Abstract
This mixed-methods study explored whether and how participation in a comprehensive college transition program serving low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented minority students is linked to the development of career self-efficacy in light of the latter’s link to persistence and college completion. Findings suggest that program participation is linked to career self-efficacy, and program participants report significantly higher levels of confidence in their major and career path compared with a control group. Qualitative results indicate that major and career support from college transition program staff and being connected to an ecology of major and career-related activities contributed to the development of program participants’ career self-efficacy. Results hold significance for college transition program design and call attention to an underexplored area of research in the quest to boost college completion for low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented minority students.
Keywords
A history of unevenly distributed resources, policies with disproportionate impacts on marginalized student populations, and inequitable educational practices have led to unfair systems of access and success across institutions of higher education. As a result, low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented racial/ethnic minority (URM) college students continue to experience some of the lowest persistence and graduation rates (College Board, 2008; DeAngelo, Franke, Hurtado, Pryor, & Tran, 2011; Harper, Patton, & Wooden, 2009; Tsui, 2007). Many initiatives have been developed over the years to address these systemic concerns, including the federally funded TRIO programs (Pitre & Pitre, 2009; Tinto, 2012). The continued rise of students who fit this profile entering college and accompanying decades of stalled graduation rates have led to increased and intensified efforts to improve their college success and completion rates. It is not enough to simply broaden college access among these student groups, institutions of higher education are also responsible for supporting students to promote degree completion (Harper & Simmons, 2019; Tinto, 2012). Against this backdrop, a foundation-funded comprehensive college transition program (CCTP) was developed to promote college success and completion among low-income, first-generation, and URM college students. 1
Informed primarily by Tinto’s (1993) early work on student retention, most studies of college transition and success programs focus on persistence as the meaningful outcome. Common intermediate outcomes examined in the program literature include grade point average (GPA), academic self-efficacy and social self-efficacy, and sense of belonging (DeRoma, Bell, Zaremba, & Albee, 2005; Sablan, 2014; Strayhorn, 2010). For first-generation, low-income, and URM college students, there are many other factors to consider related to college completion given the aforementioned context of educational inequities that have resulted in social and material disparities (Patel, 2016). Scholars and educators must continue to explore and identify these systemic factors linked to college completion to maximize the effect of college transition and success programs serving these student populations. One area that has received the least attention in the literature is the role of transition programs in developing career self-efficacy—students’ confidence in their major/degree and career paths (Taylor & Betz, 1983). The lack of scholarship in this area is surprising given that research on retention and attrition suggests that low-income and first-generation students are particularly concerned about their degrees leading to future employment and the relevance of their college education (Kezar, 2010).
We elected to focus on career self-efficacy because scholarship suggests that students are more likely to persist if they have a sense of what they will study and the careers that can be obtained with certain majors (Betz, 2000; Hackett, Betz, Casas, & Rocha-Singh, 1992; Lent et al., 2005; Lent, Lopez, Lopez, & Sheu, 2008; Peterson & DelMas, 2001). Little empirical research exists on the topic of college career self-efficacy among low-income, first-generation, and URM college students and how institutions and programs can better foster this asset in holistic, responsive, and proactive ways. Virtually no studies have examined this topic in the context of college transition and success programs designed with career development activities and curriculum. The aim of the present study is to determine whether implementing a comprehensive suite of career activities as part of a CCTP promotes career self-efficacy among low-income, first-generation, and URM students in light of its link to college success. There are exceptionally few instances of mixed-methods examinations of career self-efficacy that permit a multidimensional understanding of career self-efficacy development—a major contribution of this article.
Literature Review
Psychological constructs, like self-efficacy, have been critiqued for their tendency to frame educational inequities, such as college completion, through an individualistic lens. The underlying assumption is that if students simply strengthen their self-efficacy, their educational outcomes will improve. This deficit perspective, which presumes that students come to college lacking the necessary skills and habits of mind to succeed, often undergirds how differences in self-efficacy across groups are understood and places the onus for college success on students alone. Lent and Hackett (1987) cautioned against this “person-blame research” and suggested that future research remain cognizant of “the transactional nature of person-environment relationships, investigating socio-environmental factors in combination with self-efficacy beliefs” (p. 374). In response, this study uses extant literature in the context of historical and persistent educational inequality to frame self-efficacy, and career self-efficacy in particular, in an asset-based, antideficit approach (Harper, 2010). Students come to college with a wealth of experiences that contribute to their knowledge of self, interests, and potential careers. It is the responsibility of institutions to foster their career-related development through interventions and systems of support that are flexible, customized, and responsive to the assets and diverse experiences that students bring with them to college.
Career self-efficacy is an important precursor to choosing a career, and it is central to understanding students’ career development, academic and career decisions, career entry behaviors, and persistence in college (Grier-Reed & Ganuza, 2012; Hackett & Betz, 1981; Lent & Hackett, 1987; Peterson & DelMas, 2001). In our review, we define career self-efficacy and offer a conceptual model, summarize studies that have been conducted on career self-efficacy, and offer examples of career development activities and how they are linked to career self-efficacy. While we explore career self-efficacy—an individualistic construct—we do so with an acknowledgment and appreciation of the systemic inequities that exist for first-generation, low-income, and URM students. We recognize the responsibility of the institution (and institutional agents) to proactively engage students in major/career activities, to address opportunity gaps, and to discover and build from students’ unique assets and strengths (Harper, 2010; Yosso, 2005).
Career Decision Self-Efficacy Definition and Model
Career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) is the belief in one’s ability to successfully complete the necessary tasks to make career-related decisions (Taylor & Betz, 1983). Betz and Hackett (1981) developed their model of career self-efficacy based on Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive learning theory, which explains the development of self-efficacy. Consistent with Bandura’s theory, the career self-efficacy model postulates four primary sources of career self-efficacy: (a) performance accomplishments (e.g., succeeding in an internship in one’s field), (b) vicarious learning (e.g., exposure to successful peer role models), (c) physiological/psychological states (e.g., stress experienced making career-related decisions), and (d) verbal persuasion (e.g., encouragement). Socialization experiences—the process through which individuals understand the norms, skills, and values associated with a group or facet of society (Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961; Kuh & Whitt, 1988; Merton, 1957; Van Maanen, 1984)—can affect one’s self-efficacy and the experiential information that forms the basis for developing career self-efficacy (Betz, 2000; Hackett & Betz, 1981). The model supposes that career interventions can be designed around these four sources of self-efficacy to promote or change career self-efficacy (Betz, 2000).
Betz and Luzzo (1996) acknowledge Crites’s (1961, 1978) theory of career maturity as an important influence on the development of the career self-efficacy model. Five career choice competencies developed by Crites (1961, 1978) were the basis for developing constructs thought to capture the dimensions of career self-efficacy such as self-appraisal, occupational information, planning, problem solving, and goal selection (Betz & Luzzo, 1996). For example, career self-efficacy addresses students’ perceived ability to perform career-related tasks such as writing a résumé, finding out information about an occupation, deciding what is important to them in a job, and making accurate assessments of their skills and abilities, to name a few. Ultimately, the career self-efficacy model links career self-efficacy to behavioral consequences, including whether a student will attempt particular educational/career paths, performance in courses or training necessary to successfully pursue a career path, and persistence when faced with obstacles (Betz, 2000).
Career Development Among Diverse Populations
Scholars recognized early on the importance of expanding research related to career self-efficacy and development to include underrepresented groups that may face social barriers, such as biased exposure to sources of self-efficacy on the basis of race or gender role expectations (Hackett & Betz, 1981; Lent & Hackett, 1987; Means, Bryant, Crutchfield, Jones, & Wade, 2016). Betz (2000) argued that career self-efficacy is a particularly well-suited approach to understanding career development outcomes for women, racial/ethnic minorities, low-income, and other underrepresented students (e.g., first generation) due to the theory undergirding the concept, which recognizes the possibility for differences in students’ career socialization experiences and opportunities. Limited access to career role models, for example, could be a limiting factor in the development of career self-efficacy for marginalized student populations. The literature on career self-efficacy among first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented minority students is surprisingly underdeveloped. The scarcity of research limits those who desire to serve the career development needs of these populations, which only further marginalizes the students (Tate et al., 2015).
The few extant studies examining career self-efficacy among these college student groups have uncovered results with significant implications for our understanding of their career development. For instance, Gloria and Hird (1999) found differences in career self-efficacy by race and major (declared or undeclared), with higher observed career self-efficacy among White students and declared students compared with their respective counterparts. Betz and Hackett (1981) studied career self-efficacy and its relationship to college students’ perceptions about career options and found that there were significant differences in self-efficacy between men and women with regard to career options considered traditional and nontraditional for one’s gender.
Tate et al. (2015) investigated career development beliefs and experiences among first-generation college students. Their exploratory study found that family messages and support, and lack of a professional career network, shaped students’ career-related experiences and beliefs. Students also identified support programs (i.e., first-year programs, or career centers) as a positive influence on their career development. Others have studied the role of career self-efficacy in promoting college success among underprepared college students. For example, Peterson (1993) found that career self-efficacy was linked to college integration among academically underprepared students. Similarly, Peterson and DelMas (2001) found that career self-efficacy influences social and academic integration and indirectly affects student persistence among underprepared college students.
The shifting composition of higher education institutions toward more diverse student bodies requires providing “more and different support” to reflect the accompanying shift in student career development needs (Means et al., 2016, p. 95). Students from first-generation, low-income, URM and otherwise underserved backgrounds often come to college without adequate socialization to careers or exposure to sources of self-efficacy that traditional students have obtained in their homes and communities—meaning that they may need more basic career information and more guidance and support. Colleges and universities often provide limited career opportunities, such as career fairs, operating under the assumption that students already have the knowledge and navigational skills related to careers and career paths. This assumption can put underserved populations at a disadvantage because they frequently have little prior experience on which to build.
Career Interventions
One way to advance our understanding of how to better serve the needs of first-generation, low-income, and URM student populations is to understand the effectiveness of interventions designed to cultivate career self-efficacy and promote student career development. Provided that these student populations may not have sufficient career socialization opportunities or exposure to sources of career self-efficacy, career interventions are a promising option that may be utilized to better serve their career development needs. Studying how effective career-related interventions are in promoting desirable career outcomes is necessary to understand whether educators are investing time and channeling resources wisely (Hackett & Betz, 1981).
Promoting education and career planning through career interventions (e.g., career courses, career counseling) in college has a long history in the United States (Folsom & Reardon, 2003). Career interventions vary widely in design and scope, but many were introduced with the intent of delivering career services around the turn of the century and became increasingly prevalent in the decades that followed (Folsom & Reardon, 2003). Studies that examine the effectiveness of career-related activities and interventions are relatively common in career development literature. Generally, meta-analyses suggest that career interventions are effective strategies that often achieve their respective aims (Brown et al., 2003; Brown & Krane, 2000; Folsom & Reardon, 2003; Ryan, 1999). We briefly summarize the literature on career interventions organized in three areas: (a) career courses, (b) workshops and counseling, (c) programs and support services.
Career Courses
A segment of studies about career interventions have explored career courses to better understand their impact on students’ career development. While the particular features vary, career courses may include skill-building activities, such as instruction around résumés and cover letters, as well as preparation for career-related activities, like interviews and networking events aimed at building social capital. Studies have determined that career course interventions have significant effects on occupational engagement, college adjustment, attitudes toward careers, occupational information, and career decision making (Fouad, Ghosh, Chang, Figueiredo, & Bachhuber, 2016; Freeman, Lenz, & Reardon, 2017; Hansen & Pederson, 2012). Other studies have established a connection between participation in career courses and increased career self-efficacy (Hansen & Pederson, 2012; Komarraju, Swanson, & Nadler, 2014; Lumpkin, Franco, Multon, & Achen, 2014), in addition to finding that college students’ career self-efficacy may be predictive of motivation and course and major satisfaction (Hansen & Pederson, 2012; Komarraju et al., 2014). For students who are undecided about their major, participation in a career course may lead to higher GPAs and retention rates compared with those without course exposure (Hansen & Pederson, 2012). Of particular relevance to the present study, Grier-Reed and Ganuza (2012) found significant changes in career self-efficacy among TRIO program students who participated in a career course. Participating students exhibited greater confidence in their self-appraisal of skills, goal setting, planning, and problem solving.
Workshops and Counseling
Career workshops and counseling are other strategies that programs and institutions have implemented to support students’ major and career development. The services and guidance these interventions provide range from building career knowledge and professional skills, promoting career self-appraisal, and preparation for professional and graduate school opportunities. Studies have looked at a variety of formats including retreats, workshops, and career counseling—including in-person and web-based techniques. Results suggest that these activities may help students better understand career-related processes such as conducting job searches, preparing for graduate school, and connecting their values to their career aspirations, and they may have a positive effect on students’ career self-efficacy (Foltz & Luzzo, 1998; Maples & Luzzo, 2005; Means et al., 2016).
Programs and Support Services
A few studies examined the role of programs and support services in promoting career self-efficacy and development. For instance, Soldner, Rowan-Kenyon, Inkelas, Garvey, and Robbins (2012) examined the relationship between learning community participation and students’ career development. Specifically, they explored whether participation in learning community activities was related to students’ major goals. Results suggested that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning communities may indirectly help promote student commitment to earning STEM degrees; however, this did not seem to hold for non-STEM learning communities. The link between learning community participation and earning STEM degrees was partially related to the connection between learning communities and the positive social supports students have. In another example, Burns, Jasinski, Dunn, and Fletcher (2013) studied the impact of academic support services and career self-efficacy among student athletes. They found that students’ satisfaction with academic support services was positively linked to their career self-efficacy.
Overall, results suggest that career interventions may hold promise for promoting positive career-related outcomes, such as career self-efficacy. Prior work has explored the role of career counseling, workshops, specific career courses, and support services in promoting career self-efficacy. In a notable departure from this prior work, our study examines the impact of participation in a whole suite of career and major exploration activities implemented across an entire year of a CCTP with the goal of promoting major and career confidence among first-generation, low-income, and URM students. Scholars have previously acknowledged the usefulness of exploring career self-efficacy as a means of designing tailored career interventions that may consist of multiple components (Hackett & Betz, 1981; Lent & Hackett, 1987). However, we uncovered no studies to date that examine the effectiveness of interventions with the broad, long-term, comprehensive scope of the CCTP career activities that include résumé development, mock interviews, career fairs, meetings with staff advisors, major and career information exploration activities, business etiquette dinners, and other activities (e.g., clubs related to one’s major) intended to expose students to major and career options. Studies of the kind presented here hold important implications for the design, implementation, expansion, or termination of programming intended to promote career self-efficacy among these student populations.
In summary, career self-efficacy is an important psychosocial outcome to consider for low-income, first-generation, and URM college students, and it has been linked to desirable college outcomes such as student persistence and graduation. The model of career self-efficacy proposes several sources of self-efficacy that could be developed through career programming that may provide the information needed to inform students’ self-efficacy. Our review of the literature suggests that career-related interventions hold promise for promoting the development of desirable career outcomes, including career self-efficacy. Gaps in extant scholarship suggest that it is pertinent to review the role of career programming experienced by low-income, first-generation, and URM students as part of a CCTP to explore whether, how, and why such programming may promote career self-efficacy as a means to encourage persistence and address completion inequities.
Research Questions
Program Description
The CCTP 2 was initiated in 2008 at a Midwestern state university system. The program ranges in size from approximately 200 to 600 first- and second-year students at each campus with more than 2,700 total CCTP students each year. The CCTP provides resources and support for low-income college students, many of whom are first-generation and URMs, through a comprehensive program structure that includes mentorship, academic and social support, and career and major exploration opportunities. Each CCTP participant is also supported by a generous scholarship award. The overall purpose of CCTP is to facilitate a successful college transition and to promote a pathway to college completion.
The main CCTP components include learning community courses, residential (or commuter student) community, mentoring, and programming activities offered by CCTP staff. Over the course of the program, CCTP students participate in a range of academic, social, career development, and community service activities, including financial literacy sessions, social outings, study hours, service learning trips, student organizations, and mentorship meetings. The second year of the program is primarily focused on major and career exploration activities. The program includes a whole connected set of major and career information exploration and preparation activities, though the precise nature of the activities differs slightly by campus. Some example activities implemented by the CCTP include career workbooks, résumé development, mock interviews, career fairs, meetings with a career counselor, one-on-one staff advisor meetings, a second-year seminar focused on career and major exploration, presentations from career services offices, sessions on job interview expectations and tips, business etiquette dinners or monthly professional development dinners, and other activities such as required attendance at clubs related to one’s major. The purpose of participation in these program activities is to expose students to major and career information and to cultivate student confidence in their career path.
Method
This study employs data collected as part of a larger, grant-funded, mixed-methods study of the CCTP that includes longitudinal program participant interviews, case study data collection, and longitudinal student surveys (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). For the present mixed-methods study, we elected to first analyze survey data measuring career self-efficacy and then to analyze student interview data to identify themes that may offer explanations for quantitative results (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). The integration of multiple methods in our analysis lends robustness to our results and strengthens inferences and conclusions drawn (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Research Questions 1 and 2 are answered through mean comparison tests to identify statistical trends in career self-efficacy. Research Question 3 is answered through a review of longitudinal student interview transcript data to explain the results identified in our statistical analyses.
Quantitative Methods
Data Source
This study employs longitudinal survey data from a cohort of program participants who began college in 2015. To date, students completed three successive waves of surveys. The baseline survey was administered at the start of the academic year in 2015 and measured a range of precollege experiences and student characteristics (e.g., race, parent education). Two follow-up surveys were administered—the first in late spring semester 2016 and the second in late spring semester 2017. These follow-up surveys measured students’ attitudes, behaviors, characteristics, and a series of psychosocial variables, including career self-efficacy. The longitudinal data that constitute the focus of this study included data from the survey administered in Spring 2016 prior to the second year of college (pretest) to establish a baseline for career self-efficacy and a follow-up survey administered at the end of the second year of college (posttest) in Spring 2017. This decision was made because the primary focus of the program’s second year is major and career exploration activities. Missing data in our sample were dealt with using hot deck imputation (Andridge & Little, 2010).
Our project’s overall research design leveraged the fact that the foundation funding the CCTP and scholarship award randomly selected some award recipients (Angrist, Autor, Hudson, & Pallais, 2014, 2016). The randomization process assigned students to one of three conditions: (a) CCTP and scholarship funding, (b) scholarship funding and no CCTP, and (c) control—neither CCTP nor scholarship funding. We elected to compare program participants with a group of students who did not receive any kind of support from the foundation, funding, or otherwise (i.e., the control or “comparison” group).
Instrument
The primary variables of interest in our study were 15 items adapted from the Career Decision Self-Efficacy–Short Form (CDSE-SF) scale (Betz, Hammond, & Multon, 2005; Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996; LoPresti et al., 2013). The CDSE-SF was created for the purposes of facilitating pre- and posttest evaluations of career counseling and career interventions, such as those implemented in the second year of the CCTP (Betz et al., 1996; Betz & Luzzo, 1996). The CDSE-SF includes five subscales, each consisting of five items, designed to measure each of the five career choice competencies proposed by Crites (1961, 1978; LoPresti et al., 2013). Three subscales were adapted from the CDSE-SF based on the goals and purposes of the CCTP. These subscales included the CDSE-Occupational Information (OI), the CDSE-Career Planning (CP), and the CDSE-Self-Appraisal (SA).
Each of the adapted subscales includes five items measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = cannot do this at all to 5 = highly certain can do). Items for each of the three subscales were summed, and a factor score was computed for each subscale and rescaled to the original 5 points. CDSE-OI items asked students to rank how certain they were that they could complete tasks related to obtaining information about careers. Sample questions for this scale include “find information about your planned occupation,” “talk with someone in your planned occupation or field,” and “learn the typical salary of people in the job you plan to hold.” CDSE-CP items asked students to rank how certain they were that they could complete career planning tasks. Examples of questions for this scale include items such as “make a 5-year plan to achieve your goals,” “write a good résumé,” and “successfully navigate the process of interviewing for a job.” CDSE-SA items asked students to rank how certain they were that they could complete career-related self-appraisal tasks. Examples of items on this scale include “make an accurate assessment of your skills and abilities,” “decide what’s important to you in a job,” and “figure out what job suits you best.”
Prior work with the CDSE measures has suggested that it is a reliable instrument (Betz et al., 1996; Betz et al., 2005; Betz & Luzzo, 1996) and exhibits adequate validity (Betz et al., 1996; Betz et al., 2005; Betz & Luzzo, 1996; LoPresti et al., 2013; Luzzo & Day, 1999). Betz et al. (2005) note that the CDSE is related to other measures of career decision making such as adaptive career beliefs and vocational identity, among others, and inversely related to measures of career indecision (Betz et al., 1996; Luzzo & Day, 1999; Robbins, 1985). While studies of CDSE-SF validity do not report wholly uniform results, a study by Chung (2002), and a robust, comprehensive study by some of the scale’s authors (Betz et al., 2005), found evidence for validity with college student populations. Furthermore, scholars have argued that the CDSE subscale structure should be retained for the purposes of assessing career counseling and interventions; such is the case in our study (Luzzo & Day, 1999; O’Brien, 2003). The subscale structure also allows for a multidimensional understanding of factors related to career self-efficacy in our analysis. A measure of reliability (Cronbach’s α) was calculated for our two subsamples of students (CCTP and control group) and reported for each of the three CDSE-SF subscales. Reliability estimates were comparable across groups, and all estimates were above α = .75.
Data Analysis
Data analysis proceeded by first restricting data to include only those participants who completed both pretest and posttest surveys (i.e., our analytic sample). This ensured a complete data set for both time points of interest. Our analytic sample consisted of a total of 273 students—189 program participants and 84 comparison students (i.e., control group).
Descriptive statistics were calculated to provide a sense of the scope and nature of our sample. To assess the distribution of our sample across demographic characteristics, we calculated frequencies for gender, race/ethnicity, and parental education. An average cumulative GPA for Spring 2017 was calculated to provide insight into students’ college academic achievement at the end of their second year. Results are presented in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3 present means and standard deviations for pretest and posttest CDSE measures for the CCTP and the comparison group.
Descriptive Statistics for the Sample (N = 273).
Note. GPA = grade point average; SD = standard deviation; CCTP = comprehensive college transition program.
Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviation for CDSE Dimensions for CCTP Participants.
Note. CDSE = career decision self-efficacy; CCTP = comprehensive college transition program; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. N = 189. Scale ranged from 1 = cannot do this at all to 5 = highly certain can do.
Significant difference in pre- and posttest scores at p < .05 level.
Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviation for CDSE Dimensions for Comparison Group.
Note. CDSE = Career Decision Self-Efficacy; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. N = 84. Scale ranged from 1 = cannot do this at all to 5 =highly certain can do.
Significant difference in pre- and posttest scores at p < .05 level.
To answer Research Question 1, we conducted a pretest/posttest analysis to measure changes in each of the three CDSE dimensions reported by participants. Pretest/posttest designs are very commonly used to measure change in studies of career-related interventions such as those implemented in the CCTP (Fouad et al., 2016; Freeman et al., 2017; Grier-Reed & Ganuza, 2012; Komarraju et al., 2014). We calculated a paired samples t test with our sample of CCTP students to determine the direction and statistical significance of changes in means for each of the three CDSE factors between pretest and posttest. A paired samples t test was also calculated for our sample of students without program exposure for comparison (i.e., the control group).
To answer Research Question 2, we compared CDSE scores between CCTP participants and a comparison group of students who did not participate in the program. This analysis was intended to provide evidence of whether there were significant differences in average reported CDSE scores for the “treatment” group (i.e., CCTP participants) compared with students in their second year of college who were not exposed to the CCTP and did not receive any scholarship funding. Independent samples t tests with Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances were first calculated for each of the three pretest CDSE measures between the program and comparison groups. Next, we computed an independent samples t test for each of the three CDSE constructs at the posttest to determine whether there were significant differences between students exposed to CCTP career programming and those without program exposure. Finally, an effect size was calculated, using Cohen’s d, to obtain a measure of the magnitude of the differences students reported in CDSE at the posttest (Cohen, 1988). Effect size calculations were adjusted to take into account differences in the CCTP and comparison sample sizes.
Qualitative Methods
Data Sources
The qualitative analysis drew on interview data collected from 38 program participants in their second year of the program. Each student was interviewed four to six times over the course of their second year, and each interview lasted 30 to 45 minutes. Interviews were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. Participants were low-income students, many of whom were first-generation and URMs, and they were purposively sampled to represent a diverse group by race, gender, and major. While many more interviews were conducted as part of the longitudinal study, we elected to focus on a set of second-year student interviews to mirror quantitative data restrictions employed in this study and because the second year of the program is focused on major and career development.
Instrument
Researchers administered semistructured interview protocols to participants at regular intervals over the course of students’ second year in the program. The flexible interview protocols permitted students the opportunity to discuss their experiences with the program in their second year—including experiences with a suite of career and major exploration and development opportunities. Students were prompted to discuss their experiences with particular program career activities (e.g., professional development dinners, second-year seminars on major/career exploration, staff résumé review, and mock interviews) and how those activities affected them. Students were also asked to respond directly to questions such as “Overall, how confident are you in your choice of major?” “How confident are you in your career path?” “Are there specific college experiences or messages that have affected your decisions related to your major or career?” “Do you feel like your major and career planning needs are currently being met?”
Data Analysis
We explored interview data for patterns and to sensitize ourselves to the ways in which students engaged with program career activities. Transcripts were analyzed to identify themes that could offer plausible explanations for results from the survey analysis and to strengthen our inferences. The analysis was guided by the thematic approach proposed by Boyatzis (1998). Student transcript data were coded and analyzed first to identify emergent inductive codes and then deductively coded based on the quantitative trends we identified, the CDSE model, and the extant career self-efficacy literature.
Three researchers independently reviewed and coded student transcripts and used a matrix to record and organize a list of themes related to student experience with program major and career activities and student perceptions on how those activities shaped their major and career development. Researchers compared and contrasted our results, considered our results in relation to quantitative findings and CDSE theoretical model, and collaboratively identified and developed a set of common explanations for the statistical observations warranted by qualitative evidence. Trustworthiness and credibility were established through the long-term embedded nature of our study, the rapport built with participants through the longitudinal nature of interviews, member checking, and peer debriefing (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Results
The results of our mixed-methods study are presented below. We first describe statistical trends identified through our quantitative analysis and then present qualitative evidence that supplies an explanation of how and why program participation may have contributed to observed statistical trends (Leech, 2012).
Quantitative
Research Question 1: Pretest and Posttest Results
As shown in Table 3, there were no significant differences in mean pretest and posttest scores for the comparison group at the p = .05 level for any of the three CDSE measures. These results suggest that there is little change in career self-efficacy among students without program exposure in their second year of college. Overall, the trends do suggest a slight downward trajectory for each measure over time among students without program exposure or financial support. For the CCTP students, pretest and posttest results were computed and showed that there were statistically significant changes in CDSE scores (see Table 2). CCTP participants had significantly higher mean CDSE-OI scores after participating in Year 2 major and career activities (ΔM = 0.10, SD = 0.69; t(188) = 2.01 p < .05). CCTP participants also reported significantly higher mean CDSE-CP scores after participating in Year 2 career activities (ΔM = 0.18, SD = 0.68; t(188) = 3.66, p < .01). Computations for CDSE-CP revealed the largest mean changes of the three CDSE measures. Results were calculated for CDSE-SA measure, and results indicated that there were no statistically significant changes between pretest and posttest (ΔM = 0.08, SD = 0.65; t(188) = 1.57, p = .12). However, the results suggest that the high CDSE-SA mean score students began with was maintained over time for program participants.
Research Question 2: Independent Samples t-Test Results
Independent samples t tests with Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances were calculated to determine whether there were significant differences in average scores for each of the three CDSE measures between CCTP participants and the sample of students without program exposure or financial support. First, we compared each of the three dimensions of CDSE at the pretest between our sample of CCTP participants and the comparison group. Results revealed no significant differences in CDSE means at the pretest between CCTP students and our comparison sample at p < .05 level, establishing that CCTP students and the comparison group start their second year of college at statistically no different levels of CDSE across all three dimensions.
Next, we examined group mean differences for each of the three CDSE dimensions at the posttest between CCTP participants and the comparison sample. We explored group mean differences for CMDSE-OI (see Figure 1). CCTP participants had significantly higher mean scores (M = 4.6, SD = 0.56) compared with the comparison group (M = 4.4, SD = 0.64) at the posttest; t(143) = 2.91, p < .01. The effect size was modest (d = .34). Second, we compared group mean differences for CDSE-CP (see Figure 2). CCTP participants had significantly higher mean scores (M = 4.6, SD = 0.53) compared with the comparison group (M = 4.3, SD = 0.66) at the posttest; t(271) = 4.28, p < .01. The effect size was moderate (d = .52). Third, we examined group mean differences for CDSE-SA (see Figure 3). Students who participated in the CCTP reported significantly higher mean scores (M = 4.6, SD = 0.52) compared with the comparison group (M = 4.3, SD = 0.64) at posttest; t(133) = 2.94, p < .01. The effect size was moderate (d = .54). Taken together, results indicate consistent, significantly different, higher mean CDSE scores for CCTP participants compared with our comparison group at posttest, despite reporting statistically no different CDSE scores on the pretest measure. Effect size calculations indicate that the magnitude of the effect of program participation on CDSE ranged from modest to moderate. Generally, findings suggest a significant, positive, program impact on career self-efficacy relative to those without program exposure.
Career decision self-efficacy–occupational information pre-/posttest means and significant posttest group differences.
Career decision self-efficacy–career planning pre-/posttest means and significant posttest group differences.
Career decision self-efficacy–self-appraisal pre-/posttest means and significant posttest group differences.
Qualitative
Research Question 3: Interview Analysis Results
Recall that our Research Question 3 addressed how students described their experiences with CCTP program major and career-related activities and how those experiences explain the findings identified in Research Questions 1 and 2. Qualitative data helped explain why and how low-income, first-generation, and minoritized students in the program maintained or increased their major and career self-efficacy and provided insight into why it may be statistically different—and higher—than career self-efficacy among their peers without program exposure or financial support. A consistent theme emerged from our analysis of student interview data: The CCTP staff advisors (i.e., institutional agents) were key to the development and maintenance of career self-efficacy. Students consistently described CCTP staff advisors as the principal factor in their program experience that helped them understand their major and career-related experiences—which ultimately informed their career self-efficacy beliefs. Moreover, program staff were instrumental in encouraging students to participate in major and career-related events, opportunities, and programs—thereby connecting students to an ecology of major and career-related experiences that could serve as a source of self-efficacy and shaped student confidence in their major and career path. In comparison, CCTP students observed that many of their peers outside the program typically seemed to find such opportunities later in their college careers, if at all, and these opportunities tended to be happenstance and disconnected in comparison with those offered in the program.
Students often described how CCTP staff advisors helped them put their major and career-related experiences into perspective and better understand their college experiences in context—engaging students in sense-making that shaped their major and career decisions. One major focal area where staff were influential in students’ sense-making was around their performance in courses—particularly when students were performing worse than expected in requisite courses for a major. For example, one student described conversations with CCTP staff advisors that were critical to navigating major and career decisions when the student began to question whether their major or career was a good fit for them. Similar to sentiments shared by others, they said, Some of my grades in my coursework, especially my Chemistry and my Anatomy grade this semester. They kind of—there was a point where it really made me question whether I was going to be capable of going to med school—not only in like getting accepted to medical school but in actually being successful in medical school coursework. So I really kind of struggled with that for a little bit. But [CCTP staff] talked to me about it and we had some really good discussions and he was really able to put my mind at ease.
Students used their course performance to gauge confidence and fit for their major and prospective career, and CCTP staff advisors were instrumental in helping students carefully consider such decisions without reacting rashly—after receiving a single bad grade, for instance. Staff often helped students process threats to their major and career self-efficacy and supported them through the major and career decision-making process that was prompted by the experience or the event that led students to call into question their major and career path.
The staff advisors also helped program participants access other resources to inform their career and major decisions. Students routinely discussed how CCTP staff connected them to faculty, staff, or experiences that could assist them in sorting out difficult major and career-related choices. One student noted how this helped in building his career confidence: It was like when I told [CCTP staff that] I was contemplating dropping my anatomy and physiology class and my health science minor and my pre-radiography stuff. And I talked to him about it and then he ended up recommending me going—checking out the school psychology department here at [university]. Then he referred me to the faculty members in the department.
As a result of conversations with the staff advisor and the referral to other resources on campus (e.g., faculty), the student was able to ultimately refine his career path, and be confident in the major and career decisions he was making going forward because they were informed by the views, support, and advice he received from staff advisors and the resources to which staff referred him.
The program staff advisors also arranged for key major and career-related activities that students were automatically connected to rather than having to seek out themselves. CCTP students often noted that this was important to their successful navigation of major and career decision making because they would have been unlikely to seek the opportunities out otherwise. Moreover, participants noticed that their friends outside the program were not seeking out or being exposed to such opportunities on their own: [The resume building activity with CCTP staff] was super good. I just appreciate how hard [CCTP staff] worked to find the flaws and find the strengths that we had in our resumes and really work with us on that. I think [CCTP] is the only group that really, without being sought [out helps you]—[other students] have to seek people out on campus if you want help with your resume outside of [CCTP].
The staff advisors connected students to CCTP-specific major and career activities that in turn shaped their confidence and preparation for making major and career-related decisions.
CCTP staff advisors also provided students with opportunities that helped students draw connections between the various career-related activities and the events they participated in. For example, by taking part in the CCTP’s professional networking dinners, students realized that they could build their résumés by meeting professionals with whom they might volunteer or participate in internships. One student observed the usefulness of one CCTP event, the professional networking dinner that the CCTP staff encouraged her to attend: At the professional dinner, I sat with a psychologist and she talked about volunteering opportunities at [medical center] and she said she could hook me up or something. Because she said that, I researched online and saw that there are volunteering opportunities [to build my résumé].
Another student shared, A couple weeks ago [sic] we had a professionals dinner and we had couple of people of the industry or those career fields of our interest come talk to us about our majors and what our interests are, where we’re kind of going, what our future might look like, and how they got where they got. So I got to ask a couple questions [sic] and I got a lot of great feedback. I guess that was another moment that kind of solidified my confidence in my major.
Evidence suggests that the CCTP program and its staff advisors are providing opportunities for students to build their résumés, establish professional connections, and ultimately grow more confident in their career preparedness and future paths. Importantly, the opportunities build on one another and mutually reinforce one another.
CCTP staff advisors were also central to connecting students to experiences beyond the program such as internships, fellowships, job shadowing, undergraduate research, and volunteer opportunities that provided students hands-on experience. Students noted how their non-CCTP peers were not being encouraged to seek out such opportunities and described how pivotal these experiences were to their own major and career decision making—especially because many of the students changed their major or solidified majors as a result of one of these career-related opportunities. For instance, one student described how valuable the encouragement to pursue these opportunities was and how it helped cultivate their career confidence: When I had my meeting with [CCTP staff advisor] when we talked about resumes . . . he had a lot of really important critiques on my resume and he talked about a lot of good things I could do to improve my resume to be more competitive for health profession jobs and to be more competitive for medical school. And that made me realize that I need to start doing more job shadowing and more internships and more volunteer work. [T]he fact that he was putting in so much effort to give me these critiques and tell me about ways I can improve—that made me feel more confident, because he sees that I have potential to be successful in this career path and he’s putting in his time and effort to help coach me to improve myself, because he knows I’m capable of succeeding.
In the end, what differed for CCTP students compared with students without program exposure was the staff advisors who connected them to an abundance of major and career-related experiences and, crucially, helped students make sense of those opportunities and experiences. Staff advisors were the main levers in the program that made a difference in their career development and decision making, rather than any one specific type of program, activity, or experience by itself. Two students neatly summarized the central role of CCTP staff advisors in shaping program participants’ major and career self-efficacy. One said, “[Staff advisor] gave me a bunch of tips, not just general guidelines as to where to go with my studies and thinking about transferring when we talked [sic]. [H]e did influence my career path and confidence and everything.” Another student said, “And just having like the access to [staff] advisors and like your [CCTP] mentor, and just like there are so many options, and it’s easy for you to succeed, because you have so much support.”
Limitations
No study is without limitations. We adapted three CDSE-SF scales that were selected based on the purposes and intent of the program intervention under study. The adapted scales performed well in terms of internal reliability; however, it is possible that the adaptation could affect validity. As noted earlier, this study leveraged a randomization process used to assign students to three experimental conditions; however, the project deviates from the original randomization process in key ways. For instance, survey nonresponse may be correlated with experimental conditions, and there are differential response rates by group. Moreover, our sample of students who received CCTP exposure and scholarship funding also includes a set of “must fund” students, who were intentionally selected to receive the scholarship and participate in the CCTP by the foundation funding the program, in addition to those randomly assigned to the group. Finally, our sample of CCTP participants has a larger proportion of students of color than the comparison group, and there are other factors that are not controlled for that could, in theory, potentially affect observed trends. Despite these limitations, this study is one of the first of its kind to employ mixed methods to examine the impact of participation in major and career activities embedded within a college transition and student success program that serves first-generation, low-income, and URM students. Student interview data helped triangulate results and offered plausible, empirically based explanations for observed statistical trends.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine whether, how, and why students’ career self-efficacy was shaped by participation in a suite of major and career-related activities implemented as part of a CCTP that serves first-generation, low-income, and URM students. The strength of this study rests in part on the mixed-methods approach that identified both quantitative links between program exposure and career self-efficacy as well as qualitative explanations for how and why the program promoted career self-efficacy among the student populations it serves—a rare methodological approach in the career self-efficacy literature. Quantitative results suggest that participation in CCTP major and career-related activities sustains or promotes career self-efficacy. A key explanation derived from the qualitative evidence for how and why these activities may shape students’ career self-efficacy was the role of program staff advisors who helped students make sense of their major and career-related experiences and connected students to an ecology of major and career-related opportunities. Both of these findings suggest the importance of institutions and institutional agents taking responsibility for supporting and developing student career confidence (Harper, 2010; Yosso, 2005). The tailored and individualized support provided by program staff suggests how educators can construct their major and career-related practices so that traditionally underserved students will not simply survive but also thrive.
Over time, CCTP participants reported significant, positive changes in how confident they were in their ability to seek out information relevant to potential career paths (CDSE-OI) and their ability to plan for major and career paths of their choosing (CDSE-CP). While there were no statistically significant changes in CDSE-SA for program participants—the average CDSE-SA remained high over time. It is possible that students may overestimate their CDSE-SA early on. That CDSE scores are either maintained or increased over the course of participating in the CCTP is notable considering the program serves low-income students, many of whom are first-generation and URM—populations who are likely to experience unique threats to their self-efficacy during college, who may not have had the same career socialization experiences as traditional students, or who otherwise do not have access to viable sources of career self-efficacy (e.g., career role models). College transition and success programs serving similar student populations should consider implementing career activities to cultivate career self-efficacy, while also continuing to support students with high incoming career self-efficacy to maintain that self-efficacy over time.
Our study also found significant differences in career self-efficacy between sample participants who are exposed to the CCTP and those without program exposure or scholarship. Students from both groups started with career self-efficacy scores that were statistically no different—yet ended with very different career self-efficacy scores at the end of their second year of college. Program participants reported consistently higher levels of career self-efficacy compared with students without program exposure across all three dimensions of career self-efficacy at the end of their second year of college. Our calculations indicated that the magnitude of the observed differences ranged from modest to moderate in size—suggesting that the implementation of career exploration activities and support is a promising strategy to promote career self-efficacy in ways that are not experienced by students without the program experience. Ultimately, higher levels of career self-efficacy bode well for program participants who are making important major and career-related decisions with potential long-term consequences for their persistence and degree completion (Betz, 2000; Hackett et al., 1992; Lent et al., 2005; Lent et al., 2008; Peterson & DelMas, 2001).
Student interview data supplied explanations for the statistical trends we observed and added nuance to our understanding of how program participation shaped students’ career self-efficacy. Evidence suggested the importance of CCTP staff advisors in maintaining or promoting career self-efficacy among program participants. Staff advisors helped students process and make sense of their participation in major and career-related activities—offering advice and guidance—and connected students to a broader ecology of major and career-related opportunities (e.g., professional dinner, internship opportunities) that shaped student career self-efficacy. More so than any one of the career-related activities alone, the customized staff support and the resources to which staff advisors connected students appeared to be the driving factor that affected students’ beliefs in their ability to successfully pursue a major or career path. Program participants recognized that they were in a unique position compared with many of their peers who do not have a built-in major and career-support network or ready access to CCTP staff advisors who are able to offer tailored advice, resources, and opportunities.
Our results are consistent with prior scholarship that suggests that career counselors and educators can promote self-efficacy by implementing career-related interventions and activities geared toward exposing students to sources of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Betz & Luzzo, 1996; Chung, 2002). The verbal persuasion and messages students receive from educators are important for their career development and efficacy (Jahn & Myers, 2014; Luzzo & Taylor, 1994; Myers, Jahn, Gaillard, & Stoltzfus, 2011). Our study suggests that program staff advisors embedded within college transition and student success programs can be an important resource for students and can influence students’ career self-efficacy by providing advice, engaging students in sense-making, and connecting students to an ecology of career experiences. Moreover, the career activities and experiences that the CCTP staff connect students to are comparable with many of the key career activities that, according to extant scholarship, promote positive career development, such as completing career workbooks and opportunities to receive individualized feedback and guidance on major or career decisions (Bandura, 1977; Brown et al., 2003; Ryan, 1999). For instance, résumé development activities implemented by the CCTP staff provide students with an opportunity to receive tailored guidance, feedback, and encouragement from program staff—one potential source of career self-efficacy.
It is noteworthy, however, that students report that it was not merely the existence of program career activities alone that helped build or maintain career self-efficacy but rather the proactive, asset-based, and customized orientation of the staff practices in those activities that promoted students’ career self-efficacy (Harper, 2010; Yosso, 2005). Simply offering a menu of major and career-related activities was not the determining factor in students’ career self-efficacy. Program staff helped students clarify their personal major/career goals, recognized students’ unique talents, collaboratively brainstormed strategies with students to help them achieve their career goals, and brought into the conversation personally relevant major/career considerations students may not have been aware of to help inform their own decision making. The tailored delivery of support in the program stands in distinct contrast to a one-size-fits-all delivery approach prevalent among many career programs. Moreover, the coordinated context of tailored support and connections to career activities for students facilitated by the program staff appears to be one of the ways in which the program sustains or promotes career self-efficacy in ways distinct from what students outside the program may be exposed to, who may only have access to scattered or piecemeal major and career support.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that college educators and program coordinators should seriously consider their role in engaging students in career-related activities and in connecting students to a support network of program staff as a means to promote career self-efficacy among low-income, first-generation, and URM college students. In turn, career self-efficacy is linked to the likelihood that students who fit this demographic profile will persist to degree completion—a highly sought after outcome that many postsecondary strategies have thus far failed to accomplish. Our study serves as a reminder that a college education, while important for preparing well-rounded future citizens, is also a means toward an important end—preparing students with the confidence and credentials they will need to accomplish their career goals. College educators must be intentional in the steps they take to nurture students’ career self-efficacy and provide the support and inspiration they need to motivate students to earn their degrees on the path toward their career goals.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for the studies in this volume was provided by the Susan T. Buffett Foundation (TSLC project) and the Helmsley Charitable Trust (CSU STEM Collaboratives project).
