Using personality type differences to form engineering design teams

dc.creator	Siu-Tsen Shen
dc.creator	Stephen Prior
dc.creator	Anthony White
dc.creator	Mehmet Karamanoglu
dc.date	2007-12-01T00:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned	2015-08-12T11:19:34Z
dc.date.available	2015-08-12T11:19:34Z
dc.identifier	1750-0044
dc.identifier	1750-0052
dc.identifier	https://doaj.org/article/976076f067b0426ead9affe9ee1a024e
dc.identifier.uri	http://evidence.thinkportal.org/handle/123456789/27705
dc.description	This paper argues for the greater use ofpersonality type instruments such as theMyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) andthe Keirsey Temperament Sorter II (KTS II),when forming engineering design teams.Considering the importance of teamworkin all aspects of education and industry,it is surprising that few universities in theUK use personality type information whenforming design teams. This has led tomany courses not getting the best out oftheir students, and more importantly thestudents not getting the most out of theteamworking experience. Various teamformation methods are discussed and theirrelative strengths and weaknesses outlined.Normal personality type distributionsin base populations are presented andcompared with data from recent studies ofengineering students, and the link betweenengineering, design and creativity isdiscussed. The results of this study haveshown that the most important of the typepreferences is the Sensing-iNtuitive (S-N)scale, with its proven link to creativityand learning styles. It is concluded thatboth engineers and designers have muchin common, and a methodology of usingpersonality type choice sets to selectand form engineering design teams isproposed.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre
dc.relation	http://www.engsc.ac.uk/downloads/scholarart/eejournal/2007/2-2/shen_st.pdf
dc.relation	https://doaj.org/toc/1750-0044
dc.relation	https://doaj.org/toc/1750-0052
dc.rights	CC BY-NC-ND
dc.source	Engineering Education, Vol 2, Iss 2, Pp 54-66 (2007)
dc.subject	creativity
dc.subject	design
dc.subject	MBTI
dc.subject	teamwork
dc.subject	student performance
dc.subject	Education (General)
dc.subject	L7-991
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
dc.subject	TA1-2040
dc.subject	Technology
dc.subject	T
dc.subject	DOAJ:General and Civil Engineering
dc.subject	DOAJ:Technology and Engineering
dc.subject	Education (General)
dc.subject	L7-991
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	DOAJ:Education
dc.subject	DOAJ:Social Sciences
dc.subject	Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
dc.subject	TA1-2040
dc.subject	Technology
dc.subject	T
dc.subject	DOAJ:General and Civil Engineering
dc.subject	DOAJ:Technology and Engineering
dc.subject	Education (General)
dc.subject	L7-991
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
dc.subject	TA1-2040
dc.subject	Technology
dc.subject	T
dc.subject	Education (General)
dc.subject	L7-991
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
dc.subject	TA1-2040
dc.subject	Technology
dc.subject	T
dc.subject	Education (General)
dc.subject	L7-991
dc.subject	Education
dc.subject	L
dc.subject	Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
dc.subject	TA1-2040
dc.subject	Technology
dc.subject	T
dc.title	Using personality type differences to form engineering design teams
dc.type	article