Some typical personality tests:
Before speaking at great lengths about personality and relationships to life and life goals, I would like to first state that while I find personality tests interesting, I ultimately do not place much value on them. People have a wide variety of behaviors and preferences, but these do not necessarily correlate to particular careers or modes of operating. The human action machine is more elastic than most people give it credit, with people being readily able to change behavior patterns with proper incentive and time. As part of my philosophy, I consider behavior, which manifests itself truthfully in the world the way words or bubbles do not, to be a greater measure of preference than a test.
As an example, somebody classified as an “introvert” might be considered a poor choice as a salesman, due to his preference for alone time. However, if sales as a job is considerably preferable to him in its action and rewards than other things, such as digging trenches, that individual will find the social activity – sales – far more preferable than the alone activity of digging. The dichotomous questions posed by personality tests seem to see preference as some solid, immutable, and “true” quality, but in the real world preferences are assigned based on options available to an individual. The above introvert might find aeronautical engineering to be an exciting field, but that may not be an option to him due to his choices and inherited life situations. Sales, however, might offer him the best pay and hours available compared to other things. He might weigh his dislike of sales as having some economic value, but sales might also give him more time for his passions. The web of preference is deep and highly individual.
For me, I am usually identified as an Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, and Judging individual in personality tests (or INTJ). Sometimes I am a slight variation, but for the most part this pegs me. This may lead people to wonder why I chose to pursue artistic fields and engage myself in public speaking and performance, the supposed realm of extroverts. The short answer is that I choose to. The long answer is that personality traits contribute to success in a wide variety of fields in ways that are often not understood without undertaking the task for oneself.
How did your personality affect your choice of content area?
Music as a field can attract a wide variety of people to it; success in the field often requires certain behaviors that some are unwilling to undertake. On its surface, music seems highly extroverted. When one is witnessing the final product, usually a performance, images that appeal to an extrovert are usually presented, particularly focused attention on the individual and social connection with an audience.
The reality is that behaviors that are more preferable to an introvert are necessary to achieve that final product. An artist must spend many hours at practice, often alone and unaccompanied, in order to bring even a short concert to an audience. He must have the discipline to work consistently toward his goal, develop deep relationships with artistic partners, and do the analytical work required to properly prepare his music. This is true in the classical world as much as it is in the realm of popular music. Developing skills requires practice.
These two extremes create some difficult demand for artists, including psychic difficulties, as artists must juggle the social demands of gigging with the isolating demands of practice. I spoke about this dichotomy contributing to incidences of self-medicating drug use in the following video, if you care to watch and listen (please note: I do not advocate the use of drugs; I am merely explaining why many musicians I have known have engaged in self-medicating behavior):
As a person who might be considered an introvert, music performance plays to my strengths, specifically the capacity to work long hours by myself, being self-motivated, and being highly analytical. These traits aid the preparation for the performance, making the extroverted demands of performance easier to deal with; there is no substitute for adequate preparation.
How does or will your personality affect your relationships with your students?
I have always in the past, and intend in the future, to cultivate a professional relationship with my students. This means, to me, a relationship that is purpose-driven, and the primary purpose of our relationship is to teach and certify skills and information sets. This means relationships can be friendly and positive, but should not be extremely personal. The teacher-student relationship is different from the relationship with parents, siblings, or friends. Just like any other professional relationship, it is finite and objective.
My personality (one of introverted logic) plays into this ideal by allowing me to more easily separate a person from their behaviors and academic performance. Because I don’t immediately feel emotionally connected to individuals, I am better able to objectively grade them as well as design instruction to meet their needs and capacities without imposing my own wishes for them. Additionally, I think it is ideal for teachers to make decisions about students without their judgment being clouded by emotions.
My position may be somewhat at odds with mainstream thought about teachers, which sees them as performing actions of social good, either as caring foster-parent to troubled youths or as altruistic life guides. I tend to reject this view as moving the educator beyond the roles and purposes of public or private schooling. This is not to say that teachers cannot positively affect students’ lives, but that their first job is to teach and teach well. I think the best way to serve students is to give them a solid, meaningful, and useful educational experience.
Students are best served when they are given the skills, methods, and attitudes for success in the classroom and beyond. An objective and purposeful relationship, with the purpose being to foster success, not friendship, will best serve the goals of teacher and student.
Teaching and Learning Styles Inventories
As additional metric, the following preference tests were used:
They showed, based on my voluntary survey answers, that I am/have: a well-balanced approach across the four scales used in the first test; That I show a high degree for all styles besides facilitator, which was moderate, in the second test; and as a learner have high scores in independent and dependent styles (paradoxically) as well as participation, moderate score on avoidant and competitive styles, and a low score for collaboration.
This essentially means I prefer teaching in a wider variety of modes than I prefer learning, but I will give a similar caveat to my personality tests. These are tests of preference, not behavior or outcome. My dislike of group projects has not prevented me from being successful with them, or in such projects achieving the learning outcomes for which they were designed. Similarly, learning styles are not a fixed skill set (I will leave the discussion on the multiple intelligences hypothesis for another article). I have learned how to adapt to a wide variety of teaching styles and formats, and some formats, even if they are not preferred by me or another student, may still be effective in conveying information and teaching skills.
Ultimately, my preference for how to teach a class, or especially how I prefer to learn, is a low priority compared to the needs of the student. I am careful to use the word needs here, not preferences, as a student’s preferences for the arrangement of learning, school, and assessment may be very different from what is needed to make him or her successful. I have taught, and will continue to attempt to teach, in styles that help the students best to achieve course outcomes and state standards. These may be methods and modes that are unfamiliar to me, make me uncomfortable, or require learning on my part; this does not bother me.
I may be required to spend time teaching students how to master particular learning modes. I believe students can be taught how to learn in ways that are not always their preference, but may serve standards and learning outcomes. Again, the point is to foster success, not create an experience that always plays to the strengths of every student. That being said, sometimes it is best to play to strengths for the sake of effectiveness and efficiency; in this case the strengths of the students are more important to consider than those of the instructor.
No comments:
Post a Comment