Clock and Calendar Only? At What Cost?

Every day I meet business people/students of higher education whose approaches are diverse from the conventional approach in terms of their use of time and space. My goal in speaking on personality differences is to highlight effective nontraditional strategies and ideas for creating a balance of control and freedom that may enhance coursework equity for the unconventional types. Research suggests that the natural drive toward closure gives conventional students an advantage in fitting their learning into that system that awards by calendars, clocks, and grades.

My scholarly research adds to a body of knowledge that compares and contrasts two types of learners – those who are seen as highly self-regulated — making lists of things to do for task completion and make decisions quickly versus those who are observed to keep strict plans to a minimum and often find it difficult to settle on one direction or plan.

Research confirms that conventional educational methods may unintentionally contribute to a sense of frustration as unconventional students may be judged to be inferior or at higher risk for failure. Do learners who are outcome-oriented, goal-motivated, academically persistent, on time, and in place have a natural advantage in learning? Is there an advantage because the traditional learner’s academic practices more closely resemble those of the majority of their instructors and “fit more easily into the traditional world of learning by the calendar and clock?” Could process-oriented, experience-seeking, spontaneous, and autonomous students be at higher risk for academic and/or business failure?

Answers to these questions address an important construct in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) regarding each person’s orientation to the outer world — or preferences for judging and perceiving. As Gordon Lawrence, in People Types and Tiger Stripes, wrote:

The P [Perceiving] way of studying …is a different way, but not better or worse. The research on personality type and learning does not show that Js [Judging students] learn more than Ps [Perceiving students]. But the research does suggest that the natural J [Judging] drive toward closure gives Js an advantage in fitting their learning into that system that awards grades. (p. 27)

In a 2011 qualitative study, Dr. Meri Beckham examined the unconventionally time-flexible and process-oriented approaches employed by many successful learners, including those with the MBTI psychological preference for Perceiving who comprise close to 50% of U.S. college students. The purpose of the study was to increase understanding of successful learners whose approaches are diverse from the conventional ideal. The theoretical dimension called Perceiving and its effect on use of time and space was observed.

At the core of Judging is the issue of control – control of time, control of space, and control of self. In contrast, at the core of Perceiving is a sense of freedom – freedom in time, freedom in space, and freedom for self. (p. 172)

Beckham described that typical ideas of college success and study skills taught learners how to maintain control, not to enjoy their freedom, and that the imbalance of control and freedom created inequity. Beckham identified three important changes for instructors:

1. Stop idealizing the breaking up of work processes and allow work to be done all at once;
2. When students can do well at the last minute, let them do so without criticism; and
3. Stop harping on procrastination as harmful and stress-producing in all cases as this standpoint is not defensible.

Too many Perceiving voices are silenced by the dominant Judging ideal. My observations in life as well, as studies like these, not to mention being married to a nontraditional learner, help me reinforce the message that nontraditional strategies are effective and, for Perceiving learners, they are essential.