Slightly Extroverted Individuals

The survey revealed that extroverted individuals (personality score 5) found both workshop and lecture to be only somewhat valuable. On average, extroverts rated workshop value as a 3.83 out of 5 and lecture value as a 3.33 out of 5. Extroverts also rated workshop value lower than any other group. Slightly introverted individuals (personality score 2) rated lecture value lower than all other groups (3 out of 5) indicating that they found lecture to be relatively unhelpful. Ambiverts (personality score 3) rated workshop value as a 4.31 out of 5 and lecture value as a 3.56 out of 5, demonstrating that these students value workshops more than lectures. Slightly extroverted (personality score 4) found both lecture and workshop to be more valuable

than any other personality group. These students rated workshop value and lecture value as a 4.71 out of 5 and a 3.71 out of 5, respectively. Interestingly, not one student rated their personality as introverted (personality score 1).
In general, we found that extroverts enjoyed workshop more so than introverts, since 46% of extroverts stated that they always enjoyed workshop while only 29% of introverts always found workshop to be enjoyable. The greatest proportion of introverts (57%) found workshop to be enjoyable sometimes, and a small proportion of these students (14%) stated that workshop was often enjoyable. The remainder of the extroverted student population found workshop to be often enjoyable (15%), sometimes enjoyable (23%), or rarely enjoyable (15%), displaying a greater diversity of opinions than their introverted counterparts.
Although the proportion of introverts that always participated in workshop discussion (29%) outweighed the proportion of extroverts that always participated in workshop discussion (15%), it seems that overall extrovert participation still outweighs overall introvert participation. 77% of extroverts stated that they participated either always or often in workshop discussion, while only 58% of introverts felt that they always or often contributed to the conversation. This suggests that extroverts were the dominant voice of workshop groups. Additionally, only 8% of extroverts felt that they rarely participated in workshop discussion, while 14% of introverts believed that they rarely spoke up in workshop. This further suggests that overall introvert participation was lower than that of extroverts as a whole.
Extrovert lecture attendance was found to significantly outweigh introvert lecture attendance, with 69% of extroverts always attending lecture and only 43% of introverts always attending lecture. The proportion of extroverts that often attended lecture (15%) was about the same as the proportion of introverts that often attended lecture (14%). The proportion of extroverts that sometimes (8%) or rarely (8%) attended lecture were identically. 29% of introverts said that they rarely attended lecture, which is substantially greater than the number of extroverts that said they rarely went to class. This further illustrates that extroverts as a whole attended lecture far more often than introverts.
Discussion
Our hypothesis did not prove to be accurate, as there was neither a definitive positive correlation between extroversion and lecture value nor was there a definitive positive correlation between introversion and workshop value. In fact, there does not appear to be any clearly distinct correlation between personality type and learning environmental preference at all. Although slightly introverted (personality score 2) students found workshop to be more valuable than extroverted individuals (personality score 5), the fact that slightly extroverted (personality score 4) individuals rated workshop as more valuable than slightly introverted individuals cannot be disregarded, as this eliminates any potential trend between introversion and workshop value. While it was not surprising that slightly extroverted students found lectures to be less helpful than all other personality groups, we did not anticipate that extroverted students would find lecture to be only somewhat helpful, and it should be noted that the ratings of these students disrupted the trend between extroversion and lecture value. In order to assess why our hypothesis was disproven, we must evaluate the supplemental information obtained from the survey regarding student attitudes about workshop and lecture.
If our hypothesis had been proven correct, then we would have expected introverts to express greater workshop enjoyment than extroverts.

However, this was not the case, since extroverts were found to enjoy workshop more so than introverts. This could stem from the fact that extroverts enjoy enthusiastic discussion and are comfortable with conflict, while introverts tend to think before they speak and approach conflict with greater reluctance. Perhaps the smaller workshop groups gave extroverts a platform to passionately debate course material, which found energizing and pleasurable. The loquacious extroverts of the group may have drained the introverts in these workshop settings of their psychological energy, which led introverts to find workshops exhausting and non-enjoyable. These innate tendencies of extroverts and introverts could also explain why extrovert participation in workshop outweighed introvert participation. Extroverts will naturally jump at the opportunity to speak up and take the spot light, while introverts are more inclined to sit back and take in what the extrovert has to say. It is likely that the extroverts in workshop sections stifled the ability of introverts to benefit from the smaller group discussions, which caused introverts to find workshops less valuable. If extroverts thrive off of the active discussion in workshop sections, why did they still rate their value so low? Extroverts derive their psychological energy from their external environment, which is why they do well in large groups – there is a lot of energy to feed off of. It is likely that workshops were too small to sufficiently energize extroverts; therefore, they quickly became bored by the workshop discussions, despite the fact that they continually contributed to

them.
The trends between personality type and lecture attendance where less surprising, as it was expected that extroverts would attend lecture more frequently. However, they still found lecture to be less valuable than ambiverts – why? Although extroverts are excited by large groups (which lecture provides) it is likely that lecture did not engage them properly in the learning environment. Because extroverts found that they could not adequately participate in lecture discussions and debate course material, it is likely that they quickly became bored during lecture. Consequently, they found it to be less valuable than we anticipated. The relationship between introversion and lecture attendance is a bit easier to explain, as it likely stems from the fact that the massive group of students in the lecture hall overwhelmed introverts. Because introverts were likely made anxious by the large amount of people in lecture, they probably found it difficult to concentrate fully on the material being presented. Therefore, they found lecture to be quite unhelpful.
One somewhat surprising outcome of the survey was the lack of individuals that chose introverted (personality score 1) as their personality type. Considering that the literature has noted a virtually even mix of introverts and extroverts on college campuses, it seems unlikely that not one student would have self-assessed himself/herself to be on introvert. The most likely explanation of this is the existence of a cultural bias against introversion in the United States. The word “introvert’ typically has a negative connotation in American culture because it is associated with shyness. Condon and Ruth-Sahd (2013) have even referred to shyness as a “painful trait that can inhibit social interactions and public demonstration of competencies” (p. 1). It seems likely that students subconsciously linked the terms shyness and introvert in their minds due, and in effort to appear more competent they avoiding selecting introverted as their personality type. It order to improve the efficacy of studies like this in the future, it would be best to use a psychometric personality assessment tool in order to more accurately determine student personality types. This would likely eliminate the cultural bias that is inherent in self-assessment; however, it is also quite costly and much more time consuming.
Another interesting finding that should be noted is the fact that all students, regardless of personality type, rated workshop as more valuable than lecture. This finding could suggest that students would benefit from spending more time in workshop each week and less time in lecture. However, it would be unwise to suggest this with great certainty, as our data collection methods could have created a bias in student survey responses. It is possible that students rated workshop as more valuable than lecture because they knew that their workshop leaders would be evaluating the survey results. Despite the anonymity of the surveys, students may still have feared personally offending their workshop leaders. If a similar study was conducted in which the course instructor distributed the survey, and similar results to those seen here were produced then we could more confidently say that workshops appear to be of greater value to student learning than lecture.
Despite the aforementioned potential reporting bias, our results do suggest the necessity of peer-led workshop groups to the learning of students enrolled in biology courses. Since the learning that occurs in these small groups appears to be the most valuable, future research should be geared towards finding ways to apply the pedagogical methods used in workshops to larger groups – specifically lectures. Obviously, this is no easy task, but it would certainly make learning biology course material, and per