Gray, David

Molyn-Blanchfield, Joanna

Greenwich Academic Literature Archive

This	  poster	  template	  is	  24”	  high	  by	  36”	  wide.	  It	  can	  be	  used	  to	  print	  any	  poster	  with	  a	  2:3	  aspect	  ra>o	  including	  36x54	  The	  various	  elements	  included	  in	  this	  poster	  are	  ones	  we	  oBen	  see	  in	  medical,	  research,	  and	  scien>ﬁc	  posters.	  Feel	  free	  to	  edit,	  move,	  	  add,	  and	  delete	  items,	  or	  change	  the	  layout	  to	  suit	  your	  You	  can	  place	  digital	  photos	  or	  logo	  art	  Insert,	  Picture	  command,	  or	  by	  using	  standard	  copy	  &	  paste.	  For	  best	  results,	  all	  graphic	  elements	  should	  be	  at	  least	  150-­‐200	  pixels	  per	  inch	  in	  their	  ﬁnal	  printed	  size.	  For	  instance,	  a	  1600	  x	  1200	  pixel	  photo	  will	  usually	  look	  ﬁne	  up	  to	  8“-­‐10”	  wide	  on	  your	  printed	  poster.	  To	  preview	  the	  print	  quality	  of	  images,	  select	  a	  magniﬁca>on	  of	  100%	  when	  previewing	  your	  poster.	  This	  will	  give	  you	  a	  good	  idea	  of	  what	  it	  will	  look	  like	  in	  print.	  If	  you	  are	  laying	  out	  a	  large	  poster	  and	  using	  half-­‐scale	  dimensions,	  be	  sure	  to	  preview	  your	  graphics	  at	  200%	  to	  see	  them	  at	  their	  ﬁnal	  printed	  Please	  note	  that	  graphics	  from	  websites	  (such	  as	  the	  logo	  on	  your	  hospital's	  or	  university's	  home	  page)	  will	  only	  be	  72dpi	  and	  not	  suitable	  for	  prin>ng.	  Change	  Color	  Theme:	  This	  template	  is	  designed	  to	  use	  the	  built-­‐in	  color	  themes	  in	  the	  newer	  versions	  of	  PowerPoint.	  To	  change	  the	  color	  theme,	  select	  the	  Design	  tab,	  then	  select	  the	  Colors	  drop-­‐down	  list.	  The	  default	  color	  theme	  for	  this	  template	  is	  “Oﬃce”,	  so	  you	  can	  always	  return	  to	  that	  aBer	  trying	  some	  of	  the	  alterna>ves.	  Prin>ng	  Your	  Poster:	  Once	  your	  poster	  ﬁle	  is	  ready,	  visit	  www.genigraphics.com	  to	  order	  a	  high-­‐quality,	  aﬀordable	  poster	  print.	  Every	  order	  receives	  a	  free	  design	  review	  and	  we	  can	  deliver	  as	  fast	  as	  next	  business	  day	  within	  the	  US	  and	  Canada.	  	  Genigraphics®	  has	  been	  producing	  output	  from	  PowerPoint®	  longer	  than	  anyone	  in	  the	  industry;	  da>ng	  back	  to	  when	  we	  helped	  MicrosoB®	  design	  the	  PowerPoint®	  soBware.	  	  US	  and	  Canada:	  	  1-­‐800-­‐790-­‐4001	  Email:	  info@genigraphics.com	  The	  Role	  and	  EﬀecEveness	  of	  Coaching	  in	  Increasing	  Students’	  Self-­‐Eﬃcacy,	  Outcome	  Expectancies	  and	  Employability	  Eﬀorts	  Joanna Molyn, MBA; Professor David Gray, PhD University of Greenwich, London, UK Joanna	  Molyn	  University	  of	  Greenwich,	  Business	  Faculty,	  London,	  UK	  Email:mj59@gre.ac.uk	  Website:	  www.researchgate.net/proﬁle/Joanna_Molyn	  Contact	  Harvey,	  L.	  (2000),	  ‘New	  Reali>es:	  The	  Rela>onship	  between	  Higher	  Educa>on	  and	  Employment’,	  Ter$ary	  Educa$on	  and	  Management	  6:	  3-­‐17	  Van	  Hoye,	  G.	  (2013),	  ‘Job	  Search	  Behavior	  as	  a	  Mul>dimensional	  Construct:	  A	  Review	  of	  Diﬀerent	  Job	  Search	  Behaviors	  and	  Sources’In	  U.C.	  Klehe	  &	  E.	  A.	  J.	  van	  HooB	  (Eds.),	  Oxford	  Handbook	  of	  Job	  Loss	  	  And	  Job	  Search	  (in	  press).	  New	  York:	  Oxford	  University	  Press.	  Bandura,	  A.	  (1977),	  ‘Self-­‐eﬃcacy:	  toward	  a	  unifying	  theory	  of	  behavioural	  change’,	  Psychological	  Review	  41:	  195-­‐215	  Brown,	  S.D.	  and	  Lent,	  R.W.	  (2013),	  Career	  Development	  and	  Counseling:	  PuHng	  Theory	  and	  Research	  to	  Work	  	  (2nd	  ed.),	  New	  Jersey:	  John	  Wiley	  &	  Sons,	  Inc.	  Dweck,	  C.	  S.	  (2006),	  Mindset:	  How	  You	  Can	  Fulﬁll	  Your	  Poten$al.	  London:	  Constable&	  Robinson	  Ltd	  Hill,	  S.	  (2011),	  ‘Making	  connec>ons:	  the	  role	  of	  social	  capital	  in	  the	  enhancement	  of	  employability	  of	  ﬁrst	  genera>on	  business	  studies	  graduates.’	  Widening	  Par$cipa$on	  and	  Lifelong	  Learning	  13(2):33	  -­‐50	  Saks,	  A.	  M.,	  &	  Ashforth,	  B.	  E.	  (1999).	  ‘Eﬀects	  of	  individual	  diﬀerences	  and	  job	  search	  behaviors	  on	  the	  employment	  status	  of	  recent	  university	  graduates’.	  Journal	  of	  Voca$onal	  Behavior,	  54,	  335-­‐349.	  	  Taylor,	  K.	  M.,	  &	  Betz,	  N.	  E.	  (1983).	  ‘Applica>ons	  of	  self-­‐eﬃcacy	  theory	  to	  the	  understanding	  and	  treatment	  of	  career	  indecision.’,	  	  Journal	  of	  Voca$onal	  Behavior,	  22,	  63-­‐81	  	  Zimmerman,	  R.	  D.,	  Boswell,	  W.	  R.,	  Shipp,	  A.	  J.,	  Dunford,	  B.	  B.,	  &	  Boudreau,	  J.	  W.	  (2012).	  ‘Explaining	  the	  pathways	  between	  approach-­‐avoidance	  personality	  traits	  and	  employees'	  job	  search	  behavior’.	  Journal	  of	  Management,	  38:	  1450-­‐1475.	  	  Selected	  References	  Since	   the	   employability of graduates has become a very important issue in Higher Education (HEA, 2012), this	   research	   inves>gates	   the	   eﬀec>veness	   of	   coaching	   as	   a	   learning	  tool	   to	  be	  used	   in	  Higher	   Educa>on	   (HE)	   in	   order	   to	   increase	   students’	   career	   self-­‐eﬃcacy	   and	  outcome	  expectancies,	  and	  subsequently,	  students’	  employability	  eﬀorts	  such	  as:	  preparatory	  and	  ac>ve	  job	  seeking	  behaviors	  and	  job	  search	  intensity.	  	  	  The	   research	   also	   explores	   what	   aspects	   of	   the	   coaching	   rela>onship	   have	   most	   impact	   in	  increasing	  students’	  career	  self-­‐eﬃcacy	  and	  job	  seeking	  behaviours.	  It	  will	  inves>gate	  the	  impact	  of	   career	   coaching	   on	   students’	   outcome	   expectancies.	   	   It	   will	   examine	   whether	   career	   self-­‐eﬃcacy	  is	  a	  signiﬁcant	  factor	  in	  students’	  job	  search	  behaviours	  and	  whether	  it	  diﬀers	  for	  diﬀerent	  groups	  of	  students.	  Abstract	  ! To	  provide	  empirical	  evidence	  for	  the	  eﬀec>veness	  of	  coaching	  in	  increasing	  students’	  self-­‐eﬃcacy,	  outcome	  expectancies	  and	  employability	  eﬀorts	  (measured	  as	  preparatory	  and	  ac>ve	  job	  seeking	  behaviors	  and	  job	  search	  intensity).	  ! To	  establish	  what	  aspects	  of	  the	  coaching	  rela>onship	  are	  most	  eﬀec>ve	  in	  increasing	  students’	  career	  self-­‐eﬃcacy,	  outcome	  expectances	  and	  job	  seeking	  behaviors.	  ! To	  provide	  an	  employability	  model	  that	  incorporates	  coaching	  as	  a	  par>cular	  learning	  interven>on	  that	  can	  be	  used	  to	  increase	  self-­‐eﬃcacy	  and	  outcome	  expectancies.	  Majority	  of	  students	  have	  moderate	  levels	  of	  career	  self-­‐eﬃcacy	  (N=879;	  M=	  3.51;	  SD	  =	  .556)	  (Table	  1)	  and	  that	  results	  are	  normally	  distributed	  (Figure	  2).	  This	  is	  not	  matched	  by	  students’	  Preparatory	  Job	  Seeking	  Behaviors	  (Figure	  3	  and	  Graph	  1).	  	  	  RelaEonship	  between	  career	  self-­‐eﬃcacy	  and	  employability	  eﬀorts:	  A	  medium,	  posi>ve	  correla>on	  between	  the	   students’	   career	   self-­‐eﬃcacy	   and	   preparatory	   job	   seeking	   behaviors,	   r=.330,	   p<.01.	   Career	   self-­‐eﬃcacy	  helps	   to	   explain	   10.89	   per	   cent	   of	   the	   variance	   in	   students’	   preparatory	   job	   seeking	   behaviors.	   Mul>ple	  regression	   results	   show	   that	   planning,	   CDSE	   sub-­‐scale,	   (ß	   =.154,	   p<.001)	   is	   the	   only	   sta>s>cally	   signiﬁcant	  predictor	  of	  Preparatory	  Job	  Seeking	  Behaviors.	  Gender	  Diﬀerences:	  No	   sta>s>cally	   signiﬁcant	  diﬀerence	   in	   the	  mean	  career	  decision	   self-­‐eﬃcacy	   scores	   for	  males	  (M=	  3.53,	  SD	  =	  .565)	  and	  females	  (M=3.50,	  SD	  =	  .550;	  t(872)	  =	  .65,	  p	  =	  .	  516	  (two-­‐tailed).	  	  Ethnicity	  Diﬀerences:	  A	  sta>s>cally	  signiﬁcant	  diﬀerence	  	  in	  career	  self-­‐eﬃcacy	  for	  diﬀerent	  ethnic	  groups	  F(8,	  1698)	  =	  5.55.	  The	  highest	  scores	  for	  Black	  or	  Black	  Bri>sh	  Male	  (M=3.71,	  SD	  =	  0.58)	  followed	  by	  White	  Female	  (M=3.64,	  SD=.57)	  and	  the	  lowest	  score	  for	  Mixed	  Race	  Female	  (M=3.28,	  SD	  =	  .57).	  Experimental	   Group	   Diﬀerences:	   T-­‐test	   for	   equality	   of	   means	   shows	   that	   an	   experimental	   group	   that	   self-­‐selected	  for	  coaching	  has	  a	  sta>s>cally	  signiﬁcant	  higher	  score	  for	  problem	  solving	  (M=3.45,	  SD=.63)	  than	  the	  rest	  of	  the	  popula>on	  (M=3.33,	  SD=.66)	  and	  higher	  preparatory	  job	  seeking	  behaviors	  (M=1.45,	  SD=.23)	  than	  the	  rest	  of	  the	  students	  (M=1.41,	  SD=.24).	  Time	  1	  Findings	  Study	  Design	  A	  longitudinal	  quasi-­‐experimental	  mixed	  method	  study	  conducted	  using	  the	  Business	  Faculty	  of	  the	  University	  of	  Greenwich,	  London,	  UK	  popula>ons	  of	  Year	  1,	  Year	  2	  and	  Year	  3	  undergraduate	  students.	  The	  ini>al	  sample	  consists	  of	  955	  students.	  ImplicaEons	  for	  Coaching	  PracEce	  and	  Research	  Aims	  Graph	  1.	  Students’ Preparatory Job Seeking Behaviors   (Saks & Ashforth, 1999)  Table	  1.	  Students’ Career Self-Efficacy: Sub-scales Score Interpretation: 1.0 -2.5: Low to Little confidence: intervention needed 2.5 -3.5: Moderate Confidence: may need some help 3.5 -5.0: Good confidence. comfortable with this skill set ! The	  ini>al	  ﬁndings	  are	  not	  consistent	  with	  exis>ng	  research,	  i.e.	  career	  self-­‐eﬃcacy	  is	  not	  the	  best	  predictor	  of	  students’	  employability	  eﬀorts.	  A	  shared	  variance	  of	  10.89%	  is	  much	  lower	  than	  an	  expected	  shared	  variance	  of	  30%	  (Roxnghaus	  et	  al.2003;	  Lent	  et	  al.	  1994).	  Ethnicity,	  outcome	  expectancies,	  cultural	  inﬂuences	  and	  gender	  role	  models	  might	  be	  important	  factors	  to	  be	  considered	  by	  HE	  in	  order	  to	  increase	  students’	  employability.	  	  Coaching	  can	  be	  used	  as	  an	  eﬀec>ve	  tool	  to	  work	  with	  these	  factors.	  ! This	  ﬁndings	  might	  also	  suggest	  that	  some	  students	  have	  an	  inﬂated	  view	  of	  their	  self-­‐eﬃcacy	  (Blakes	  et	  al.	  2012).	  Coaching	  might	  help	  students	  to	  gain	  a	  realis>c	  percep>ons	  of	  their	  skills.	  ! No	  diﬀerences	  in	  gender	  self-­‐eﬃcacy	  levels	  are	  consistent	  with	  other	  studies	  (Betz	  and	  Taylor,	  2012).	  	  	  ! Mixed	  ethnicity	  students	  have	  the	  lowest	  self-­‐eﬃcacy	  and	  might	  beneﬁt	  from	  coaching	  in	  the	  areas	  of	  self-­‐eﬃcacy,	  planning	  and	  preparatory	  job	  seeking	  behaviors.	  ! The	  higher	  scores	  for	  problem	  solving	  and	  preparatory	  job	  seeking	  behaviors	  of	  the	  experimental	  group	  are	  consistent	  with	  Chung	  (2002)	  and	  Lent	  et	  al.	  (1996)	  who	  found	  that	  students	  with	  higher	  career	  decision	  self-­‐eﬃcacy	  are	  more	  commized	  to	  career	  planning	  and	  goal	  sexngs.	  This	  suggests	  that	  the	  most	  disengaged	  students	  can	  beneﬁt	  from	  coaching	  in	  problem	  solving,	  planning	  and	  goal	  sexng.	  	  Ini>al	  sample	  size	  	  n=955	  6	  career	  coaching	  sessions	  	  	  Exp.	  Group	  (EG)	  n=160+	  Control	  group	  (CG)	  n=	  160+	  QuanEtaEve	  	  	  	  Approach	  CDSE–	  Short	  Form	  (CDSE:	  Taylor	  &	  Betz,	  1983)	  	  Job	  Search	  Behaviour	  Scale	  (modiﬁed	  Saks	  &	  Ashforth,	  1999)	  	  QuanEtaEve	  Approach	  Time	  1	  measures	  repeated	  for	  an	  EG	  and	  CG	  QualitaEve	  Approach	  Semi-­‐structured	  interviews	  TIME	  1	  (Oct-­‐	  Nov	  2014)	   TIME	  2	  (Oct-­‐	  Nov	  2015)	  Career	  Self-­‐Eﬃcacy	  Sub-­‐Scale	   Mean	  Accurate	  self-­‐appraisal	  	   3.35	  Gathering	  occupa>onal	  informa>on	   3.44	  Goal	  selec>on	   3.51	  Making	  plans	  for	  the	  future	   3.58	  Problem	  solving	   3.60	  0	  100	  200	  300	  400	  500	  600	  0	  >mes	   1	  or	  2	  >mes	   3	  to	  5	  >mes	   6	  to	  9	  >mes	   at	  least	  10	  >mes	  No	  of	  Students	  Figure	  2.	  Students’ Total Career Decision Self-Efficacy N = 897 Figure	  3.	  Students’	  Preparatory	  Job	  Seeking	  Behaviors	  	  (N=853)	  TheoreEcal	  Framework	  Figure	  1.	  Conceptual	  Model	  adapted	  from	  Social	  CogniEve	  Career	  Theory	  (Brown	  &	  Lent,	  2013).	  All	  change	  to	  the	  model	  are	  in	  red.	  	  Professor	  David	  Gray	  University	  of	  Greenwich,	  Business	  Faculty,	  London,	  UK	  Email:gd73@gre.ac.uk	  Website:	  www.researchgate.net/proﬁle/David_Gray15	  Gender	  Ethnicity	  Cultural	  and	  Gender	  Role	  Models	  Learning	  	  Experiences:	  Coaching	  Self-­‐Eﬃcacy	  Expecta>ons	  Outcome	  	  Expecta>ons	  Interests	   Choice	  Goals	  Choice	  	  Ac>ons	  Performance	  	  Domains	  and	  	  Azainments:	  Employability	  Eﬀorts	  of	  	  Students:	  Job	  Seeking	  Behaviors	  Distal	  Inﬂuences:	  Environmental	  Condi>ons	  Analysis	  and	  Measures	  Time 1 ! In October 2015 questionnaires distributed to 3,550 students yielding 955 responses (27% response rate). ! The Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (CDSE: Taylor & Betz, 1983) and a job search behavior scale (modified Saks & Ashforth, 1999) used to measure students’ pre-intervention levels of self-efficacy and job seeking behaviors. Students also asked to provide demographic data on their gender and ethnicity. ! An experimental group (EG) self-selected for career coaching (n=160) matched by a control group (CG) in terms of self-efficacy, using the independent-sample t-test (n=160). ! The whole sample (n=955) tested for gender and ethnicity differences  (the independent sample t-test, ANOVA and MANOVA). ! Students career self-efficacy levels were correlated with preparatory and active job seeking behaviors and job search intensity. ! An EG was compared versus the rest of the sample (T-test for equality of means) in terms of CDSE subscales and preparatory and active job seeking behaviors and job search intensity. Time 2 ! In October 2016 questionnaires - (CDSE: Taylor & Betz, 1983) and a job search behavior scale (modified Saks & Ashforth, 1999) – will be distributed to EG and CG.   ! The means at Time 1 and Time 2 for both the EG and the CG will be compared (independent means t-test). As the samples come from the same population, it is expected that their means will be almost equal. The standard error will be used to determine the variability between sample means. The larger the standard error the more confident one is that the null hypothesis is incorrect and the two sample means differ as a result of the coaching (Field, 2005). ! 10 students with the highest and lowest increase in career self-efficacy (through a maximum variation sampling) will be interviewed, using thematic analysis for qualitative data analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), to explore any transitions in their career self-efficacy beliefs and their perception of the coaching effectiveness. Data analysis will also explain what aspects of coaching relationship are most effective in increasing students’ career self-efficacy, outcome expectances and job seeking behaviors.  

Measuring the effectiveness of career coaching in increasing higher education students’ career self-efficacy and job search behaviours

http://gala.gre.ac.uk/19945/7/19945%20MOLYN-BLANCHFIELD_Measuring_the%20Effectiveness_of%20Career_Coaching_2015.pdf

Measuring the effectiveness of career coaching in increasing higher education students’ career self-efficacy and job search behaviours

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Greenwich Academic Literature Archive