A Multicultural Comparison of Engineering Students Zaki S. Seddigi King Fahd University ofPetroleum and Minerals Chemistry Department Dhahran, Zip Code 31261, Saudi Arabia zseddigi@kfupm. edu. sa Abstract A multicultural personality profile of engineering students is presented in this work. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was used as an instrument to sort personality types of engineering students at both King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi Arabia and University of Western Ontario in Canada. The paper discusses the diferences and similarities in the personality profile of Saudi and Canadian engineering students and its implications for engineering education in the light of the MBTI scales. 1. Introduction Many teachers believe that being fair means treating all students equally. If this translates into using the same approach with every student or treating students identically, then problems are likely to arise for many students who may feel left out because of teachers' choice of classroom activities biased by their own teaching style. For example, Zaki and Overton [1] observed student's impressions of a series of open-ended group problem solving exercises; they recommend that instructors should select the group members, not the students, because good students like to work with each other and weak students will end up working together. Educators have been using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) [2] to develop teaching methods, and to understand both individual learning styles and differences in motivation. In short, the MBTI sorts four scales of preferences, but one side from each dimension is used to define a type. Of course, people can and do use all eight preferences in each of the four pairs, but we all have one preference that works better for us than its opposite: a) Extroversion and introversion (E and I): Some people are oriented to a breadth-of-knowledge approach with quick action; others are oriented to a depth-of-knowledge approach reflecting on concepts and ideas. Jung calls these orientations extroversion and introversion. b) Sensing and Intuition (S and N): Some people are attuned to the practical, hands-on, common- sense view of events, while other are more attuned to the complex interactions, theoretical implications, or new possibilities of events. Luiz Fernando Capretz University of Western Ontario Dept. ofElectrical & Computer Engineering London, Ontario, Canada N5A 5B9 Icapretz@eng. uwo. ca These two styles of information gathering, or perception, are known as sensing or intuition, respectively. c) Thinking and feeling (T and F): Some people typically draw conclusions or make judgments dispassionately and analytically; others weigh the human factors or societal import, and make judgments with personal conviction as to their value. These two styles of decision-making are called thinking or feeling, respectively. d) Judgment and perception (J and P): Finally, some people prefer to collect only enough data to make decisions before setting on a direct path to a goal, and typically stay on that path. Others are finely attuned to changing situations, alert to new developments that may require a change of strategy, or even a change of goals. These two styles are called the preferences for judgment or perception, respectively. Hence, there are 16 possible configurations, as shown in Table 1. If the MBTI results show that a person is ISTP, then the terminology is to suggest that the person prefers ISTP. Table 1. The 16 MBTI types and m,mr)nn thin I I R qrii lt nrwni iiqtir)n their distribution 2. Canadian Engineering Students Many people outside the engineering area seem to have ideas and stereotypes about what engineers are like and what attract them to the engineering field. Rosati [3] shows the type distribution of 1,252 Canadian students successful in their first-year in engineering programs at the University of Western Ontario, as summarized in Table 2. The sample distribution is believed to be similar to other samples found in engineering majors at different universities across the United States and Canada. The results show that ISTJ, ESTJ, INTJ and INTP compose over 5000 of the sample, thus significantly 0-7803-9521-2/06/$20.00 (2006 IEEE. C41 IVI Ij Li IC .V C4wUUIL PUV UIC4LIUI 1. ISTJ ISFJ INFJ I NTJ 11.6% 13.8% 1.5% 2.1% ISTP ISFP INFP INTP 5.4% 8.8% 4.4% 3.3% ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP 4.3% 8.5% 8.1% 3.2% ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ 8.7% 12.3% 2.5% 1.8% 3519