I, S, T, and J Grading Techniques for Es, Ns, Fs, and Ps

Abstract

Most instructors at least occasionally experience grading student work as a frustrating, time-consuming task. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) instrument can be a powerful self-awareness tool for management educators seeking to enhance their grading techniques. Evidence suggests that many management professors prefer Extraversion (E), Intuition (N), Feeling (F), or Perceiving (P) on the four dichotomies of the MBTI instrument. However, these same preferences often make the grading process cumbersome, because grading can require critical, detail-oriented, and time-constrained responses. Using a key insight from type theory-that individuals can develop the talents consistent with their nonpreferred preference on each dichotomythis article explores strategies to help those of us with E, N, F, or P preferences develop skills from our MBTI Introversion (I), Sensing (S), Thinking (T), or Judging (J) peers, thus making for a more effective grading process. After discussion of grading "gifts" offered with I, S, T, and J preferences, we share specific techniques and tools honed over many years that have helped improve our grading processes.

Applying principles of respectful caregiving to teaching in higher education.

“…Connect Course Material to Students' Real-Life Experiences. Going beyond knowing who students are, respectful teachers can use equity-based pedagogical methods to design assignments or projects that help students identify the relevance or application of what they are learning in the classroom to their own real-life backgrounds, cultures, experiences, interests, or disciplines (Fornaciari & Lund Dean, 2013). Examples might include designing a brochure about a child development concept for caregivers in their community, sharing something they have learned with a family member, making connections between the course content and their career interests, or synthesizing research themes concerning a population they identify with.…”

“…For example, it is important to communicate a belief that students-if given the opportunity to do sowill take responsibility for their own learning (Singham, 2005). These practices reinforce major learning goals for undergraduate psychology majors, including building self-efficacy and selfregulation (American Psychological Association, Further, instructors might use a collaborative tone in their syllabi to remove contractual language and explicit or implicit hierarchical power messages (e.g., "we will" instead of "you will" statements; Fornaciari & Lund Dean, 2013). Course policies and assignments may also be reexamined to ensure there are clear rationales for why they are used (Sambell & McDowell, 1998;Weimer, 2013).…”

“…; Weimer, 2013). Faculty may also teach students how to interact professionally with them through intentionally modeling mutual respect (e.g., respect student's time by being on-time to class and using class time effectively, grading student work in a timely fashion, and having realistic expectations of their students; e.g., Fornaciari & Lund Dean, 2013;Weimer, 2013). Using their own actions as models would make it easier for faculty to help students with problematic behaviors understand how they may be disrespecting or holding unrealistic expectations of others.…”

“…Most students care deeply about their education and want to take responsibility for their own learning. Thus, learner-centered environments are collaborative and empower students in shaping their own learning process (Fornaciari & Lund Dean, 2013). A few ways this might be conveyed early on begin with the syllabus.…”

Using Selected Personality Variables in a Learning Process for Holistic Education: A Case of a Voice Training Course Participants

“…Evidence of relationships between psychological types and organizational roles, information systems and managerial effectiveness is also available (Fitzgerald 1997;Hammer 1996;Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer 1998). Several studies' research management educators (Boozer & Forte, 2004;Schullery & Schullery, 2006), management students' learning (Fairhurst & Fairhurst, 1995;Kise, 2007), teaching of writing domain (Jensen & DiTiberio, 1989;Smith, 1993Smith, , 1996Thompson, 1991, Carrell & Monroe, 1993, technology (Chambers et al 2003;Grindler and Straton, 1990), organizational behavior and leadership sub disciplines (Clinebell & Stecher, 2003), field education supervision in social work (Moore, Detlaff, & Dietz, 2004), music (MacLellan, 2011, learning styles (Lawrence, 1997), online instruction (Harrington & Loffredo, 2010) and grading (Fornaciari & Lund Dean, 2013).…”