The impact of a career intervention programme on South African Grade 11 learners’ career decision-making self-efficacy

Abstract

There have been increasing calls for career development interventions that take the local context into account while providing a firm theoretical basis to engage with the career processes and attributes of individuals coming from diverse backgrounds. The goal of this study was to determine the effect of a career intervention programme derived from Social Cognitive Career Theory on the career decision-making self-efficacy of Grade 11 learners at three schools with diverse socio-economic backgrounds in the Eastern Cape. Using a quasi-experimental design, measurements were taken at a pretest, post-test and a follow-up occasion 8 weeks after the completion of the programme in a sample of 222 learners using the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. The study demonstrated that the career decision-making self-efficacy of the intervention group improved significantly subsequent to the career intervention programme underscoring the value of the career intervention programme. Although the current study demonstrated a medium effect on the intervention group by the end of the intervention, the time period of the programme may not have been long enough to sustain the impact 8 weeks after the completion of the programme. This may suggest that a longer intervention period or intermittent reinforcement such as booster sessions may be needed to sustain the effect. The study confirms that a group-based career development programme, designed specifically for the South African context, can serve as an essential tool to help high school learners from different socio-economic backgrounds enhance their career maturity expressed in terms of their career decision-making self-efficacy.

Keywords

Career decision-making self-efficacy career development programme career intervention social cognitive career theory socio-economic status

Despite indications of progress in the career education field in South Africa (Flederman, 2009), many young people are left to their own limited resources in planning their future careers. There is a crucial need for an empirically supported career education system for all South African youth (Watson, 2010). While career guidance should ideally be an integral component of the education system, it is common knowledge that career guidance activities vary considerably from one school to another with many South African schools being unable to provide sufficient and comprehensive assistance to learners for subject or career choices (South African Qualifications Authority [SAQA], 2012). Affluent schools often employ the services of psychologists, whereas schools from low socio-economic backgrounds are poorly resourced and generally have limited, if any, access to basic career assessments and information resources (Miles, 2015). Moreover, many schools do not have Life Orientation teachers who have sufficient knowledge and experience to provide career guidance (Du Toit, 2010), leaving learners unprepared to navigate their career exploration on their own. In light of this context, Maree (2012) poses the question:

How can career counselling be tailored and applied to make it more useful to many thousands of students, especially poor and marginalised students, who receive little or no career counselling and are consequently either excluded from sought-after fields of study at institutions of higher learning or lose interest in their studies after having enrolled for particular fields of study? (p. 663)

There is an imperative for professionals specialising in career development to assist the Department of Basic Education in developing a relevant curriculum with regard to career guidance at school level (Naidoo, Pretorius, & Nicholas, in press; SAQA, 2012).

This research study sought to engage with these implicit challenges by developing and assessing a theoretically grounded, group-based career intervention designed to address the career development needs of South African high school learners from diverse socio-economic strata. The intervention was based on Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) and applied to three schools of differing socio-economic strata with assessment conducted at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and 8 week follow-up stages with an intervention/control group research design.

SCCT

Lent, Brown, and Hackett’s (1994) SCCT was used as an a priori conceptual basis for designing the study’s intervention programme. The SCCT model builds on the assumption that several cognitive variables play an important role in career decision-making. SCCT is particularly applicable to the South African context given its emphasis on environmental factors being essential to our understanding of career choice in a country characterised by extensive economic, cultural, and educational variances (Naicker, 1994). Several South African studies have provided varying support for the utility of SCCT as an appropriate basis for career conceptualisation (Buthelezi, Alexander, & Seabi, 2009; G. P. De Bruin, 1999; K. De Bruin & Cornelius, 2011). In particular, Buthelezi et al. (2009) argue that SCCT accommodates the psychological and contextual issues impacting individual career identity that could emanate from the socio-political history of disadvantaged communities. Engaging in a discussion on career barriers or challenges is particularly salient for many learners in the South African context (Albien & Naidoo, in press).

SCCT proposes a dynamic model of career development consisting of reciprocal interaction between three core constructs or processes, namely self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations and choice goals. Self-efficacy beliefs refer to a person’s appraisal about his or her ability to successfully perform a task or behaviour. Self-efficacy beliefs occur on an emotional and cognitive level (C. Brown, Reedy, Fountain, Johnson, & Dichiser, 2000) and are not unitary, fixed, or de-contextualised. Self-efficacy beliefs have at least three behavioural consequences, namely ‘approach versus avoidance’ behaviour (towards or away from an interest), quality of performance of behaviours in the target domain (how competent or not the behaviour can be performed), and persistence in the face of challenges or disconfirming experiences. These consequences of self-efficacy expectations provide a valuable explanatory construct for understanding career-exploration issues (Bandura, 1986).

Lent et al.’s (1994) Social Cognitive Model highlight a complex interplay among the SCCT’s three core constructs. It is viewed as a triadic causal system with a complex interplay among self-efficacy, outcome expectations and choice goals in the self-regulation of behaviour. The combination of self-efficacy beliefs (Can I do this?) and outcome expectations (If I do this, what will happen?) has a direct effect on the formation of career interests which, in turn, lead to goals and ultimately to career development (Buthelezi et al., 2009).

The interplay of variables described in the Social Cognitive Model does not occur in a vacuum as social cognitive and contextual factors directly influence the development of career interests, goals, and actions (Lent et al., 1994). Learners often have to make career choices within the constraints of environmental and personal factors, for example, financial need, educational limitations, gender and ethnic discrimination, or lack of familial support. A recent study affirms parents’ positive attitudes to education as a significant positive influence on peri-urban township learners’ motivation to pursue tertiary education (Albien & Naidoo, in press). Learners whose parents were less involved in and supportive of their career development show delayed career planning and diminished levels of motivation (Buthelezi et al. cited in Miles, 2015). Contextual factors may play a direct role on career choice formation and implementation; for example, people living in poverty might simply not have developed certain career interests because they did not have the exposure, opportunities, or role models which would have enhanced an efficacious belief about their abilities in a particular field or allow them to be optimistic about the outcomes (Buthelezi et al., 2009). These factors can inhibit the development of vocational interests or the pursuit of preferred career goals. Research confirms the impact familial and social influences have on vocational interests, choice goals, and behaviours, through environmental supports and career barriers that a person perceives in relation to choices available (Albien & Naidoo, in press; Buthelezi et al., 2009; Khosa, 1998).

SCCT postulates that people are the products and producers of their environments and their cognitive processes regulate their choices (Buthelezi et al., 2009). The notion of personal agency is crucial as people are active agents in their career development. This has important implications for the development of the intervention programme, as what needs to be addressed is enhancing learners’ self-efficacy as well as helping them negotiate career barriers. Additionally, learners can be taught skills whereby they are able to organise support for their career choices.

This study focused primarily on enhancing learners’ ability to successfully perform career decision-making activities. A central construct of SCCT, career decision-making self-efficacy (CDMSE), can be defined as a person’s degree of belief that she or he can successfully complete tasks necessary to making career decisions (Betz, 2000). It may also be viewed as one of the goals of career counselling. There is extensive evidence that the CDMSE construct is dynamic, and career interventions can be successful at enhancing a person’s efficacy for making career decisions (Reese & Miller, 2006; Scott & Ciani, 2008). The CDMSE construct has generated extensive research in career literature and empirical findings have confirmed positive relationships between CDMSE and a diverse range of pertinent career-related behaviours: differentiated vocational identity (Gushue, Scanlan, Pantzer, & Clarke, 2006), non-traditional career choice among female adolescents (Flores & O’Brien, 2002), career exploration behaviour (Rogers, Creed, & Glendon, 2008), career planning and development (Gushue & Whitson, 2006), and career decision-making attitudes and skills (Amir & Gati, 2006).

SCCT places emphasis on the context in which self-efficacy is examined and, therefore, a great deal of research has investigated socio-cultural variables. For example, some studies have reported significant relationships between CDMSE and career barriers (Choi et al., 2012), ethnic identity (Gushue, 2006), and nationality and gender (Mau, 2000). There is also empirical evidence for a significant relationship between CDMSE and proximal contextual factors: family/parental influences (Hargrove, Creagh, & Burgess, 2002) and peer support (Patel, Salahuddin, & O’Brien, 2008).

Empirical investigations have primarily used correlational and cross sectional designs with convenience samples of university students, and only a few studies have used high school participants (Prideaux & Creed, 2001). Research undertaken on high school students includes a study where Anderson and Brown (1997) found that career development attitude was able to predict CDMSE for rural and urban pupils; C. Brown, Darden, Shelton, and Dipoto (1999) found learners’ beliefs about career exploration significantly related to CDMSE. The current study draws on high school participants and therefore addresses the empirical need for more studies with participants in this life-stage.

In sum, the SCCT provides a useful framework for the design and implementation of a group intervention (Barnard, Deyzel, Adams, Fouche, & Kruger, 2008). More specifically, the theory’s constructs are easily measurable and contextual and personal factors can be taken in cognizance. Working with a SCCT theoretical framework, this study sought to examine the impact of a career development programme on Grade 11 learners’ CDMSE. It was hypothesised that the CDMSE of Grade 11 learners would be enhanced by participation in a career development programme.

Design of career intervention

The career intervention was designed within the theoretical framework of SCCT and aimed to enhance learners’ CDMSE. The intervention was designed at two levels; first, at a theoretical level and, second, at a practical level. Pedagogically relevant and empirically proven techniques and methods were utilised. For example, Bandura’s (1986) four sources of information through which self-efficacy expectations can be learnt or modified and S. D. Brown and Krane’s (2000) five components of an effective career intervention were integrated (Miles, 2015).

The programme consists of five themes: Self-knowledge, World of Work and Further Education, Goals and Decision-Making, and Barriers to Career Development and Career Planning based on Scott and Ciani’s (2008) five behaviours undergirding the CDMSE scale used in this study. The first theme of the programme included an exploration of vocational interests, natural preferences, abilities, values, and an opportunity for learners to write their life-story. This is in accordance with SCCT which suggests that career intervention designs need to focus on learners’ emerging interests, values, and talents as well as the cognitive bases of these characteristics (Hughes & Karp, 2004).

The second theme of the intervention focused on an exploration of the work marketplace and occupational information. The learners were advised on the exponential rate of change occurring in the world of work. To unpack the plethora of possible careers, learners examined careers in various career field clusters. Scope for tertiary education and training in South Africa was explored as well as employment options if further education was not an option. The academic requirements for entry into tertiary educational institutions were discussed with the learners (see National Youth Development Agency, n.d.).

The third theme of the intervention sought to enhance self-efficacy for goal selection. SCCT emphasises the importance of personal goal setting, viewing it as a key motivator of behaviour (Lent et al., 1994). Personal goal setting is an important mechanism through which people exercise personal agency in occupational pursuits. Learners were helped to establish career goals congruent with their personal profile and taught skills required for decision-making.

The SCCT perspective acknowledges that learners’ ability and willingness to translate their interests into goals, and their goals into action will be affected by environmental supports and barriers (Lent et al., 1994). Overcoming career barriers was dealt with in the intervention in theme four where learners’ perceptions of barriers were identified and reframed to clarify the differences between real and perceived barriers. Stead, Els, and Fouad (2004) concluded from their study that negotiating barriers is an important task in career development during the school-to-work transition period for South African youth. The career programme also sought to enhance learners’ support systems and develop opportunity structures whereby learners were trained to access resources.

Theme 5 of the career development programme sought to enhance self-efficacy in vocational planning through preparing learners for the job market and job application processes.

The programme was designed to empower the learners to display personal agency in their career choices (Buthelezi et al., 2009) by making the theme activities interactive and reflective in nature (Albien & Naidoo, in press). Learners were given opportunities to re-exam and re-interpret their capabilities, and they were encouraged to contribute to the learning process. The title of the programme, ‘The Game Plan: You can be the captain of your team’ encapsulates the concept of personal agency central to the intervention. (See Miles (2015) for a full description of the programme which was based on a similar study undertaken by the first author (J.M.) as part of a master’s dissertation. The programme was refined and adapted for the purposes of the current research by both authors who are career practitioners with extensive experience in career development.)

Method

Participants

The career development intervention designed for this study was implemented at three English medium coeducational schools in East London, Eastern Cape. The three schools selected were from diverse socio-economic backgrounds. The study initially recruited a sample of 303 Grade 11 learners. The programme was delivered at each of the three schools during school hours. Because of learner absence from school on the assessment dates, only 111 of the initial 157 learners in the control group were included. Of the 146 learners selected to the intervention group, only 111 attended all 6 sessions of the programme and hence only their data were used in the analyses.

The participants’ ages ranged from 15 to 19 years, with the sample mean age 16.36 years, standard deviation (SD) = 0.81. Two thirds of the sample was female learners. English was not the mother-tongue for the majority of participants; however, English is the language of instruction at all of the schools who participated in the study and the career programme was presented in English. Chi-square tests confirmed that there were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups with regard to age, gender, or home language.

Instrument

CDMSE was measured using the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale – short form (CDMSES-SF) (Taylor & Betz, 1983) and is comprised of five subscales: accurate self-appraisal, gathering occupational information, goal selection, making plans for the future, and problem-solving. The CDMSES-SF consists of 25 items with the response to each statement reflecting the learner’s confidence in being able to accomplish the described task based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete confidence). Higher scores indicate greater levels of CDMSE.

The CDMSES-SF scale is one of the most widely used assessments tools for measuring CDMSE in both vocational research and practice, and there is a proliferation of empirical support for the usefulness of the instrument (Nilsson, Schmidt, & Meek, 2002). MacKenzie (1996) assessed the CDMSES-SF to be a useful instrument for the South African context as it can be used for learners from different socio-economic levels. G. P. De Bruin and Bernard-Phera (2002) confirmed the construct validity of the CDMSES-SF for South African Grade 12 learners.

A review of 41 published journal articles and 7 dissertations (Nilsson et al., 2002) found alpha coefficients ranging from .83 to .96 for total scores on the CDMSES-SF confirming the high degree of internal consistency for the measure. South African studies have yielded reliability coefficients ranging from 0.87 to 0.93 for the total scores on the CDMSES-SF (K. De Bruin & Cornelius, 2011; Watson, Brand, Stead, & Ellis, 2001). However, K. De Bruin and Cornelius’s (2011) study reported low reliability coefficients (from 0.54 to 0.63) for the subscales and elected to use only the total score of the instrument for their study. Researchers have suggested that the CDMSES-SF rather be used as a generalised measure of CDMSE (Watson et al., 2001).

Miller, Sendrowitz, Brown, Thomas, and McDaniel (2009) claim that a growing body of empirical research has demonstrated the ability of the CDMSES-SF to generate valid scores. In a confirmatory factor analysis of the CDMSES-SF for South African high school learners, G. P. De Bruin and Bernard-Phera (2002) confirmed that career decision-making is the general factor that underlies the questionnaire.

Procedure

A quasi-intervention time series design was used with pre- and post-intervention comparisons of CDMSE scores of Grade 11 learners from three schools with diverse socio-economic backgrounds. Non-probability sampling was used due to logistical challenges encountered in getting permission for individual learners to be available for the intervention sessions. Classes were selected based on timetable considerations and convenience, and classes were assigned to either the intervention groups or control groups at each of the three schools. The intervention group and the control group were first assessed before the programme was presented (Time 1) and again at the end of the programme (Time 2) with the CDMSE-SF. Eight weeks later, both sets of groups at the three schools were assessed again (Time 3).

The career development programme was presented to the intervention group at each school once a week for six one-and-a-half hour sessions. The total contact time was therefore 9 hr with J.M. being the facilitator of the career development programme. In an effort to control for message contamination, the learners from the intervention group were asked not to discuss any aspect of the programme with learners from the control group. The control group continued to attend scheduled classes and did not engage in any of the programme’s activities. These participants were given the opportunity to do the intervention programme after the completion of the post tests.

Ethical considerations

The study commenced after ethics clearance was obtained from Stellenbosch University’s Research Ethics Committee, the Eastern Cape Department of Education and the principals of the three schools. To participate in the study, Grade 11 learners were required to get the signed consent of their parents or guardians and to give their own assent. The learners were informed of their rights and the option not to participate or to withdraw from the study with no negative consequence.

Data analysis

After assessing the CDMSE data for normality and equivalence of variance at each assessment time, inferential statistical analyses were conducted with data from the control group and the intervention group using the independent t-test to identify differences between the two groups at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 in terms of CDMSE-SF scores. A paired sample t-test was used to test for significant mean differences between the intervention groups at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 with regard to CDMSE.

Results

The current study yielded low Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each of the five subscales of the CDMSES-SF across the three time measurements ranging from .47 to .69. Hence, consistent with other South African studies and recommendations by South African researchers (K. De Bruin & Cornelius, 2011; Watson et al., 2001), only the total scores of the CDMSES-SF were used in the analysis. The alpha coefficient yielded for the total score of the CDMSES-SF in this study was .86 at Time 1, .88 at Time 2, and .89 at Time 3.

The independent t-test was used to assess whether there was a statistically significant difference between the control group and the intervention group measurements across each of the time series in respect of the total scores of the CDMSES-SF. The CDMSES-SF descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of CDMSES-SF.

Variable	Intervention group			Control group
Variable	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
Time 1	39	3.73	0.49	42	3.71	0.53
Time 2	36	3.97	0.45	34	3.75	0.47
Time 3	36	3.85	0.48	35	3.72	0.48

CDMSES-SF: Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale – short form.

At Time 1, the results indicate that there was no statistically significant difference, t(220) = −0.26; p = .79, between the mean scores of the two groups. This finding confirms that that the two groups were equivalent in CDMSE before the programme was presented.

Comparison of the mean CDMSES-SF scores at Time 2 indicated that the mean difference was statistically significant, t(220) = −3.52; p = .0001, with a small effect size index (d = 0.47). These findings indicate that the intervention programme had a positive impact on the learners’ CDMSE in the intervention group.

At Time 3, the intervention group obtained a mean score of 3.85 (SD = .48) and the control group a mean score of 3.72 (SD = .48). The results of an independent samples t-test indicated that the mean difference was statistically significant, t(220) = −2.08; p = .04, with a small effect size index (d = 0.28). The results indicate that the intervention group’s CDMSE scores were stronger than the control group’s 8 weeks after the completion of the programme.

A second statistical analysis, the paired samples t-test, was conducted to analyse the data for the respective groups across the time series. The statistical procedure examined whether there was a significant difference between the measurements of the intervention group at Time 1, 2, and 3 with respect to the total scores of the CDMSES-SF. The intervention group’s mean score at Time 1 for CDMSE measured 3.73 (SD = .49) while the mean score for Time 2 measured 3.97 (SD = .45). The results of the paired samples t-tests revealed that there was a statistically significant increase between the two mean scores, t(110) = −5.43; p = .000, with a medium effect size index (d = 0.52). The results yielded indicate that the programme had an immediate impact on the learners’ CDMSE. The intervention group’s mean score for CDMSE, at Time 3, measured 3.85 (SD = .48). The results of the paired samples t-tests indicate that there was a statistically significant difference between Times 2 and 3 mean scores, t(110) = 3.42; p = .001, with a small effect size index (d = 0.32). These results indicate that there was a significant decrease in the learners’ CDMSE 8 weeks after the programme was completed. There was also a statistically significant difference between Times 1 and 3 mean scores, t(110) = −2.50; p = .014, with a small effect size index (d = 0.24). These findings indicate that the career programme had a positive impact on the learners’ CDMSE from Times 1 to 3; however, there was a decline in effect from Time Series 2 to 3.

A similar paired samples t-test was performed to analyse the control group data to examine whether there was a significant difference between the measurements Times 1, 2 and 3 with respect to the total scores of the CDMSES-SF. As shown in Table 2, no statistically significant differences were evident which further endorses the findings of the study, that is, the career development programme enhanced the CDMSE of Grade 11 learners who attended schools from diverse socio-economic backgrounds.

Table 2.

Paired sample t-test results for the control group’s CDMSE.

Variable	M	SD	t	p
Time 1 → Time 2	3.71 3.75	0.53 0.47	−1.04	0.150
Time 1 → Time 3	3.71 3.72	0.53 0.48	−0.13	0.448
Time 2 → Time 3	3.75 3.72	0.47 0.48	−0.94	0.174

Evidence supported the hypothesis, more specifically, statistically significant gains were observed in the intervention group for CDMSE, whereas no significant gains were evidenced for the control group’s CDMSE. In addition, these gains were sustained for 8 weeks after the completion of the programme.

Discussion

This research study sought to develop and assess a viable theory-driven career intervention in South African high schools that takes local contextual factors into account. The results of this empirical investigation will first be discussed in relation to the impact of the career development programme on Grade 11 learners’ CDMSE; second, the value of working within a SCCT theoretical framework will be considered, and finally, limitations of the study will be acknowledged.

The findings of the current study indicate that the CDMSE of the learners from the intervention group was significantly enhanced after completing the career development programme. The intervention group showed significant gains from the initial CDMSE level to the final measurements taken 8 weeks after the conclusion of the programme. The CDMSE gains of the intervention group were corroborated when compared to the control group’s scores where no gains were evidenced. A small practical significance was yielded. In essence, this means that the Grade 11 learners from the intervention group will be better equipped to engage with and complete the career development tasks with an increase in their CDMSE scores. The learners in the intervention group were enabled to identify interests and potentially satisfying careers and engage confidently with the barriers that may lie in their career paths. Learners were empowered to believe that they have personal agency with regard to their future careers. Career self-efficacy coupled with outcome expectations lead to the generation of career interests, goals, and ultimately career development performance (Buthelezi et al., 2009). Learners who do not make a confident decision about their career goals are more likely to vacillate, drop out of school, have lower grades, and experience more difficulty with adjusting to tertiary education (Reese & Miller, 2010). These results are consistent with previous research findings that demonstrated the usefulness and effectiveness of career development courses on enhancing CDMSE (Reese & Miller, 2006; Scott & Ciani, 2008).

There is a tendency to neglect the period after a career intervention has been delivered (Heppner & Heppner, 2003). Hughes and Karp (2004) note from their meta-analyses that most studies did not conduct follow-up research over time to see the lasting nature of any knowledge gain or attitude change. In the current study, the intervention group showed significant gains from Time 1 to Time 2. The CDMSE gain, however, was not sustained from Time 2 to Time 3. Reinforcement is likely needed for internalisation to occur (Lent et al., 1994). This finding is important as it adds to research insight into the longevity of intervention work. Consideration should be given to the duration and timing of the intervention. It is suggested that career development programmes be followed up with booster sessions during the subsequent weeks of the programme in order to consolidate the impact of the intervention. Additionally, a programme of longer duration, involving more sessions, may contribute to a more sustained outcome.

The results of the present study are significant as they lend empirical support to the theoretical role of SCCT as an effective model to bolster South African learners’ confidence in making career decisions. Indeed, the findings from this study contribute to current research and practice by shedding light on the impact of a career development programme which has been specifically designed within the SCCT theoretical framework for the South African context. Furthermore, the success of the intervention is believed to be attributable to the utilisation of a contextually appropriate established career theory (G.P. De Bruin, 1999) as opposed to many career development programmes which are generically designed with intuition and common sense. Results from the present study have valuable implications for the design and development of relevant career intervention programmes for South African learners. There was evidence that the intention to form a link between practice and theory in the development of a South African career intervention programme was achieved, although qualitative feedback would have been helpful. Additionally, the study’s findings confirm the utility of CDMSE as a construct that can be enhanced during a 6-week intervention. The intervention, underpinned by a SCCT theoretical framework, promoted positive yet realistic career self-efficacy and outcome beliefs.

While this study and research clearly supports the notion that career interventions are useful and effective in bringing about positive change in South African learners’ CDMSE, there is less clarity regarding the specific mechanism that increases CDMSE. Career intervention research needs to investigate the processes and mechanisms of change to build on current research (Reese & Miller, 2006). Research is required to examine how career interventions specifically affect career-related beliefs. Group processing of the individual inputs may also be a contributing factor facilitating vicarious learning and worth further research particularly in the South African context (Albien & Naidoo, in press).

Although the results of this study are generally encouraging, several limitations need to be highlighted. First, the study only included self-efficacy in career decision-making as a measure thereby excluding other career-related self-efficacy measures. CDMSE is distinct from self-efficacy for other career behaviours (Betz & Hackett, 1981) and, therefore, this study’s findings may not be applicable to other types of self-efficacy variables.

Second, the study population was limited to three schools in the East London district. Cross validation of the present results is required with random assignment of participants to the intervention and control groups to allow for a broader generalisation of results. Hence, further research is needed to determine whether these findings would replicate themselves in different South African urban settings.

Third, the sample size was relatively small and may not have allowed sufficient power to detect all effects present. Attrition is a typical challenge in a quasi-experimental design across three time series.

Fourth, it was not possible to do random sampling of participants due to school logistical considerations. Care, therefore, should be exercised in drawing inferences of the findings to other populations of Grade 11 learners (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006).

Fifth, the data presented in this study were derived from the CDMSES-SF, a self-reported measure, which can be subjective without further forms of corroboration. Hence, it is suggested that further research be conducted that examines the same construct using data derived from additional sources, for example, from other instruments measuring similar career attributes, or collateral from teachers, parents and actual academic achievement data. Additionally, the present research was undertaken within a quantitative paradigm and thus participants were not asked for qualitative comment or feedback on the attributes. To increase the depth and richness of the findings, future research may carry out mixed-method analyses whereby quantitative results are supported and supplemented by qualitative information. Participants could be interviewed or a focus group could be used after the survey portion of the study is completed. Moreover, a qualitative approach may also assist in identifying the mechanisms that undergird the career decision-making process; evaluative feedback may also help to improve the content and design and hence the efficacy of the programme.

In conclusion, the current study was born out of an attempt to alleviate and heighten awareness of the problems experienced by South African youth in making effective, informed career decisions. Coupled to this, South Africa needs to build a body of research and career interventions that is indigenous (Bernard-Phera, 2000; Maree, 2012) and relevant for the South African population. A group-based career development programme, with a sound theoretical basis, was considered as a viable alternative to the traditional individual career interview approach in assisting learners from diverse SES backgrounds with their career decision-making processes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors express gratitude to Mr. Henry Steel of Stellenbosch University and Dr. Jacques Pietersen of Nelson Metropolitan University for their assistance with the statistical analyses.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Albien

Naidoo

A. V.

(in press). Social career influences of Xhosa adolescents elicited using the systems theory framework in a peri-urban South African township. South African Journal of Higher Education.

Amir

Gati

(2006). Facets of career decision-making difficulties. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24, 483–503.

Anderson

Brown

(1997). Self-efficacy as a determinant of career maturity in urban and rural high school seniors. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 305–315.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A socio-psychological model of career choice and work behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barnard

Deyzel

Adams

Fouche

Kruger

(2008). Community career counselling: ‘Cleaning the house well as a workplace skill’. New Voices in Psychology, 4(2), 51–67.

Bernard-Phera

M. J.

(2000). The relationship between career maturity and career decision-making self-efficacy expectations among disadvantaged learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Betz

N. E.

(2000). Self-efficacy theory as a basis for career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 205–222.

Betz

N. E.

Hackett

(1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 18, 326–339.

Brown

Darden

E. D.

Shelton

M. L.

Dipoto

M. C.

(1999). Career exploration and self-efficacy of high school students: Are there urban/ suburban differences? Journal of Career Assessment, 7, 227–237.

10.

Brown

Reedy

Fountain

Johnson

Dichiser

(2000). Battered women’s career decision-making self-efficacy: Further insights and contributing factors. Journal of Career Assessment, 8, 251–266.

11.

Brown

S. D.

Krane

N. E. R.

(2000). Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of dust: Old assumption and new observations about career counselling. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of counselling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 740–766). New York, NY: John Wiley.

12.

Buthelezi

Alexander

Seabi

(2009). Adolescents’ perceived career challenges and needs in a disadvantaged context in South African from a social cognitive career theoretical perspective. South African Journal of Higher Education, 23, 505–520.

13.

Choi

B. Y.

Park

Yang

Lee

S. K.

Lee

S. M.

(2012). Understanding career decision self-efficacy: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Career Development, 39, 443–460.

14.

De Bruin

G. P.

(1999). Social cognitive career theory as an explanatory model for career counselling in South Africa. In Stead

G. B.

Watson

M. B.

(Eds.), Career psychology in the South African context (pp. 91–102). Pretoria, South Africa: J. L. van Schaik.

15.

De Bruin

G. P.

Bernard-Phera

(2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of the career development questionnaire and the career decision-making self-efficacy scale for South African high school students. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28, 1–6.

16.

De Bruin

Cornelius

(2011). Self-directed learning and career decision-making. Acta Academica, 43, 214–235.

17.

Du Toit

F. G.

(2010). An evaluation of a career guidance programme in rural schools in Mpumalanga (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

18.

Flederman

(2009). Navigational tools for learners, really? What is available, what are the challenges and what should be done? An environmental scan of the careers guidance field in South Africa (South African Qualifications Authority, Career Guidance challenges and opportunities). Waterkloof: South African Qualifications Authority.

19.

Flores

L. Y.

O’Brien

K. M.

(2002). The career development of Mexican American adolescent women: A test of social cognitive career theory. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 49, 14–27.

20.

Gushue

G. V.

(2006). The relationship of ethnic identity, career decision-making self-efficacy and outcome expectations among Latino high school students. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68, 85–95.

21.

Gushue

G. V.

Scanlan

K. R.

Pantzer

K. M.

Clarke

C. P.

(2006). The relationship of career decision-making self-efficacy, vocational identity, and career exploration behaviour in African American high school students. Journal of Career Development, 33, 19–28.

22.

Gushue

G. V.

Whitson

M. L.

(2006). The relationship among support, ethnic identity, career decision self-efficacy, and outcome expectations in African American high school students: Applying social cognitive career theory. Journal of Career Development, 33, 112–125.

23.

Hargrove

B. K.

Creagh

M. G.

Burgess

B. L.

(2002). Family interaction patterns as predictors of vocational identity and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 61, 185–201.

24.

Heppner

(2003). Identifying process variables in career counselling: A research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 62, 429–452.

25.

Hughes

K. L.

Karp

M. M.

(2004). School-based career development: A synthesis of the literature. New York, NY: National Training Support Centre, Columbia University.

26.

Khosa

(1998). The career decisions of rural black high school students (Unpublished master’s thesis). Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg, South Africa.

27.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Towards a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 45, 79–122.

28.

MacKenzie

S. J.

(1996). The impact of the South African post-matric programmes on career maturity and self-efficacy (Unpublished master’s thesis). Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg, South Africa.

29.

Maree

J. G.

(2012). Career counselling in South African institutions of higher learning in the 21st century: Rediscovering the potential of qualitative approaches. South African Journal of Higher Education, 26, 661–669.

30.

Mau

(2000). Cultural differences in career decision-making styles and self- efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 57, 365–378.

31.

McMillan

J. H.

Schumacher

(2006). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (4th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.

32.

Miles

(2015). The impact of a career development programme on the career self-efficacy and academic motivation of Grade 11 learners from diverse socio-economic backgrounds (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

33.

Miller

M. J.

Sendrowitz

R. K.

Brown

S. D.

Thomas

McDaniel

(2009). A confirmatory test of the factor structure of the short form of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 507–519.

34.

Naicker

(1994). A reply to ‘psycho-social aspects of developmental career theories’. South African Journal of Psychology, 24, 235–237.

35.

Naidoo

A. V.

Pretorius

T. B.

Nicholas

L. J.

(in press). The emergence of career psychology in South Africa: A socio-historical perspective. In Stead

G. B.

Watson

M. B.

(Eds.), Career psychology in the South African context (3rd ed.). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.

36.

National Youth Development Agency. (n.d.). Career guidance manual. Johannesburg, South Africa: Author.

37.

Nilsson

J. E.

Schmidt

C. K.

Meek

W. D.

(2002). Reliability generalization: An examination of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 647–658.

38.

Patel

G. S.

Salahuddin

M. N.

O’Brien

M. K.

(2008). Career decision-making self-efficacy of Vietnamese adolescents’ role of acculturation, social support, socioeconomic status and racism. Journal of Career Development, 34, 218–241.

39.

Prideaux

Creed

P. A.

(2001). Career maturity, career decision-making self-efficacy and career indecision: A review of the accrued evidence. Australian Journal of Career Development, 10(3), 7–12.

40.

Reese

R. J.

Miller

C. D.

(2006). Effects of a university career development course on career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 252–266.

41.

Reese

R. J.

Miller

C. D.

(2010). Using outcome to improve a career development course: Closing the scientist-practitioner gap. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 207–219.

42.

Rogers

M. E.

Creed

P. A.

Glendon

A. I.

(2008). The role of personality in adolescent career planning and exploration: A social cognitive perspective. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 73, 132–142.

43.

Scott

A. B.

Ciani

K. D.

(2008). Effects of an undergraduate career class on men’s and women’s career decision-making self-efficacy and vocational identity. Journal of Career Development, 34, 263–285.

44.

South African Qualifications Authority. (2012). An environmental scan of career advisory services in South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.saqa.org.za/docs/genpubs/2014/env_scan_cas.pdf

45.

Stead

G. B.

Els

Fouad

N. A.

(2004). Perceived career barriers among South African high school learners. South African Journal of Psychology, 34, 206–221.

46.

Taylor

K. M.

Betz

N. E.

(1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 22, 63–81.

47.

Watson

M. B.

(2010). Career psychology in South Africa: Addressing and redressing social justice. Australian Journal of Career Development, 19, 24–29.

48.

Watson

M. B.

Brand

H. H.

Stead

G. B.

Ellis

R. R.

(2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the career decision-making self-efficacy scale among South African university students. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 27, 43–46.