Linking Education and Career Navigation Subcomponents to Outcomes
Subcomponents included in this framework demonstrate empirical relationships to important proximal and distal outcomes in education and work. To illustrate these relationships, sample subcomponents from each of the four dimensions are briefly discussed below.
Self-Knowledge: Interests and Self-Efficacies
Interests. Interests are useful for predicting and understanding academic and vocational outcomes. Domain-specific interests have been shown to predict domain-specific academic achievement throughout elementary, middle, and high school, as well as during postsecondary education (Schiefele et al., 1992). For example, middle school students who are interested in the academic subject of mathematics are more likely to pursue and experience higher achievement in mathematics-related activities (Fouad & Smith, 1996; Köller, Baumert, & Schnabel, 2001). Interest in specific occupations contributed to higher expectations for achieving later success and more positive work-related attitudes in high school seniors (Jung & McCormick, 2011). Vocational interests predict high school and college students’ choice of college majors (Diemer, Wang, & Smith, 2010) as well as their career goal intentions (Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann, & Harackiewicz, 2010). Interest in work tasks predicts employee job knowledge (Van Iddekinge et al., 2011a), effort (Fisher & Noble, 2004), and performance (Nye et al., 2012).
Self-Efficacies. Self-efficacies, or beliefs in one’s ability to accomplish academic- or career-related tasks have been shown to repeatedly and robustly predict diverse outcomes. Throughout individuals’ education journeys, academic self-efficacy has been empirically shown to be one of the most important factors influencing academic achievement (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991), expectations (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001), and retention (Robbins et al., 2004). Starting in middle school, career goal self-efficacy has been shown to predict career choice readiness (Hirschi, 2011) and to later influence individuals’ career aspirations (Ali & Saunders, 2009) and career engagement (Hirschi, 2013). During the job search process, an individual’s job search self-efficacy is positively related to job interviews and job offers (Saks, 2006).
Environmental Factors: Supports
Several researchers (e.g., Lent, Brown, and Hackett, 2000; McWhirter, Crothers, & Rasheed, 2000) have pointed to the importance of contextual supports for promoting positive career outcomes and empowering individuals to overcome perceived barriers. Supports available in the immediate context of family, school, or workplace represent potential resources individuals can access. Parental supports have been found to positively influence education and career outcomes, especially during childhood and adolescence (e.g., students’ aspirations, school engagement, general well-being, and life satisfaction; Hill et al., 2004; Lekes, Gingras, Philippe, Koestner, & Fang, 2010). In the context of school settings, general school and classroom support increase students’ engagement from elementary school (Marks, 2000) through postsecondary (Van Ryzin, Gravely, & Roseth, 2009) and enhance students’ academic achievement and retention (Robbins et al., 2004; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008). At the workplace, coworker support and organizational support contribute to increased work performance and career and job satisfaction (Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O’Boyle, 2012; Maurer & Chapman, 2013; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
Integration: Goals, Decision Making, Congruence
Goals. Setting goals leads to better outcomes. For example, Lent, Brown, & Hackett’s (1994) choice goal predicts choice behaviors (Cunningham, Bruening, Sartore, Sagas, & Fink, 2005). In the field of educational and vocational psychology, empirical studies have shown that career goals promote career exploration and planning during high school (Rogers & Creed, 2011; Rogers et al., 2008). Academic goals predict GPA and retention in college (Robbins et al., 2004).
Other goal concepts are mastery goal or learning goal orientation, which focuses on learning and self-improvement, and performance goal orientation, which represents demonstrating ability and not appearing worse than others (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). The goal intention to learn (learning goal orientation) increases students’ interests in coursework during high school and college (Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Spera & Wentzel, 2003). Further, learning goal orientation contributes to increased career exploration and decision-making behaviors during college (Creed, Fallon, & Hood, 2009). For employees, both learning and performance goal orientations predict increased feedback-seeking behavior (Anseel et al., 2013; Van der Rijt, Van den Bossche, van de Wiel, Segers, & Gijselaers, 2012).
Decision Making. The importance of the career decision-making process has made this component a major focus of inquiry in theory and research, as well as central to career development and guidance. The concept has been studied from a variety of perspectives, such as cognitive, social cognitive, mathematical, and social learning. Research on career decision making has generally examined college major choice, career or vocational choice, and choice as it relates to different roles (Gati, 1984; Lent et al., 1994; Phillips & Strohmer, 1982). Individuals who perceive themselves as efficacious in their decision-making ability are more engaged in career exploration and planning activities during high school (Ochs & Roessler, 2004) and to have lower career indecision and greater career-choice commitment during college and in the workforce (Choi et al., 2011;Metz, Fouad, & Ihle-Helledy, 2009; Wang, Jome, Haase, & Bruch, 2006). Moreover, a growing theme in the literature on decision making is the notion that effective career decision making will be related to better person–environment fit and academic and career satisfaction. For example, a more informed decision-making process among unemployed people was shown to increase the certainty of career decisions and, in turn, to increase reemployment job satisfaction and employment quality and decrease turnover intentions (Koen et al., 2010).
Congruence (Fit). Extensive research has also been conducted on the component of Congruence (Fit). Evidence is clear that the degree of similarity, or compatibility, between personal characteristics and environmental characteristics is related to a range of education and work outcomes. For example, the fit between individuals and their college majors is related to persistence in those majors (Allen & Robbins, 2008; Tracey & Robbins, 2006) and satisfaction with college (Bowman & Denson, 2014). For college students entering the workforce, perceived fit with potential work opportunities predicts positive job attitudes (Saks & Ashforth, 2002). Meta-analyses show that fit with one’s job, in terms of the characteristics of the person and those of the job or the tasks performed in the job, relates to increased work commitment, satisfaction, and decreased intentions to quit (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Resick, Baltes, & Shantz, 2007). Fit with one’s organization is also associated with greater commitment, performance, and satisfaction and is also related to positive coworker relationships and decreased stress (Greguras & Diefedorft, 2009; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Oh et al., 2014; Van Hooft, Born, Taris, & Van der Flier, 2006).
Research using the ACT Interest Inventory supports these relationships between person-environment congruence and success-related outcomes. A series of investigations suggest that interest–major congruence is related to college GPA (Tracey & Robbins, 2006) and other college stability and success outcomes, such as college or major persistence (Allen & Robbins, 2010; Tracey & Robbins, 2006), degree attainment (Allen & Robbins, 2010), and retention (Allen & Robbins, 2008; Leuwerke, Robbins, Sawyer, & Hovland, 2004; Tracey & Robbins, 2006). While the Allen and Robbins (2010) study shows that interest–major congruence has a direct effect on timely degree completion, it also shows that both academic achievement and interest–major fit contribute to degree attainment. Figure 9 illustrates the probability of attaining a college degree in a timely manner for students with different levels of academic achievement (measured by ACT Composite score) and different levels of interest–major fit. Degree attainment increases as both ACT Composite scores and level of interest–major fit go up. Importantly, this is the case even for those students whose ACT scores are in the bottom 25% percentile.