June 15, 2014
June 15, 2014
June 18, 2014
24.909.1 - 24.909.19
Mitigating Chemical Engineering Design Team Miscommunications with Knowledge of Myers-Briggs TypeThe differences between successful and unsuccessful engineering teams seem quite stark onpaper. The quality of deliverables like presentations or reports, the interactions of the teammembers, and the value of questions asked to instructors become increasingly worse as teamscollapse. But are these teams really so different from their more successful peers? And what caninstructors and the teams themselves do to mitigate difficulties and avoid complete teambreakdown? To answer these questions, we investigated the engineering teams in the Fall 2012offering of Process Design (CHBE 431). We assessed the possibility that the differences, ratherthan being due to team demographics or GPA discrepancies, were actually due to minutepersonality type differences among team members. In CHBE 431, teams are made up ofrandomly selected students with specific attention paid not to isolate female students (Oakley,Felder, Brent, & Elhajj, 2004). Teams have approximately uniform average GPA such that noteam is made up of all 2.0 students or all 4.0 students, which limits the possibility that theaverage GPA of the team is an important factor in team success. We gave students the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998) at the beginningof the course, but did not reveal their types to them so that they would not modify their behaviorbased on that knowledge. Throughout the course, the instructor kept notes on student interactionsduring team meetings and presentations. At the end of the course, we analyzed the instructor’steam interaction notes, the students’ peer evaluations of one another, and samples of studentwork for evidence of MBTI type-related difficulties over the course of the semester. We foundthat teams experienced difficulties related to all four of the MBTI dichotomies, withmisunderstandings related to the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy proving to be most detrimentalto team success, both perceived and actual. Based on our results, we recommend familiarizingstudents in their first year engineering courses with their MBTI type and the differences betweeneach of the four dichotomies. Knowledge of their MBTI type and the types of others, as well asthe different ways in which individuals function may mitigate the minute miscommunicationsrelated to type that contribute to the unexplained failure of some engineering teams.Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2 (1), 9-34.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® instrument. (3rd ed.) Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.The presenter would prefer to present a poster.
Trenshaw, K. F., & Vogel, T. J. (2014, June), Mitigating Chemical Engineering Design Team Miscommunications with Knowledge of Myers-Briggs Type Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. https://peer.asee.org/22842
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2014 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015