-face classes. People did the reading but probably didn’t put the effort into their on-line responses as they did in the face-to-face situation. This may not have been for everybody, but it was just a feeling that I got from watching people when they were responding.

The above comment reflected the student’s own participation levels both online and face-to-face, yet when one looks at the responses, many of the postings from other students (particularly introverted types) showed considerable in-depth analysis and thinking. Also, unlike those with thinking as their judging dimension, comments made reflected personal experiences. The following two postings illustrate this. From the equity and access forum:

Those people with physical disabilities (particularly people with a visual disability).
● Providing government services electronically in ways that enable access for all sectors of the community,including the disabled
● Training for individuals with disabilities
● Initiatives to encourage companies to help people with physical disabilities using a computer.

I have a friend who falls into this category, as she has extremely poor visual ability. She recognized people by hearing them speak. But she is still able to use a computer at work, as the company she worked for made an effort enable her to use a computer. They bought a very large monitor for her and all the icons and screens on the computer were equally large. She also has a large magnifying glass attached to the monitor to further assist her in seeing.(From the online-id forum)

This is just some feedback on what I found the online community to be like. There are generally two types of people that I distinguished. The first group of people consists of people who can snap at absolutely anything and can continue raging on for no reason. These people often resolve to some very personal and rude remarks and just generally don't give a crap about anyone else or anything else in that particular scenario (online games site or chat room).

The second group are the people who are quite nice to you and do not tend to get too close quickly. These people are often the ones policing the chat room, ie telling others to cut down on the swearing and so on. These people also tend to have online friends and are very protective of their friends.

Their dominant intuitive function of looking at possibilities and exploring them is evidenced in these comments.

It allows us to explore how useful the forum is on the web at the moment and also allows us to see some possibilities it will have as the future approaches.

I found that this medium as a discussion environment encourages divergent thinking and exploration of ideas.

CONCLUSIONS
Implications for online courses

It can be seen from the above results that there is a marked difference in attitude between introverts and extraverts in their comfortableness with the forum. Although the average number of postings and logins varied little, a student’s willingness to contribute to the forum impacts on the quality of the postings and the time and effort they are prepared to make to contribute in-depth, well researched responses. Also the sensing types prefer emphasis on facts and information, whereas the intuitives prefer exploring possibilities. Those with introverted thinking appear more willing to contribute than extraverted thinkers, while those with feeling judgment (whether dominant or auxiliary) much prefer the face-to-face environment. Sensing types need time to understand conceptual ideas and formulate responses, thus the asynchronous nature of the forum lent itself to their personality type. Structure is also important for some students, particularly for sensing types. On the basis of these observations of personality as determined by the MBTI, the following suggestions are made to enhance the online environment.

Online environments need to be well structured, and this structure needs to be made clear to students. All students will benefit from this, but particularly those who are sensing types with thinking judgment. These students will often want structure, but will want it to fit their sense of structure. Therefore agreement on the establishment of the various forums should be done. There are also discussion forums that allow re-threading of discussions, which may also help build a better sense of structure.

Expectations and responsibilities need to be clearly established for the online environment. This should include posting requirements (form and frequency), firm deadlines for tasks, mechanisms
for threading and ethical rules. It is important that these are developed with the students, not for them. Judging types will appreciate the opportunity to make the decisions for themselves, and thinking types will be able to take advantage of such information in order to plan their time. For extraverted intuitive types (i.e. ENTP and ENFP) who dislike routine and enjoy exploring possibilities but have difficulty with completion of tasks, the opportunity to help develop such guidelines will mean a greater chance of compliance as flexibility and opportunity for exploration can be incorporated.

If courses are run entirely online, some form of both synchronous and asynchronous communication isneeded.For fully online courses, synchronous communication is particularly important for feeling types(whether dominant or auxiliary function), as, from a feeling perspective, it is only through direct communication that a link between human beings is achieved. As commented earlier the NF combination indicated a marked preference for face-to-face communication, while the following comments came from two students with SF combination.

I personally find face-to-face classes and real-time chat programs more enjoyable as a form of communication, but I think that if the message board had a stronger focus on real-time chat, as well as a static message area, it would prove to be more fun to use for the discussion of issues. [ESFJ student]

If a time was specified where everyone is expected to log on, for a period of an hour or so, it would have achieved its purpose. Everybody can see who is online and it may create a more group like forum, and all the group members would benefit from the discussions. [ISFJ student]

Conversely, asynchronous communication allows introverted students the time they need to develop the “right idea”, and also allows sensing types to have time to understand concepts.

Activities need to allow students to tell personal stories as well as present impersonal information.
This balances the tasks on the feeling and thinking dimension, ensuring that those with feeling function can use their values in the discussion, while those with thinking function can use their logic.

Activities within the online environment need to cater for the development of facts and information as well as for the development of theories and concepts. The use of case studies based on real world examples as well as activities that request the presentation of factual examples, will assist the sensing student to make valuable contributions, while the exploration and research of theoretical, conceptual frameworks and the exploration of ideas will engage the intuitive types.

Activities within the online environment need to have aspects that require the exploration of possibilities and ideas (perception), as well as activities that require decisions to be made. Such activities ensure perceptive students as well as judging students contribute. Activities could be
broken down into two components, one that explores possibilities and one that asks for conclusions.

For small group work online, groups of predominantly introverts may have an advantage in the
asynchronous online environment. Careful composition of groups based on the extravert / introvert dimension may ensure a more productive environment.

Limitations of the Research and Future Work
Due to the small number of students in this research, it is only possible to provide possibilities based on the evidence. A much larger sample would be needed before the insights given in this paper become anything more than a focus for discussion. Despite this, trends can be seen within the various types, particularly in relation to the dimensions and dominant functions.

There is also a need to investigate units that are run online only to determine if type plays a part in the same way for these students as it does for those who still have access to the face-to-face environment.The use of synchronous chat (both at a fixed course time and as a feature available on-demand) needs to be explored in light of personality as well.

Lastly, personality is only one dimension of learner characteristics that influences online participation and learning. Other aspects such as learning styles and cultural influences need to be added to the mix when investigating the impact of learner characteristics on networked learning.

A Word of Caution
One should be cautious when doing any work relating to personality type, as the potential to “pigeonhole” a person on the basis of type is tempting, but can be very dangerous. As Myers and Myers (1980) point out, “the merit of the theory presented here is that it enables us to expect specific personality differences in particular people and to cope with the people and the differences in a constructive way. … These basic differences concern the way people prefer to use their minds, specifically the way they perceive and the way they make judgments” (p.1). The emphasis on preference does not preclude people from developing or using their non-preferred options. A far better option than type labelling is to encourage all students to understand their preferences, and explore not only their preferred way of doing things, but also to explore the use of their least well-established aspects of personality to enable them to become better self-directed learners.

REFERENCES
Day, M. and Batson, T. (1995). The network-based writing classroom: The ENFI idea. In Berge, Z.L. and Collins, M.P. (Eds.) Computer-mediated Communication and the Online Classroom, Volume II: Higher Education. 25–46.
Ellis, A. (2001). Student-centred collaborative learning via face-to-face and asynchronous online
communication: What's the difference? In Meeting at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Melbourne, Australia, December 2001, 169-177.
Ellsworth, JH (1995) Using computer-mediated communication in teaching university courses. In
Berge, ZL and Collins, MP (eds) Computer-mediated Communication and the Online Classroom, Volume I: Overview and Perspectives, 29-36
Herrington, J & Standon, P (2000) Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning environment, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(3), 195–205.
Lewis, D, Treves, JA & Shaindlin, AB (1997) Making sense of academic cyberspace: Case study of an electronic classroom, College Teaching, 45(3), 96-100.
Livingood, J (1995) Revenge of the introverts, Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine, 2(4), April 1995, 8. url: http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1995/apr/livingood.html [accessed 11/10/2002]
Myers, IB and Myers, PB (1980) Gifts Differing, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Palo Alto, Ca.
Myers, I B (1984) Myers Briggs Type Indicator, Palo Alto Ca: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Palloff, RM and Pratt, K (2001) Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom: The Realities of Online
Teaching, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco Ca.
Tiene, D (2000) Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-toface discussions, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 371-384.
Whittington, D and Dewar, T (2000) A strategy for studying learners using advanced learning
technologies, Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Advanced Learning Technologies, Palmerston North, New Zealand, December 2000.
url: http://cvu.strath.ac.uk/dave/publications/iwalt2k.rtf [accessed 11/10/2002]