Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship

Spring 2003

DOI:10.5062/F4154F1G

Suiting Library Instruction to the

Myers-Briggs Personality Types and
Holland Vocational Personality Types
of Engineering Students
Jeanine Williamson
Reference & Instructional Services
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
jwilliam@aztec.lib.utk.edu

Abstract
The Myers-Briggs personality typology and the Holland Vocational typology of
work environments and individuals offer insights about engineering students and
faculty that librarians may apply to instruction. This article provides a literature
review of the two theories as applicable to library instruction; discusses the
personality make-ups of engineering students, Engineering faculty, and librarians;
discusses selected literature relating the two theories to learning; and provides
possible applications of the Myers-Briggs system and the Holland Vocational
system to information literacy or library instruction for engineering students.

Introduction
How would you design instruction if you already knew some of the personality
characteristics of members of the audience? To some extent, librarians have
provided creative answers to this question by tailoring instruction to the probable
abilities and interests of students in classes. For some disciplines, the librarian may
do more: information about the probable personality makeup of potential audiences
is readily available from published literature and may be applied to instruction.
While results may not be generalizable from some studies with small samples,
ideas for instruction are ripe for the picking from published research and may be
tested in actual classroom situations.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been of considerable interest to Engineering
faculty planning teamwork and other aspects of instruction (Bernold et al.

2000,Christy and Lima 1998; Felder et al. 1993; Godleski 1984; Kresta
1998; McCaulley et al. 1983; Scott and Scott 1996; Sloan 1998; Thomas et al.
2000; Wankat 1999;Yokomoto and Ware 1981). Knowing the Myers-Brigg type
distributions among Engineering students can be of use to librarians planning
library instruction for them.
Another useful typology for librarians is the one incorporated in the Holland
Vocational Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments which
measures six vocational interests or characteristics in individuals and occupations
(Holland 1997). The Holland vocational typology, less well known to the general
public than the Myers-Briggs typology, has been extensively used by vocational
counselors and is available for individuals to take in the form of the Self-Directed
Search and the Vocational Preference Inventory. Other tests that make use of the
theory are the ACT World of Work and Strong Vocational Interest Battery (Holland
et al. 1994;Holland 1985). Like the Myers-Briggs system, the Holland vocational
typology offers insights into engineering students' personalities, in this case,
vocational personalities. A number of studies using Holland's theory have
presented data on engineers or engineering students (Bruch and Krieshok
1981; Erez and Shneorson 1980; Fouad 1989; Holland 1985; Lent et al.
1989; Southworth and Morningstar 1970).
The purpose of this article is to provide background information about the two
theories; discuss the personality make-ups of engineering students, engineering
faculty, and librarians; discuss selected literature relating the two theories to
learning; and provide possible applications of the Myers-Briggs system and the
Holland Vocational system to information literacy or library instruction for
engineering students.

Applying Myers-Briggs Information to Library

Instruction
Background
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a personality inventory developed by Myers
and Briggs (Myers et al. 1998) from the psychological theory of the Swiss
psychiatrist Carl G. Jung. Jung's theory classed individuals' personality types into
eight types based on three dichotomous variables (Extroversion/ Introversion (E/I),
Sensing/Intuiting (S/N), and Thinking/Feeling (T/F)) (Jung 1923). Myers and
Briggs further developed Jung's theory by adding a fourth dichotomous variable,
Judging versus Perceiving (J/P), and they also developed the widely popular
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator for assessing individuals' preferences along the four
dimensions and consequent four letter types (Myers et al. 1998).

Extroversion/Introversion refers to the two ways individuals prefer to focus their

energy. Those who prefer extroversion prefer to focus their energy on activities in
the outside world of people and objects, while individuals who prefer introversion
prefer to direct their energy to their inner worlds of thoughts and ideas. Those who
prefer Sensing prefer to receive information from their five senses and focus on
concrete reality, while those who prefer Intuition prefer to receive information
from their intuition and focus on possibilities and patterns. People who prefer
Thinking like to make decisions objectively and logically, while people who prefer
Feeling like to make decisions based on personal values. Persons who prefer
Judging like to lead their lives with decisiveness and organization, while persons
who prefer Perceiving like flexible and spontaneous lifestyles (Myers et al. 1998).
A person's four-letter type tends to be associated with a number of personality
characteristics. (Myers 1998). People of different types tend to enjoy different
college majors and occupations, although it is unethical and invalid to select any
individual's job or major based on type. Many occupations are benefited from type
diversity among their members, as a summary of the 16 types' experiences in
librarianship shows. (Myers et al. 1998)
Engineering Students' Myers-Briggs Types
Popular career selection guides have listed jobs that should appeal to individuals
among the 16 personality types. Do What You Are (Tieger and Barron-Tieger 2001)
lists careers that the 16 Myers-Briggs types may especially enjoy; the types which
would probably enjoy engineering were ENTJ, INTJ, INTP, ESTJ, ISTJ, ESTP, and
ISTP. These types all share the Thinking preference (T), or a preference for
objective decision making as opposed to taking into account personal values in
making decisions. If this career guide is correct, it would suggest that librarians
should try to appeal to engineering students' Thinking preference in designing
library instruction. Published studies offer similar data, reported in Table 1.
Table 1. Most Frequent Myers-Briggs Types among Samples of Engineering
Students.
Study
(Sample)
Scott and Scott (1996)
(University of Tennessee Knoxville engineering freshmen 19901994)
McCaulley et al. (1987)
(Eight colleges and universities)

Most Frequent Types

(percentage of total)
ISTJ (13.4)
ESTJ (11.7)
ENTP (8.8)
INTP (8.8)
ISTJ (16.46)
ESTJ (12.75)
ENTJ (9.43)
INTJ (9.43)
INTP (8.46)

ENTP (7.43)
Felder et al. (1993)
(Chemical engineering students)

ISTJ (20.7)
ESTJ (11.2)
ENFP (9.5)
INTP (8.6)
INTJ (7.8)

Thomas et al. (2000)

(Georgia Tech engineering students)

ISTJ (16.9)
INTJ (12.3)
ENTP (11.8)
ESTJ (9.2)
ISTP (7.7)
INTP (7.2)

Staiger (1990)
(Electrical engineering students from three universities)

ISTJ (15)
ENTJ (10.9)
INTJ (10.5)
ESTJ (9.7)
INTP (8.4)

Sloan and Jens (1992)

(Colorado School of Mines engineering students)

ISTJ (14)
INTP (12)
ENTP (9)
INTJ (9)

Rosati (1997)
(Canadian sample of engineering students)

ISTJ (18.1)
ESTJ (10.3)
INTP (9.4)
INTJ (8.5)
ISTP (8.2)

These results show a clear Thinking preference among engineering students in a

variety of samples. It is notable that in all of these samples, ISTJ is the most
common type for engineering students. This type is described as:
Quiet, serious, earn success by thoroughness and dependability. Practical, matter-of
fact, realistic and responsible. Decide logically what should be done and work
toward it steadily regardless of distractions. Take pleasure in making everything
orderly and organized-their work, their home, their life. Value traditions and
loyalty (Myers 1998).
Immediate implications of this description are that librarians should offer thorough,
organized, practically useful instruction. Additional implications for instruction
drawn from the data will be discussed below.
Engineering Faculty's Myers-Briggs Types
The most common types for engineering faculty members at the University of
Tennessee Knoxville were ISTJ (22.6%), INTJ (17.8%), INTP (17.8 %), and ENTJ

(14.3%). In a comparison of UT's engineering freshmen to practicing engineers and

engineering faculty, the freshmen were fairly similar to practicing engineers and
less so to engineering faculty, who were more Introverted, Intuitive, and Judging
than the engineering freshmen (Scott and Scott 1996). Engineering faculty at the
Colorado School of Mines were found to be more Intuitive, Thinking, and Judging
than engineering students. The most common types for engineering faculty were
INTJ (23%), ENTJ (16%), ISTJ (14%), INTP (14%), and ENTP (11%) (Sloan and
Jens 1982). The data imply that in working with engineering faculty, librarians can
expect them to be conceptual and abstract (Intuitive preference), rather than
preferring sensory data. Librarians who have a Sensing preference may find that
engineering faculty expect a short overview for their classes rather than detailed,
thorough instruction. My own experience shows this to be the case when faculty
members have requested 20-minute or 30-minute sessions rather than the entire
traditional hour for bibliographic instruction. While I cannot guarantee that this
was due to engineering faculty members' preference for Intuition, it is certainly
worth thinking about. Perhaps librarians could inform Intuitive faculty members
that detailed library instruction is more likely to be effective with engineering
students than a brief overview. It is important to appeal to both the Sensing and
Intuitive preferences of different students in providing library instruction.
Librarians' Myers-Briggs Types
The most common types for librarians were ISTJ (16.5%), INTJ (11.5%), INTP
(9.1%), ISFJ (8.1%), and ENTJ (7.9%) (Scherdin 1994b). Librarians would appear
to share the personality preferences for objective decision making (Thinking) and
an organized, closure-seeking way of life (Judging) with many engineering
students. Librarians also often share temperaments (NT and SJ) with many
engineering students. Temperaments are four binary groupings of MBTI letters: SJ,
NF, NT, and SP (Keirsey and Bates 1984). These temperaments are thought to give
additional characteristics beyond those of the single preference dimensions.
Individuals having the SJ temperament are conservative, practical and uphold
traditions and rules. Those having the NT temperament are innovative, intellectual,
and theoretical. There would appear to be much common ground between
librarians and the majority of engineering students, so it should come naturally to
librarians to provide logical, objectively worded, and organized instruction.
Myers-Briggs Types and Learning
The literature on Myers-Briggs types and learning is extensive and is presented
only selectively here. For the purposes of this review, all literature on engineering
students' learning that incorporates Myers-Briggs will be included, but only
selected papers on Myers-Briggs and general learning will be provided.
Engineering Students, Myers-Briggs, and Learning

Tailoring instruction to both the Sensing and Intuitive preferences is the goal most
often discussed in the engineering instructional literature. Wankat (1999) theorized
that the Sensing students in his chemical engineering class may have performed
less well than the Intuitives since both the instructor and the textbook were
Intuitive. All the students who withdrew from his class were Sensing, and
Intuitives did better than expected on two of the quizzes. Wankat concluded: "The
professor should include more sensing activities such as step-by-step algorithmic
problem-solving in his or her teaching repertoire." (1999). Christy and Lima
(1998), studying the use of portfolios in engineering classes, found that 69 percent
of Sensing types found them useful compared to 87 percent of Intuitives. Intuitives
were more likely to pass a chemical engineering class in Felder et al.'s (1993) study
than Sensing types. Sloan and Jens (1982) found that Sensing engineering students
had 50 percent chance to score above average on an Intuitive instructor's test, while
Intuitive students had a 75 percent chance to score above average on it.
Instructional style has been shown to differentially affect Sensing and Intuitive
types' performance in circuit analysis classes (Yokomoto and Ware 1981). In the
first case, they provided "Intuitive" problems and did not coach for type
differences. The Intuitive students' test scores were more linearly correlated to
homework scores than Sensing students' in this case. In a second case, the
instructor did provide coaching involving type differences, while still providing
Intuitive problems, and there was no significant difference between Sensing
students and Intuitive students' correlations of exams to homework problems. A
third case repeated conditions of the first case (Intuitive instructor, no coaching,
Intuitive problems) and had similar results to the first case. A fourth case used nonIntuitive problems on the exams that were quite similar to homework problems. In
this case, the Sensing students' exams were more linearly correlated to homework
problems than Intuitive students'. In the last case, a replication of the conditions for
the second case was performed (coaching to type differences, Intuitive problems)
and similar results to the second case were found.
Some of Yokomoto and Ware's observed implications for problem solving of the
Sensing/Intuiting preference are worth summarizing here. Sensing types pay more
attention to examples and problems; Intuitive types pay more attention to
definitions, concepts, and theories. Sensing types need to be forewarned that there
are concepts; Intuitives need to learn the specific methods for problem solving.
Exams that contain Intuitive problems, i.e., do not replicate the homework
problems, but require integrated understanding, will favor Intuitives. Coaching can
be performed by stressing that there are important concepts to Sensing types and
that there are important methods and routines to Intuitive types.
Librarians should appeal to both Sensing and Intuitive preferences in their
instruction by offering step-by-step procedures and getting their details correct, and
also by mentioning that the information skills the students learn are transferable.
While Intuitive students may naturally pick up on concepts such as Boolean logic,

Sensing students may need practical examples and coaching to think of other
applications for tools or methods presented.
Thomas (1990) discussed other instructional issues in addition to appealing to the
Sensing and Intuitive preferences. In a sample of Mechanical Engineering
Technology students at Purdue, Introverts and/or Sensors preferred a lecture
format, whereas Extroverts and/or Intuitives preferred a discussion format.
Introverts preferred courses without laboratories, but Extroverts preferred
laboratory courses. Sensing types and/or Judging types preferred tightly structured
courses, rather than loosely structured courses. Thinking students became involved
in cooperative education programs more than Feeling types did. Introverts and
Sensing individuals preferred problems dealing with formulas and numbers, but
Extroverts and Intuitives preferred problems involving principles and ideas.
Introverts worked alone; extroverts tended to work in groups.
McCaulley et al. (1983) also offered implications for teaching engineering students
that went beyond appealing to both Sensing and Intuitive preferences. They said
that since many engineering students are logical, analytical and decisive types, they
might lack needed communication and teamwork skills. Engineering faculty need
to teach these skills. Less typical engineering students, such as Extroverts and
Feeling types appreciate feedback and appreciation and may not receive enough
from engineering faculty. McCaulley et al.'s comments are also important for
librarians, since librarians need to realize that there may be "minority types" in
their audience who may need a more personal style directed towards them
individually. While it seems impossible for a librarian to appeal equally to all
possible preferences, certainly she or he can check with students individually
during an exercise to see if they need additional help.
General Papers on Myers-Briggs and Learning
From the extensive literature on Myers-Briggs and learning, some findings are
pointed out here that may be relevant to the librarian providing instruction.
Fairhurst and Fairhurst (1995) correlated preferred modes of instruction based on
working with school students. Their comments may also be applicable to college
students. SJ types, NT types and NF types prefer lectures, although the SJs tend to
prefer lectures about facts whereas the NTs prefer abstract lectures, and NFs like
lectures about people. SPs prefer learning through performance, or through
manipulating materials to learn about a subject. Lawrence (1984) synthesized
learning style research and reported that Extroversion correlated with exhibition,
dominance, talkativeness, being active, being gregarious, and being close to reality.
Introversion was correlated with intellectual achievement, solitariness, verbal
reasoning, ideational fluency, reality-distance, and reading. Sensing was correlated
with order, gregariousness, field-dependence, economic interests, reality-closeness,
a practical outlook, seeing learning as being for practical use, and carefulness in
problem solving. Intuition was associated with autonomy and independence,

artistic, aesthetic interest and creativity, liking to use mind and intellectuality, field
independence, reality-distance, managing abstract symbols, imagination,
theoretical orientation, reading, and quickness in problem solving. Thinking was
correlated with theoretical interests and endurance. Feeling was correlated with
social interest, affiliation, and nurturance. Judging was correlated with order,
endurance and attitude to work (achievement orientation). Perceiving was
associated with autonomy, change, impulsiveness, and tolerance of complexity.
Lawrence (1984) also reported on learning preferences, noting that Extroverts
preferred talking, discussion, psychomotor activity and working with a group,
whereas Introverts preferred reading/verbal reasoning, time for individual
processing, and working individually, Sensing persons preferred tasks that call for
carefulness, thoroughness and soundness of understanding, going step-by-step,
tasks that call for memory of facts, and practical interests. Intuitives preferred tasks
that call for quickness of insight and in seeing relationships, finding their own way
in new material, tasks that call for grasping general concepts, tasks that call for
imagination, intellectual interests, and reading. Thinking types preferred logical
organization of a teacher and objective material to study, while Feeling types
preferred personal rapport with a teacher and learning through personal
relationships. Judging types preferred to work in a steady, orderly way, formalized
instruction, prescribed tasks, and drive toward closure, completion. Perceiving
types preferred to work in a flexible way, to follow impulses, informal problem
solving, discovery tasks, and managing emerging problems.
The performance of different types using different media, such as self-paced
instruction, distance learning, or using computer interfaces is also important for
librarians' knowledge, but will only be touched upon in this paper. Sensing students
performed significantly better than Intuitive students in an interactive videodisc
learning situation (Matta and Kern 1991). This suggests that interactive web
tutorials would perhaps be useful for Sensing engineering students, although
possibly less useful for Intuitive students, who did slightly better than Sensing
students in Matta and Kern's control situation of classroom learning. As an
example from personal experience, I have used a web tutorial with engineering
students that they used to follow along while I was lecturing, and they seemed to
appreciate it. I can only guess that the reason why Sensing students like tutorials is
that tutorials are generally thorough and well organized.
Discongruencies between students' learning styles and librarians' teaching styles
may have significant effects on instruction. Cooper and Miller (1991) found that
congruence between learning style and teaching style was significantly related to
student course evaluations and student evaluations of the instructor, but not final
course grades. Discongruency along the Sensing/Intuition dimension was the main
source of these results. Librarians may find that some types of students do not like
their instruction, and this may be reflected in course evaluations if they are
collected.

Implications of Myers-Briggs Data for Library Instruction to

Engineering Students
Librarians should attempt to appeal to engineering students' Thinking and Judging
preferences, while balancing appeals to the Sensing/Intuitive dimension. This
requires that they provide objectively worded, logical instruction with causation
statements (reasons), and that instruction is well organized.
Lawrence (1997) says that Thinking types do their best learning with teachers who
organize the classroom with logical systems, provide feedback that shows what
students do and do not accomplish, have a cool, objective approach to things, and
provide clear, logical material to study and things for students to analyze. An
example of a causation statement that could accomplish this is: "Ei Compendex is a
database that lists engineering research articles and conference
papers. Becausethese research articles and conference papers have in many cases
undergone a process of professional peer review, or validation, the information
may be of higher quality than that found in individuals' web pages." I believe from
my instructional experience that engineering students seek logical explanations for
statements and instructions, and I try to provide them as frequently as possible. I
try to maintain a fairly objective, cool demeanor in instruction, although I do use
humor, especially irony. When I have tried to appeal to engineering students'
emotions, such as by expressing my sympathy for students who spend hours in the
library, I have not sensed that they were particularly receptive.
Lawrence (1997) writes that the learning style preferences of Judging persons are
to "have things organized in a clear plan," "have deadlines and stay well ahead of
them," to do work in a steady way toward completion, to know just what they are
accountable for, and to "have instruction that is organized and moves in predictable
ways."
To appeal to Judging types, it is important for the librarian to structure the
instruction clearly, perhaps providing a written outline, as well as pointing out what
is going to be covered. If a librarian jumps from topic to topic or fails to discuss
planned material, this may not be appreciated by engineering students. The
librarian should be sure that instruction does not take longer that expected, since
engineering faculty often have clearly stated time limits. The librarian should
ensure that all equipment works as expected, since engineering students and faculty
will be surprised and disappointed if it does not.
Since some students in the audience will be Sensing types and some will be
Intuitive types, the librarian probably needs to include both an overview and some
examples into his or her presentation. A lecture that is too detail oriented will
possibly alienate the Intuitive students, while a lecture that leaves steps out and is
vague will most likely alienate the Sensing students. Sensing students prefer
"starting with solid facts," "going step by step in new material," "starting with

known things and adding on," "starting with first-hand experience that gives
practice in things to be learned," "starting with hands-on things" (Lawrence 1997).
To appeal to Sensing types, a librarian might want to start with a demo of an
engineering database and try to tie it into engineering students' past experience,
mentioning general databases they may have used such as Proquest or Infotrac, or
Web searching. They could also explain that research articles and conference
papers in Ei Compendex are written by people like engineering students'
professors. Intuitive types have rather different learning preferences than Sensing
types. Intuitive types enjoy doing something that catches the imagination, prefer to
start with interesting concepts, prefer to find their own way in new materials, enjoy
exploring possibilities, prefer to sample new skills rather than practice familiar
ones, and like to start with a concept or idea (Lawrence 1997). A librarian might
want to introduce an interesting concept such as Boolean searching using Venn
diagrams or the concept of subject headings to appeal to Intuitives. Trying to
lecture to both information processing preferences is, in my opinion, the hardest
part of instruction. One way that I have found to communicate to Sensing types (I
am an Intuitive) is to read aloud some of the results that are found in database
searches instead of just saying, "Here are the results, notice each one has a title,
subject heading, etc." It is sometimes hard for me to temper abstractions and
generalities with real-world details. As an Intuitive type, I have benefited from
listening to Sensing colleagues discuss library services because they offer a wealth
of practical, thorough, exact information and perhaps are clearer because they use
language to appeal to the five senses. I think Intuitive types may at times be better
at explaining concepts and giving overviews. It may be helpful to have Sensing
types read over Intuitives' instructional materials and vice-versa.

Applying Holland Vocational Personality Information

to Library Instruction
Background
The Holland typology of vocational personalities and work environments classifies
individuals and work environments such as occupations according to their
resemblance to six preferences arranged along a hexagon: Realistic, Investigative,
Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. Theoretically, individuals who
share vocational personalities with characteristics assigned to work environments
will be attracted to these environments, succeed in them, and persist (Walsh and
Holland 1992; Holland 1997). Realistic types of individuals are hands-on and
practical. Investigative individuals tend to be analytical and focus on finding
explanations of physical and social realities. Artistic individuals are expressive and
favor creative activities. Social individuals provide help and counseling and focus
on social interactions. Enterprising individuals focus on persuasion in business
contexts. Conventional individuals focus on establishing orderly routines such as in
clerical work (Gottfredson and Holland 1996). For all of these types of individuals,

the corresponding type of work environment incorporates the same values and
activities the individual types favor.
Individuals may find out their Holland vocational personalities by taking the SelfDirected Search or the Vocational Preference Inventory. Multiple discriminant
analysis of job analysis data has been used to indicate the probable three-letter
code of occupations in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Gottfredson and
Holland 1996).
The distance between the points of the hexagon indicates similarities or
dissimilarities between persons and/or environments. An Investigative individual
should share similarities with Realistic and Artistic individuals and work
environments, but should be rather dissimilar to Enterprising types, which are
opposite Investigative types on the hexagon. Realistic types should be similar to
Conventional and Investigative types, but most dissimilar to their opposite Social
types (Holland 1997).
Engineering Students' Holland Vocational Personalities
Data collected on engineers and engineering students through the Vocational
Preference Inventory showed that the engineers and technicians scored highest on
Investigative (called Intellectual by the VPI), Conventional, and Realistic. of the
engineering students scored highest on Investigative, Realistic, and Enterprising
(Holland 1985).
A comparison of Holland scores of students who persisted in engineering with
those who changed majors or left the university showed that the sample of students
who changed their major had higher scores on the Social and Artistic scales than
those of students who persisted in engineering. Students who persisted in
engineering had the highest scores on the Investigative and Realistic scales, with
noticeably smaller scores on Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. By
contrast, those students who changed their major had the highest score on
Investigative, with moderately high scores on Realistic, Social, and Artistic
(Southworth and Morningstar 1970).
The Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory, used to measure the vocational
personalities of U.S. and Mexican engineering students and professionals, showed
that the scores for all groups were highest for Realistic, then Investigative, then
Conventional (Fouad 1989).
The Dictionary of Holland Occupational Codes classifies occupations according to
the vocational preferences most required by tasks of the job. Different engineering
jobs are given a number of classifications ranking the three most required
preferences for the job. Selected engineering professions that engineering students

may be preparing for are classified with the following three letter codes, reported
in Table 2 (Gottfredson and Holland 1996).
Table 2. Holland Vocational Codes and Corresponding Occupations of
Engineers.
Holland Code

Corresponding Occupations

RIS

Electronics design engineer

Mechanical Engineer
Electrical design engineer

RIE

Ordnance Engineer
Petroleum Engineer
Standards Engineer
Faculty member, college or university, engineering

REI

Materials Engineer
Safety Engineer, Mines

IRS

Ceramic Engineer
Aeronautical Engineer
Chemical design engineer, processes
Chemical research engineer
Electrical research engineer
Railroad Engineer
Structural Engineer
Hydraulic Engineer

IRE

Aeronautical research engineer

Chemical Engineer
Metallurgist-extractive
Biomedical Engineer
Electrical Engineer, power system
Nuclear Engineer
Materials Scientist
Marine Engineer
Agricultural Engineer
Software Engineer
Manufacturing Engineer
Civil Engineer
Electrical Engineer

IRC

Nuclear fuels research engineer

Nuclear criticality safety engineer
Waste management engineer, radioactive

ISR

Safety Engineer
Airport Engineer
Transportation Engineer

ISE

Product safety engineer

IER

Engineer, soils
Sanitary Engineer

IES

Engineering manager, electronics

Electronics test engineer

IEC

Highway administrative engineer

Fire protection engineer

ICR

Reliability Engineer

ICS

Packaging Engineer

ERS

Sales Engineer

EIR

Industrial Engineer

EIC

Industrial health engineer

Production Engineer

While the expected Realistic and Investigative preferences predominate, there are
differences among the engineering occupations. Industrial engineers have
Enterprising aspects to their job. Some types of engineering occupations have a
Social component, such as airport engineer or product safety engineer. Librarians
will want to appeal to engineering students' probable Investigative and Realistic
interests, but may also want to consider appealing to Enterprising, Social, and
Conventional interests. To appeal to Investigative interests, librarians should offer
opportunities for engineers to flex their critical and analytical muscles, and to
appeal to Realistic interests, librarians should point out the practical use of
information skills and allow hands-on learning opportunities.
Engineering Faculty Members' Holland Vocational Personalities
A study of the differences between academic engineers and professional engineers
found that academics had higher Artistic scores than professionals, and that
professionals had higher Social scores than academics. The highest score for both
types of engineers was Investigative. The high Artistic score for academic
engineers (second in rank among the six interests) suggests a possible point of
commonality between librarians and engineering faculty. The sample was a single
Israeli group of 45 academic engineers (Erez and Shneorson 1980).
Librarians' Holland Vocational Personalities
Librarians were most similar to Artistic, then Investigative, then Realistic when
they took the ACT Interest Inventory, an inventory that assigns codes similar to the
Holland typology (Scherdin 1994a). David and Scherdin (1994) found somewhat
similar data on librarians when testing them using the Strong Vocational Inventory,
another test that employs Holland's concepts. Artistic, Conventional, and
Investigative were the most frequent codes for their combined sample of different

types of librarians. No engineering occupations were found to have an Artistic

preference in their three letter codes in the Dictionary of Holland Occupational
Codes, whereas this was the primary preference of librarians in the Scherdin and
David and Scherdin studies. If librarians typically have Artistic as their first code,
then according to the hexagonal theory they are rather similar to engineers who
have the adjacent Investigative characteristic as their primary letter, but are of
intermediate similarity to those engineers who have Realistic as their first letter.
Librarians' occupations receive various classifications in the Dictionary of Holland
Occupational Codes and are reported in Table 3 (Gottfredson and Holland 1996).
Table 3. Holland Vocational Codes and Corresponding Occupations of
Librarians.
SAI

Librarian

AES

Archivist

SER

Librarian, Special Collections

ESI

Library consultant

SEC

Library director

These codes indicate that library occupations usually require a mixture of Artistic,
Social and Enterprising tasks. If librarians primarily have Artistic interests, then
they may have expressive values foreign to engineering students and faculty. My
own experience bears out this theory. A handout I used for freshmen engineers
failed because it was designed to appeal to Artistic interests, rather than
Investigative or Realistic interests. I had used a bridge design metaphor to lay out
text on the handout. It met with lukewarm interest at best.
Research about the Holland Vocational Typology and Learning
In summarizing the literature concerning the Holland theory and learning, I will
cover all studies related to engineering, but only selected ones that treat the subject
in a general manner.
Engineering Students, Holland Vocational Interests, and Learning
A test of whether Realistic or Investigative students were better adjusted to a
heavily theoretical engineering curriculum found that Investigative types persisted
more than Realistic types in the major and had higher GPAs at the end of their first
semester in two out of three classes tested (Bruch and Krieshok 1981). A
theoretical learning situation would seem to appeal more to the Investigative than
Realistic engineers (although there may have been additional reasons the Realistic
engineers did not persist as much as the Investigative ones). GPA at the end of the

fourth semester was only higher for Investigative types for one of the three classes
tested. Thus the Realistic types who did persist were able to handle the theoretical
curriculum in two of the three classes.
A test of scales of Engineering Self-Efficacy ad Science Self-Efficacy administered
to students found that Engineering Self-Efficacy correlated with both the Realistic
and Investigative scales, whereas Science Self-Efficacy correlated with the
Investigative scale (Lent et al. 1989).
General Papers on Holland Vocational Interests and Learning
Faculty members with different Holland types had different teaching style
preferences as measured by Morstain and Smart (1976). Realistic types had more
goal-oriented (Achievement-oriented) and pragmatic views of education than
Artistic types. Realistic and Investigative types were more oriented towards
assignment learning than Social and Artistic types. Realistic and Investigative
types were more oriented towards assessment than Social and Artistic types. Social
types were more oriented to having students do independent study than Realistic,
Enterprising, and Investigative types were. Social types were more oriented
towards having a collegial interaction style with students than Realistic,
Enterprising, or Investigative types were. Librarians should keep in mind that
engineering faculty members may have different teaching styles than they do,
perhaps oriented towards assessment and specific achievements if the RIE
classification of engineering faculty members is correct.
Holland's (1985) use of the Vocational Preference Inventory, on Realistic and
Investigative individuals indicates that Realistic males are hardheaded, practical,
mechanically inclined, lacking insight, frank, and have poor interpersonal skills.
Realistic females are asocial, hardheaded, practical, and have technical
competencies, but poor interpersonal skills. Investigative males are scientifically
inclined, have science and math ability, and are achieving, independent, shy,
radical, curious (open), reserved, and planful. Investigative females are
scientifically inclined and shy, have science, research and math ability, and are
radical, achieving, independent, curious (open), reserved, and planful.
Implications of Holland Vocational Data for Library Instruction to
Engineering Students
Librarians should attempt to appeal to engineers' likely Realistic and Investigative
preferences when planning instruction. An approach expressing Social or Artistic
preferences may backfire when used with an engineering audience; testing is
needed to determine whether this is true. Since librarians are likely to have
Investigative or Realistic preferences as some of their major preferences, they
should be able to draw upon these preferences when instructing engineers. To
express a Realistic preference, a librarian might arrange for hands-on instruction of

the library catalog or engineering database. She might appeal to Realistic types'
practicality and adventurousness by arranging a competition to make use of an
information resource to solve a problem. I had success with this approach when
teaching two groups of freshmen minority engineers: during the second class I told
the students that nobody in the first class had successfully answered a hard
question on their worksheet, and I challenged the second class to do better. The
second class produced some perfect papers!
To appeal to Investigative engineers, librarians might ask students to analyze a
search expression and a set of results to determine why it worked or didn't work to
find literature on a topic. Analytical prowess is typical of those who have
Investigative interests. I try to make my classes interactive, asking several
questions that will appeal to Investigative interests. For example, I will explain the
call number system to the class and later ask a question that requires application of
that knowledge. In addition the librarian needs to motivate Investigative students
by emphasizing that searching for engineering literature could help students
increase their knowledge and problem-solving abilities. The librarian should be
prepared to motivate Realistic students by explaining the practical significance of
tools she is presenting.
Artistic type librarians who value expression may be well qualified to create
innovative instruction for Realistic and Investigative engineering students (as long
as they try to appeal to Realistic and Investigative interests), since Artistic types are
typically quite skilled with communication. Librarians who have Social as one of
their vocational personality characteristics should feel a sense of satisfaction in
helping Engineering students to learn how to search for information, even if these
students are vocationally somewhat different from librarians.

Conclusion
The applications that were gained from examining the body of literature on MyersBriggs Personality Types and Holland Vocational Types were that librarians ought
to appeal to engineering students with logical, objectively worded instruction
containing causation sentences (reasons for statements and instructions); wellorganized instruction; and hands-on learning opportunities. Librarians ought to
appeal both to engineers' practical, competitive natures and their intellectual
interests. Although librarians share some preferences along Myers-Briggs
dimensions with engineering students and engineering faculty, their Holland
vocational profiles are rather different. They ought to plan accordingly for different
expectations for instruction.

Literature Cited

Bernold et al. 2000. Impact of holistic and learning-oriented teaching on academic

success. Journal of Engineering Education 89: 191-199.
Bruch, M.A. & Krieshok, T.S. 1981. Investigative versus Realistic Holland types
and adjustment in theoretical engineering majors. Journal of Vocational
Behavior18:162-173.
Christy, A.D. & Lima, M. 1998. Use of student portfolios in engineering
instruction. Journal of Engineering Education 87(2): 143-148.
Cooper, S.E. & Miller, J.A. 1991. MBTI learning style-teaching style
discongruencies. Educational and Psychological Measurement 51: 699-706.
David, I. & Scherdin, M. 1994. Librarians in transition: profiles on the Strong
Interest Inventory. In Discovering Librarians: Profiles of a Profession (ed. by M.
Scherdin) , pp.102-124. Chicago: ACRL.
Erez, M. & Shneorson, Z. 1980. Personality types and motivational
characteristics of academics versus professionals in industry in the same
occupational discipline.Journal of Vocational Behavior 17: 95-105.
Fairhurst, A.M. & Fairhurst, L.L. 1995. Effective Teaching Effective Learning:
Making the Personality Connection in Your Classroom. Palo Alto, CA: DaviesBlack Publishing.
Felder, R.M. et al. 1993. A longitudinal study of engineering student performance
and retention I. Success and failure in the introductory course. Journal of
Engineering Education : 15-21.
Fouad, N.A. 1989. Cross-cultural similarity of vocational interests of professional
engineers. Journal of Vocational Behavior 34: 88-99.
Godleski, E.S. 1984. Learning style compatibility of engineering students and
faculty. In Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, pp. 362-364. New
York: IEEE.
Gottfredson, G.D. & Holland, J.L. 1996. Dictionary of Holland Occupational
Codes. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Holland, J.L. 1997. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational
Personalities and Work Environments. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Holland, J.L., et al. 1994. The Self-Directed Search (SDS) Technical
Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Holland, J.L. 1985. Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI) Professional

Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Jung, C.G. 1923. Psychological Types: or, The Psychology of Individuation. New
York: Harcourt, Brace.
Keirsey, D. & Bates, M.M. 1984. Please Understand Me: Character and
Temperament Types. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis.
Kresta, S.M. 1998. Hands-on demonstrations: and alternative to full scale lab
experiments. Journal of Engineering Education 87: 7-9.
Lawrence, G. 1997. Looking at Type and Learning Styles. Gainesville, FL: Center
for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc.
Lawrence. G. 1984. A synthesis of learning style research involving the
MBTI. Journal of Psychological Type 8: 2-15.
Lent, R.W. et al. 1989. Relation of self-efficacy to inventoried vocational
interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior 34: 279-288.
Matta, K.F. & Kern, G.M. 1991. Interactive videodisc instruction: the influence
of personality on learning. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35: 541552.
McCaulley, M.H. et al. 1987. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and retention in
engineering. International Journal of Applied Engineering Education 3(2): 99-109.
McCaulley, M.H. et al. 1983. Applications of psychological type in engineering
education. Engineering Education : 394-400.
Morstain, B.R. & Smart, J.C. 1976. Educational orientations of faculty:
Assessing a personality model of the academic professions. Psychological
Reports 39(3, Pt. 2): 1199-1211.
Myers, I.B. 1998. Introduction to Type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press, Inc.
Myers, I.B. et al. 1998. MBTI Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press, Inc.
Rosati, P. 1997. Psychological types of Canadian engineering students. Journal of
Psychological Type 41: 33-37.

Scherdin, M.J. 1994a. Librarians and information professionals: how do we

resemble each other? In Discovering Librarians: Profiles of a Profession (ed. by
M. Scherdin), pp. 12-31. Chicago: ACRL.
Scherdin, M.J. 1994b. Vive la difference: exploring librarian personality types
using the MBTI. In Discovering Librarians: Profiles of a Profession (ed. by M.
Scherdin), pp. 125-156. Chicago: ACRL.
Scott, T.H. & Scott, J.C. 1996. Utilization of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator by
a freshman engineering advising center. In Lifelong Learning in Engineering
Proceedings, American Society for Engineering Education 1996 Southeastern
Section Meeting : April 14-16, 1996, Knoxville, Tennessee. Washington, D.C.:
ASEE.
Sloan, E.D. 1998. Personality and teaching/learning engineering. In American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings. Washington,
D.C.: ASEE.
Sloan, E.D. & Jens, K.S. 1982. Differences and implications in faculty and
student types on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings. Washington, D.C.: ASEE.
Southworth, J.A. & Morningstar, M.E. 1970. Persistence of occupational choice
and personality congruence. Journal of Counseling Psychology 17(5), 409-412.
Staiger, E.H. 1990. Electrical engineering freshman type tables. Journal of
Psychological Type 20: 40-45.
Thomas, A. et al. 2000. The evidence remains stable: the MBTI predicts attraction
and attrition in an engineering program. Journal of Psychological Type 55: 35-42.
Thomas, C.R. 1990. Exploratory studies of psychological type and engineering
students: three brief reports. Journal of Psychological Type 18: 57-62.
Tieger, P.D. & Barron-Tieger, B. 2001. Do What You Are: Discover the Perfect
Career for You Through the Secret of Personality Type. Boston: Little, Brown, and
Co.
Walsh, W.B. & Holland, J.L. 1992. A theory of personality types and work
environments. In Person-Environment Psychology: Models and Perspectives (ed.
by W.B. Walsh et al.), pp. 35-69. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wankat, P.C. 1999. Reflective analysis of student learning in a sophomore
engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education :195-203.

Yokomoto, C.F. & Ware, J.R. 1981. Implications of Jungian perception on

problem solving. In Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, pp. 304-309.
New York: IEEE.
Previous

Contents

Next