Self efficacy, interests, and outcome expectations a holistic attitude assessment


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Self efficacy, interests, and outcome expectations a holistic attitude assessment

  1. 1. International Journal of Management (IJM), OF 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 – INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL (2013)MANAGEMENT (IJM) ISSN 6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- AprilISSN 0976-6502 (Print)ISSN 0976-6510 (Online)Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013), pp. 125-131 IJM© IAEME: Impact Factor (2013): 6.9071 (Calculated by GISI) © SELF-EFFICACY, INTERESTS, AND OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS: A HOLISTIC ATTITUDE ASSESSMENT OF FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS S.Sridharan1, Dr.B.Kalpana2 1 Assistant Professor, Career Development Center, SRM University, Chennai 2 Assistant Professor, SRM University, Chennai ABSTRACT Indian higher education has undergone a remarkable changes, and in particular to Engineering and Technology. With growing opportunities in IT/ITES related fields the parents as well as their children preferred to take engineering educations in spite of the cost involved. The cost is looked upon as investment and the career opportunities associated with the high salary. But the fact is that the required capabilities to do engineering study are ignored. The quantity in engineering education has impacted the quality of education as well as the students. A study was undertaken with the first year, first semester students of faculty of engineering and technology in a private university. The path analysis could reflect a clear image about the importance of Interest associated with Self-efficacy to Outcome expectations. Key words: Engineering Education, Career Opportunities, Self-efficacy, Interests, Outcome Expectations. 1.0 INTRODUCTION First Jed-i Engineering Education Round Table Report states “Given the right opportunities and enablers, Indian youngsters can be the engineers for the world in the 21st century.”(Jed-i, 2012). India as the second largest populated country, there are eligible youths who can make this possible. The report further adds that Parents dream is that qualifying as an engineer offers good salary and also hope for an upward mobility and a stable long career. The parents for this take all responsibilities including a huge monetary investment. This has created a need for more engineering colleges. The Indian government through its apex body All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has given approval to open new 125
  2. 2. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013)engineering colleges. The Statistics(AICTE) about the students intake in UG/PG/Diploma(AllInclusive) the approved intake for the year 2012-13 is 344,3355 and when compared to theyear 2008-09 the approved intake of 1700,325 seats, with an increase of 80 percent in fiveyears. There are 3,393 Engineering colleges with a capacity of 14.85 lakhs across 36 coursesof which 65 percent of colleges in South India and rest in North India. (Geetha Rao, 2012). InTamil Nadu the hub for engineering education has approved seats 5, 31,986. AICTE has alsolowered the aggregated percentage in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics to 50 percent inthe class XII exams. But on the contrary Aspiring Minds an employee assessment serviceprovider has in their report states that five lakhs engineers who passed out in the year 2011only 17.45 percent are employable. This figures are very less to the figures given byNASSCOM (National Association of Software and Service Companies) in their survey report2011 that 25 percent of the Technical gradates are only employable. The Nationalemployability report given their opinion that concentrating in increasing the quantity thatimpacted the quality (Ravikanth Reddy, 2012). This has created a need to really look into thestudent’s attitude towards engineering, specifically with reference to their Self-efficacy,Interests and Outcome expectations.2.0 LITERATURE REVIEWAttitude: Engineering student’s attitude assessments studies were numerous and provide awide scope for understanding and also for further research possibilities. The studies in firstyear engineering students attitude (Sacre, 1998), Attitude of Engineering students and theroles and responsibilities (Sandra, 2011), Engineering is Elementary on students attitudetowards engineering and science (Christine, 2010), Attitude towards learning English(Tamini, 2009), students attitude towards computer science (Hoegh, 2009; Fuller 2007). Inthis study the factors like self-efficacy, interests and outcome expectations are taken foranalysis on the engineering students. Lots of research was conducted on the Social CognitiveCareer Theory (Lent, 1994). The studies related to career and academic interests (Lent,1994), Academic Interests and Goals in Engineering Women Students at Historically BlackUniversities (Lent, 2005), social cognitive model of choice in engineering students athistorically Black universities (Lent, 2010), Meta analysis on self-efficacy and interests(Rottinghaus, 2003), Students’ achievement values, goals and interests (Wigfield, 2010), Firstyear students perceived self-efficacy (Fields, 2005), Inspiring students for computer science(Akbulut, 2007) and self-efficacy on educational aspects (Schunk, 2001).Self-efficacy: Understanding Self-efficacy is the most important one when analyzing theattitude. Self-efficacy is the conviction of one’s own. Albert Bandura defined Self-efficacy as“peoples judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute course of action required toattain designated types of performances.” It is concerned not with skills one has, but thejudgments of when one can do with whatever skills one has possess. (Bandura, 1986).Schwarzer observed that those with high self-efficacy can take up challenging tasks, continuetill they complete, and in the event of failure can revert back to normalcy. They can visualizeoptimistic and pessimistic scenarios. (Schwarzer, 1977). The popularity of self-efficacy isalso with the controversies. In relation to fear and avoidant behavior, self-efficacy theory isconceptually problematic and is not unambiguously differentiated from outcomeexpectations. (Eastman, 1984). The observation about test of ability is that the relationshipsbetween self-efficacy and outcome expectations are inconsistent with the method ofmeasuring the construct. (Kirsch, 1985). Here in this study self-efficacy is looked upon as anacademic and career related choice and performance indices. 126
  3. 3. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013)Interests: In simple terms Interest is stated as an activity liking, (Lent, 2008). The relationshipof self-efficacy, outcome expectations and interests are the important constructs eitherindependently or cumulatively to develop the students aspirations (Akbulut, 2007) whenchoosing a major, computer science. The Interests can be influenced through ‘Novelty,Complexity, Conflict and uncertainty (Berlyne, 1978). The novelty and complexity are thefruitful factors which could enhance the student’s interests, in which novelty relates to therapidly evolving new technologies and current developments in academics. (George, J.F,2005). The social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) reiterates self-efficacy and outcomeexpectations give raise to interests which provide a conceptual support to make educationaland vocational relevant choices (Lent, 1994). It also observed that self-efficacy and interestsare Bi-directional with over varying time of intervals (Nauta, 2002). Students from theirschool years with their interests and skills develop a passion for career but this may beaffected because of the socio and economic factors (Lent. 1994). There is a finding to showthat partial interest’s determination may be attributing to the genetic factors (Bestworth,1994).Outcome Expectations: The observation about outcome expectation by Bandura (1986) is ascontingent on the adequacy of their performances and care is taken as outcome expectationsare the course of action taken with self- judged efficacy. He further classified outcomeexpectations as Physical (eg Monetary), Social (eg approval), and self-evaluative (eg self-satisfaction). Bandura defined outcome expectations as the persons’ estimate that a givenbehavior will lead to certain outcome. The outcome expectancy can be correlated as it is thepersonally determined to self-efficacy. The low self-efficacy is experienced by those wholack skills and view actions with a sense of futility. The correlation based on the law of effectBaum (1973) observed differently to behavior which is controlled by its immediateconsequences or momentary effects. This has relation to outcome expectations at the level ofaggregated consequences. It is also stated that outcome expectations are the belief about thegiven action (Lent, 2008).3.0 METHODS AND RESULTS The study was conducted by administering a questionnaire to the first year, firstsemester under graduate students engineering of a private university in south India. The datawas analyzed with Statistical package (SPSS) version 17.0 at p < 0.05 to test the significance.The total students are 370 in which 17.3 percent are from Biotech, 15.7 percent students arefrom Civil, 16.5 percent students are from Computer Science (CSE), 18.1 percent studentsare of Electronic and Communication Engineering (ECE), 14.6 percent students are fromElectrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE) students, and 17.8 percent students are fromMechanical Engineering. The samples were selected through stratified random sampling withequal proportionate. The students mean age is 17.8 ± 0.660 years. The gender representationis 78.6 percent are boys and 21.4 percent are girls. Reliability measure (Cronebach Alpha)was estimable in the domain self-efficacy (0.542), Outcome Expectations (0.584) and Interest(0.628).The hypotheses of self-efficacy, outcome expectations and interest were subjected for theirsignificance using the analysis of variances (Table 1.). It shows there is significance in theoutcome expectations with the biotech tech (2.4 ± 0.45) and mechanical (2.5 ± 0.37) students. 127
  4. 4. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013) Table 1. Analysis of Variance Parameter Branches Mean ± SD F Sig. Bio-Technology 3.2 ± 0.69 Civil 3.1 ± 0.38 CSE 3.3 ± 0.10 Self-Efficacy 2.049 .071 ECE 3.2 ± 0.57 EEE 3.3 ± 0.30 Mechanical 3.1 ± 0.33 Bio-Technology 2.6 ± 0.40 Civil 2.4 ± 0.35 CSE 2.3 ± 0.41 Outcome Expectation 4.904 .000** ECE 2.4 ± 0.39 EEE 2.3 ± 0.42 Mechanical 2.5 ± 0.37 Bio-Technology 2.4 ± 0.45 Civil 2.3 ± 0.40 CSE 2.0 ± 0.52 Interest 6.993 .000** ECE 2.2 ± 0.44 EEE 2.0 ± 0.46 Mechanical 2.1 ± 0.52 ** - significance at 1% level The significance of Interests has seen the highest level with students of ECE (2.2 ±0.44), Mechanical (2.1 ± 0.52), and EEE (2.0 ± 0.46). But for self –efficacy; there is noconsiderable difference between the branches. The linear structural relation of threeconstructs Self-efficacy, Interests and Outcome expectations were examined through theMediation Analysis (Table 2). Table 2. Model Summary Std. Unstd. Coeff. Coeff. Model R R Square t Sig. F Sig. Std. Beta Beta Error (Constant) 3.051 0.201 15.151 0.000 1 Self- 0.175 0.031 -0.175 11.614 0.001 -0.206 0.060 -3.408 0.001 Efficacy (Constant) 2.429 0.249 9.761 0.000 Self- 2 0.27 0.073 -0.146 0.061 -0.124 -2.403 0.017 14.469 0.000 Efficacy Interest 0.199 0.049 0.212 4.102 0.000 The model 1 indicates negative trend (β direct = -0.206) towards the outcomeexpectation while there is an increment in self-efficacy scores. Arbitration of “Interest” in themodel 2; implies the positive trend (β indirect = β M - β X = 0.199 - (- 0.146) = 0.345)towards the outcome expectations. 128
  5. 5. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013) Fig.1: Mediation ModelOutcome Expectation = 0.199*Interest - 0.146*Self-Efficacy, Errorvar. (Residuals) = 0.34,R² = 0.073.The Adjusted R Square value was increased from the model 1 (0.031) to Model 2 (0.073)indicates the increased precision along with the Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square (P =1.00). Infers; Interest is a completely mediating between Self Efficacy and OutcomeExpectation. i.e., Self Efficacy exerts its total influence via Interest (β SE – β SE(INT) ) = - 0.206– (- 0.146) = 0.060 ~ 0.000 (Fig.1).4.0 DISCUSSION There is an evident of results goes against the study findings of Akbulut and Looney(2007) that the higher levels of self-efficacy will lead to increased outcome expectations, butgoes with the fact that Self-efficacy, Interests and Outcome expectations are the importantconstituents either independently or cumulatively reflects the students aspirations. Thestudies by Lent et al (1991 & 1993) further confirms that the combination of Self-efficacyand Outcome expectations predicts Interests better than self-efficacy alone. There is findingof Alexander et al (2010), despite the fact that there is a considerable differences on thequestions related to self-efficacy and outcome expectations, has not affected the Interests.The meta analyses (Rottinghaus, 2003) of Self-efficacy and Interests authenticates that thedomains of Self-efficacy and Interests are overlapping and to prove a moderate relationbetween Self-efficacy and Interests.(Lent et al, 1994). The threshold effect regarding theassociation of Self-efficacy and Interests is also hypothesized by Bandura (1986) thatminimum amount of Self-efficacy is required to create Interest and continue the activity, butabove threshold levels there will not be any increase in Interests. Further on this Lenox andSubich (1994) found that the mean Interests scores will be stable at lower levels of Self-efficacy and increases linearly at higher levels. The studies Nauta et al (2002) and Tracey(2002) starts a new dimension on Self-efficacy and Interests that they have reciprocal effectin each other, which is also allowed by the SCCT Model (Lent at al, 1994). Tracey (1997 &2002) further states that Interest may impact Self-efficacy development in motivationalcapacity. 129
  6. 6. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013)5.0 CONCLUSION The fancy of engineering education has attracted majority of students to opt forengineering as their higher education. The constructs Self-efficacy, Outcome expectation,Interests and choice goals are analyzed by Akbulut and Looney (2007) on computer majorstudents. But in this study the Self-efficacy, Outcome expectation and Interests are the onlyfactors studied as the study was carried out with only first year first semester students wherethe interest is the one which is driving them. Another study is also carried out with the socialcognitive career theory (SCCT, Lent et al,1994) on the fourth year seventh semester students.What is the most required thing is that their self-efficacy beliefs is alone not sufficient but theelement of Interest is the most wanted one to have a desired outcome. The students should beeducated to analyze about themselves and prepare them to decide with the required Interest soas to confirm with Lent et al (1994) that career oriented Self-efficacy and Outcomeexpectation relates positively to vocational interests.6.0 REFERENCES1. Intake seats Region wise UG/PG/Diploma (All Inclusive)/ Students/ Statistics/AICTE/www.aicte-india.org2. Alexander, P.M., Holmer, M., Lotriet, H.H., Matthee, M.C., Pieterse, H.V., Naidoo, S.,Twinomurinzi, H., Jordaan, D., Factors Affecting Career Choice: Comparison betweencomputer and other disciplines, Journal of science education, (2010) pp1-32.3. Allan Wigfield., and Jenna Cambria., Students’ achievement values, goal orientations andinterest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes, DevelopmentalReview, 30, 2010. pp 1–35.4. Anne M. Fields., Self-Efficacy and the First-Year University Student’s Authority ofKnowledge: An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 31,Number 6, 2005, pp 539–545.5. Asli Yagmur Akbulut and Clayton Arlen Looney., Inspiring Students to pursue ComputingDegrees, Communications of the ACM /vol. 50, no. 10, 2007, pp 67-71.6. Atef Al-Tamimi and Munir Shuib., Motivation And Attitudes Towards Learning English:A Study Of Petroleum Engineering Undergraduates At Hadhramout University Of SciencesAnd Technology, GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies Volume 9(2), 2009, pp29-55.7. Bandura, A., Social foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,Englewood cliff, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1986, p 39.8. Baum, W.M., The correlation based on Law of effects, Journal of the ExperimentalAnalysis of Behavior, 20, 1973, pp 137-153.9. Berlyne, D.F., Curiosity and Learning, Motivation and Emotions, 2, 1978, pp 97-175.10. C. Eastman., and J. S. Marzillier., Theoretical and Methodological Difficulties inBanduras Self-Efficacy Theory, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1984, pp.213-229.11. D. H. Schunk., Self-efficacy: Educational Aspects, International Encyclopedia of theSocial ler& Behavioral Sciences, 2001, pp 13820-13822.12. Geetha Rao, Engineering tops as the most favoured discipline, Times of India, May 28,2012,>Tech>careers13. George, J.F., Valacich, J.S., and Valor, J., Does Information system still matter?, Lessonfrom disciplines, Comun AIS,16, 2005, pp 219-232. 130
  7. 7. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013)14. Irving Kirsch., Self-Efficacy and Expectancy: Old Wine With New Labels, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 49. No. 3, 1985, pp 824-830.15. Jed-I, Engineering education Round Table Report, 2nd March 2012, www://–education-round-table rt/industry pdf16. Lenox, R. A., & Subich, L. M. The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs andInventoried vocational interests. Career Development Quarterly, 42, (1994). pp 302–313.17. Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., and Bieschke, K.J., Mathematics self-efficacy: source andrelation to science- based career choice, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, (1991).18. Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., and Bieschke, K.J., Predicting Mathematics – related choice andsuccess behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model, Journal of VocationalBehavior, 42, (1993), pp223-236.19. Margaret M. Nauta, Jeffrey H. Kahn, James W. Angell, and Erika A. Cantarelli.,Identifying the Antecedent in the Relation Between Career Interests and Self-Efficacy: Is ItOne, the Other, or Both?, Journal of Counseling Psychology , Vol. 49, No. 3, 2002, PP 290–301.20. Mary Besterfield-Sacre., Cynthia,J, Atman., and Larry, J. Shuman., Engineering StudentAttitudes Assessment, Journal of Engineering Education, 1998, pp133-141.21. Patrick J. Rottinghaus., Lisa M. Larson., and Fred H. Borgen., The relation of self-efficacy and interests: A meta-analysis of 60 samples, Journal of Vocational Behavior 62,2003, pp 221–236.22. Ravikanth Reddy, just three percent of engineers are job ready, Mar 12 2012,>careers23. Robert W,Lent., Steven D. Brown., and Gail Hackett., Toward a Unifying SocialCognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interests, Choice and Performance, Journal ofvocational Behaviour, 45, 1994, pp79-122.24. Robert W. Lent., Hung-Bin Sheu., Clay S. Gloster., and Gregory Wilkins., Longitudinaltest of the social cognitive model of choice in engineering students at historically Blackuniversities, Journal of Vocational Behavior 76, 2010, pp387–394.25. Robert W. Lent., Hunh-Binsheu., Daniel Singley., Janet A.Schmidt., Linda C.Schmidt.,and Clay S.Gloster., Longitudinal relations of self-efficacy to outcome expectations, interestsand major choice goals in engineering students, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 2008, pp328-335.26. Sandra, A.Lathem., Maureen,D.Neumann., and Nancy Hayden., The Socially ResponsibleEngineer: Assessing Student Attitudes of Roles and Responsibilities, Journal of EngineeringEducation, Vol. 100, No. 3, 2011, pp. 444–474.27. Terence J. G. Tracey., The Structure of Interests and Self-Efficacy Expectations: AnExpanded Examination of the Spherical Model of Interests, Journal of CounselingPsychology, Vol. 44, No. 1,32, (1997), pp32-43.28. Tracey, T. J. G. Development of interests and competency beliefs: A 1-year longitudinalstudy of fifth- to eighth-grade students using the ICA–R and structural equation modeling.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, (2002). pp148–163.29. Ursula Fuller and Bob Keim., Should we assess our students’ attitudes?, Seventh BalticSea Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling 2007), Koli National Park,Finland, November 15-18, 2007, pp1-4.30. Ms. Nisha Ashokan and Dr. Jayshree Suresh, “A Study on the Entrepreneurial Intentionamong Students”, International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 3, Issue 3, 2012,pp. 1 - 7, ISSN Print: 0976-6502, ISSN Online: 0976-6510 131