Understanding the Career Development of Underprepared College Students

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the career development of underprepared college students using relational career theory. Specifically, the constructs of family influence, locus of control, and career decision-making self-efficacy were explored as they relate to perceived success in college. Significant correlations between external locus of control and family expectations, financial support, and values and beliefs were found indicating that greater family influence is related to external control. Additionally, higher levels of career decision-making self-efficacy were related to internal locus of control and informational support from family. These findings support previous research as well as theorized relational career theory connections.

Keywords

career development underprepared college students career counseling relational career theory locus of control family influence career decision-making self-efficacy

Underprepared college students, or students who need remedial coursework to be college ready, are a growing population of students who have specific and unique career needs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). These career needs impact college student retention through challenges such as increased time to graduate, financial pressures due to increased time in school, and limited choices of college major because of having to take additional remedial courses. In addition to challenges related to taking remedial coursework, underprepared students are also likely to fall into other categories of students already identified as at risk, such as first-generation college goers (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004), students from low socioeconomic groups (Walpole, 2003), and being of a racial/ethnic minority (Aud et al., 2011). Combined, these characteristics make underprepared college students a population with more career needs than the typical college student. Career interventions, such as career planning courses, can help with retention efforts (Reardon, Melvin, McClain, Peterson, & Bowman, 2015). However, career counseling often involves career choice and decision making using traditional career theories. With underprepared college students, choosing a major or career may not be the career issue they face. Rather, underprepared college students may need career counseling to help them navigate other career-related issues. Additionally, contextual factors related to their development, such as family influence and cultural factors, can play a role in their career decisions (Blustein, 2011). Thus, relational career theory (RCT) serves as a useful lens through which to examine this group. This study sought to better understand the relational factors associated with the career needs of underprepared college students to provide practitioners with strategies to better serve this population.

Underprepared College Students

Each year, more students enter college not yet ready for college-level coursework (Provasnik & Planty, 2008). In all, the number of students taking remedial courses in college is increasing (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010), with 36% of college students reporting taking at least one remedial course (Aud et al., 2011). These students are culturally diverse, but some similarities exist. They are more likely to be either Black or Hispanic, slightly more likely to be female, and are more likely to be first-generation college students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). These groups already experience certain academic and career challenges that are amplified by having to take remedial coursework.

Underprepared college students face unique challenges that may affect their success in college. Because of the required extra courses, students may spend a longer time in college than other students (Attewell, Lavin, Domina, & Levey, 2006; Kolajo, 2004). This increased time in college may result in added financial pressures for students taking remedial courses (Goldstein, 1997; Palmer, Davis, & Hilton, 2009). Adams et al. (2012) surveyed 31 states in a study looking at remediation and graduation rates. Researchers found that 9.5% of community college students in remediation graduated, while 13.9% of students not in remediation graduated; in 4-year universities, 35.1% of students in remediation graduated, but 55.7% of students not in remediation graduated (Adams et al., 2012).

These students are in great need of support services. However, underprepared college students may be less likely to seek out support services due to the belief that they need to do things on their own (Palmer et al., 2009). Finally, underprepared college students may be unaware they are taking remedial courses or of the financial and academic ramifications of taking remedial coursework (Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2002). All of these factors may influence the academic success of underprepared college students.

Career needs

Some research indicates that underprepared college students have specific career needs connected to career decision-making self-efficacy and locus of control. These needs suggest that relationships impact these aspects of their career development. For example, students from ethnic minority groups with low academic self-efficacy tend to be more likely to be underprepared for college (Orange & Ramalho, 2013), indicating a possible cultural or relational link to self-efficacy beliefs. Stuber (2011) learned that White, low-income, first-generation college students, many of whom are academically underprepared, often feel marginalized by or socially disconnected from their peers as well. Underprepared college students often place importance on their family needs, choosing colleges close to home (Kern, 2000) and engaging less in on-campus social activities (Grimes & David, 1999). In terms of locus of control, underprepared students are more likely to believe that their postsecondary institutions do not value or understand them, and they are powerless to address this issue (DeRosa & Dolby, 2014). Students with an external locus of control also are less likely to demonstrate strong decision-making skills (Baiocco, Laghi, & D’Alessio, 2009). Duffy and Dik (2009) posited that relational factors moderate career development for underrepresented groups, constraining or motivating an individual’s choices. Peterson (1993) found a positive relationship between perceived career decision-making self-efficacy and academic integration for underprepared college students. These constructs all suggest a relational perspective of career development for underprepared college students.

Relational Career Theory

According to RCT, people and culture impact career development and should be considered in career counseling (Blustein, 2011). Relational theory suggests that knowledge creation occurs through social interaction (Young & Collin, 2004). So while traditional career theories use assessments and other tools to draw information out of the client, RCT counselors seek to learn about clients through a relational lens. Basic assumptions of RCT are that knowledge is created through relationships, understanding is historically and culturally grounded, and individuals can have different views of the world (Blustein, Schultheiss, & Flum, 2004).

This theory also provides a basis for understanding the career development of individuals who have limited choice in their career. For underprepared students, choice may be limited by financial need or lack of academic preparedness. When career choice is moderated or limited, locus of control may be more affected by external factors than internal ones (Duffy & Dik, 2009). Research suggests that locus of control is related to aspects of career decision making (Baiocco et al., 2009; Gati et al., 2011). Contextual or external factors that contribute to locus of control may be more relevant for populations that typically have less control over their lives. Duffy and Dik (2009) suggested that most career research has focused on populations who have the ability to have more internal control over choices. However, for underrepresented groups, external factors may be more salient.

RCT also suggests that families influence career and work in a variety of ways. Family relationships form the context through which individuals make meaning (Blustein, 2011). Researchers found varying effects of the influence of family on aspects of career development such as career commitment and decidedness, career decision-making self-efficacy, and career indecision (Felsman & Blustein, 1999; Whiston & Keller, 2004). For example, Whiston and Keller (2004) noted that family influences career commitment and decidedness. The research on relationships and career development indicates that relationships with family members do play a part in career development.

Finally, career decision self-efficacy, a construct often associated with career and academic success (Baiocco et al., 2009; Gati et al., 2011; Lent & Brown, 1996), may have relational components that can aid in the understanding of RCT. Lent and Brown (1996) described the concept of self-efficacy, or feeling capable of doing tasks needed to accomplish a specific goal, as it applies to career development. Previous research explored the connection between relational theory and career decision-making self-efficacy (Hargrove, Creagh, & Burgess, 2002). Findings are mixed, with some qualitative research indicating that others are actively involved in career decision making (Phillips, Christopher-Sisk, & Gravino, 2001) while other research found less of a family influence on this factor (Whiston, & Keller, 2004). These conflicting findings signify the need for further research in this area.

It is commonly known that student services that include career development, such as academic advising and career counseling, contribute to the retention of students (Drake, 2011; Reardon et al., 2015). However, career counselors and academic advisors typically use traditional career theories that focus on the individual and fitting or placing the individual into a major or career based on interests (Holland, 1997). While these approaches are still in use today, career theories have expanded to include the social and contextual influences on career (Blustein, 2011; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994; Savickas, 2011). RCT takes the inclusion of social and contextual influences a step further and considers them integral to the creation of career knowledge, and thus, career development (Bassot, 2012). In this study, we sought to examine how the relational aspects of career decision making, locus of control, and family influence related to perceived success of underprepared students. Specifically, we wondered about the typical levels of these constructs, how they related to perceived success, and whether there were differences by gender.

Method

Participants

The population for this study consisted of 705 first-year students who placed into at least one of the remedial courses during the spring semester at a single mid-sized, 4-year, public university. The university has an open admission policy in which most in-state students with a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma are admitted without regard for high school grades or test scores. According to the university website, approximately 11% of students are minorities. Before registering for university courses, students must take a placement exam to determine college ability level in math, English, and reading courses. The university offers remedial courses in math, English, and reading.

All students who placed into at least one developmental course were considered as part of the underprepared student population. A total of 140 students completed the study for a response rate of 19.9%. Of the participants, 45.4% were male and 54.6% were female. The majority were 18 to 23 years old (86.1%), while 13.8% were 24 years old or older. Sixty-five percent were White and 13.8% were African American; the remaining participants were from other ethnicities. Many of the participants were first-generation college students, with 18.2% reporting no postsecondary education for either parent and another 35% reporting some college experience but no earned degree for either parent.

Instrumentation

Family Influence Scale

The Family Influence Scale (FIS; Fouad et al., 2010) includes 22 items answered using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Examples of scale items include: “My family expects me to select a career that has a certain status,” and “My family discussed career issues with me at an early age.” Scoring includes four subscales: Family Expectations, Values and Beliefs Support, Financial Support, and Informational Support. For the Family Expectations scale, family expectations indicates narrowed career choices based on family, culture, religion, or gender. Values and Beliefs Support refers to emotional support provided by family. Financial Support means times when family provided material or money to support the individual’s education or career. Finally, the Information Support subscale refers to work and career information provided by family members. Higher scores indicate a higher level of family influence on career development (Fouad et al., 2010). Fouad et al. (2010) found a Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .82 to .89 on the various subscales showing appropriate reliability. For this study, internal reliability for the scale was .87, with subscales ranging from .47 to .90.

Internality, Powerful Others, and Control Scale

The Internality, Powerful Others, and Control Scale (IPC; Levenson, 1981) was created to measure internal and external locus of control. The IPC consists of 24 items and three subscales: Internality, Powerful Others, and Chance. The Internality subscale measures the extent to which individuals believe they have control over their lives. The Powerful Others subscale considers the extent to which individuals believe powerful others influence their lives. The Chance subscale measures the extent to which individuals believe chance influences their lives. The items are scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Examples of items include “I feel like what happens in life is mostly determined by powerful people” and “When I get what I want, it’s usually because I’m lucky.” Individuals may score high or low on any of the subscales (Levenson, 1981). Levenson (1973) found a moderately high reliability for the scale. In this study, internal reliability was run for each scale. The Internality scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .55, Powerful Others had a Cronbach’s alpha of .79, and Chance had a Cronbach’s alpha of .75.

Career Decision-making Self-efficacy Scale

The Career Decision-making Self-efficacy Scale–Short Form (CDSE-SF; Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996) consists of 25 items and five subscales: Self-Appraisal, Occupational Information, Goal Selection, Planning, and Problem Solving. Examples of scale items include “How much confidence do you have that you could use the Internet to find information about occupations that interest you” and “How much confidence do you have that you could accurately assess your abilities.” Responses are answered using a five-level confidence continuum ranging from 1 (no confidence at all) to 5 (complete confidence). The score is determined by the sum total of all 25 items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of career decision-making self-efficacy. The CDSE-SF was tested with other at-risk populations of undergraduate students and acceptable levels of reliability were found (Chaney, Hammond, Betz, & Multon, 2007). For this study, internal reliability for the scale was a Cronbach’s alpha of .95.

Demographic survey

A short demographic survey was also included. Questions asked about age, gender, race and ethnicity, year in college, college major, parent education level, and number of developmental courses needed. Participants were also asked to rate the likelihood of passing their remedial courses this semester. Two 5-point Likert-type questions (very unlikely to very likely) inquired about perceived likelihood of graduating from their current university and college in general; responses to these questions were used in the stepwise regression analysis.

Procedure

All first-year freshmen who placed into the developmental classes were given the opportunity to complete the online surveys. Participants took the surveys in the following order: Family Influence Scale (Fouad et al., 2010), Internality, Powerful Others, and Chance Scales (Levenson, 1981), CDSE (Betz et al., 1996), and demographic questionnaire. Participation in this study was voluntary, and students were made aware of this information. Students were not penalized or rewarded for participation choice. Informed consent was obtained online at the start of the survey. At that time, students either agreed to participate and take the survey or did not agree and were directed appropriately. Upon completion of the survey, participants were invited to enter their e-mail address to be entered into a raffle for one of the two $50 gift cards.

Results

Descriptive statistics for the FIS, the IPC, and the CDSE-SF are provided in Table 1. For perceived success, two variables are reported: perceived success in courses and perceived success in college. For the FIS, a mean of 70 was slightly above a midrange score of 55. Scores for the subscales of the FIS suggest family appears to have an influence on providing informational support, moderate influence on family expectations, and lower influence through financial support and values and beliefs. The IPC responses indicate that students have high levels of internal locus of control and moderate levels of control attributed to powerful others and chance. For the CDSE-SF, participants appeared to be fairly confident in their ability to make career decisions. Perceived success in courses suggested that students felt they were likely to very likely to successfully complete their remedial coursework. Students appeared to strongly believe in their overall success in college as well. Generally, students felt likely to graduate from college.
Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics.

N M SD Score range

Family Influence Scale 117 70.94 11.71 22–110

Informational Support 132 29.43 7.62 8–40

Family Expectations 130 19.85 4.06 6–30

Financial Support 132 13.3 2.11 5–25

Values/Beliefs 133 8.33 3.5 3–15

Internality 119 32.92 6.43 0–48

Powerful Others 117 20.45 8.81 0–48

Chance 125 21.54 8.7 0–48

Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy 115 3.74 .72 1–5

Perceived success in courses

Algebra review 89 4.54 .85 1–5

Intermediate algebra 85 4.19 1.04 1–5

Strategies for writers 71 4.41 .94 1–5

Introduction to composition 80 4.41 1.03 1–5

Skills for college reading 74 4.53 .8 1–5

Academic reading strategies 102 4.58 .87 1–5

Perceived success in college

Likely to graduate from current college 130 3.88 1.3 1–5

Likely to graduate from 4-year college 130 4.2 1.14 1–5

Note. SD = standard deviation.

Influences on Perceived Success

To determine how the independent variables of family influence, locus of control, and career decision-making self-efficacy related to the dependent variable of perceived success in school, we first ran a correlation matrix to determine relationships between variables. Subscales and the total score for the FIS, all scales of the IPC, and the total score for the CDSE-SF were included in the analysis.

The correlation matrix can be found in Table 2. On the left side of the matrix, the variables are listed. Along the top, the same variables are listed in the same order with a number indicating the variable; Informational Support is 1, Family Expectations is 2, and so on. With correlations, a score close to 1 indicates a stronger correlation than a score closer to 0. A positive correlation means that the variables increase or decrease in the same direction. A negative correlation means that one variable increases while one decreases.
Table 2.
Correlation Matrix.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Informational Support 1.0

Family Expectations .50 1.0

Financial Support .07 .39 1.0

Values and Beliefs .11 .31 .66 1.0

FIS Total .83 .81 .22 .54 1.0

Internality .15 .17 −.01 −.02 .12 1.0

Powerful Others .14 .21* .49 .29 .27 .09 1.0

Chance .04 .19* .47 .24 .18 .15 .64 1.0

CDSE .25 .16 −.18 −.13 .17 .44 −.19 −.18 1.0

Graduate from current college .05 .09 .16 −.01 .04 .08 .02 .08 .08 1.0

Graduate from any college .15 .04 .13 −.06 .06 .09 .02 .05 .05 .53**

Note. CDSE = Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).

Several significant relationships were found between the different scales of the IPC and the subscales of the FIS. This indicates that higher scores on the scales of Family Expectations, Financial Support, and Values/Beliefs are related to higher levels of external control by Powerful Others and Chance. Significant relationships were also found with the CDSE-SF. Thus, higher levels of career decision-making self-efficacy were related to higher levels of information support from family and higher levels of internal locus of control. However, no correlations were found between the independent variables and the two dependent variables, likelihood of graduating from current college and likelihood of graduating from a 4-year. Therefore, a planned stepwise regression was not completed. To determine differences by gender on the independent variables of FIS, IPC, and CDSE-SF, separate multivariate analyses of variance were run. Overall, there were no significant differences by gender on the FIS, IPC, and CDSE-SF, suggesting that there was no difference by gender on these relational variables.

Discussion

This study considered the career needs of underprepared students through the lens of RCT. Relational theories (Blustein, 2011; Richardson, 1993) suggest that social factors are especially important for populations that may have limited choices in their career or are underserved by traditional career theories. Underprepared college students represent one group of atypical career seekers who have unique career needs. The discussion seeks to better explain underprepared college students as well as RCT.

A note should be made about the participants in this study. Although the college has an 11% minority rate, our participants were more diverse. Also, nearly one fifth of our participants were true first-generation college students, while another 35% had parents with college-going experience but no earned degrees. Underprepared college students are more likely to be from a low socioeconomic status (SES; Adams et al., 2012), of a racial or ethnic minority status (Adams et al., 2012), or a first-generation college student (Hoyt, 1999). Therefore, these factors may confound the relationship between the variables and perceived success.

Family Influence

The Family Influence Scale (Fouad et al., 2010) measured the influence of family on career development. With the FIS, higher scores indicate higher levels of family influence. In this study, the mean was 70.94. This score indicates that family has some influence in career development of our participants.

Upon closer look at the four subscales, the influence of family on career gains some clarity. Underprepared college students did not receive much informational support from their parents and families about career development. This finding supports research that at-risk college students receive less information about occupations (Ladany, Melincoff, Constantine, & Love, 1997). A similar result occurred for financial support, indicating that these students did not receive this from their families. Based on the literature, financial support is related to college retention (Hoyt, 1999). Therefore, underprepared college students may be less likely to graduate from college because of this lack of financial support. For the Family Expectation subscale, however, participants indicated a moderate level of family expectations on career. Whiston and Keller (2004) found that positive family expectations influenced career positively and negative expectations influenced career negatively. Although the current results do not specify positive or negative family expectations, they do indicate that family may have an impact on career development. Finally, the Values/Beliefs subscale implied that the values and beliefs of parents and family have a moderate impact on career development of underprepared college students. On the basis of the results, underprepared college students appear to receive limited support from family for the career development in the areas of information and finances but more related to values and expectations.

Locus of Control

The Internality, Powerful Others, and Chance Scales (Levenson, 1981) measure how an individual perceives control over his or her life. In this study, underprepared college students had moderately high levels of internal locus of control. Research suggests that high levels of an internal locus of control are positively related to career development (Bacanli, 2006; Powell & Luzzo, 1998). Related to influence of luck and powerful others, these underprepared college students also appeared to have moderate levels of external control. Previous research demonstrated higher levels of external control in individuals from a lower SES (Lachman & Weaver, 1998). Underprepared college students appear to have moderately high levels of internal control and moderate levels of the two types of external control. As mentioned earlier, internal control has been linked to positive career development in the literature, whereas external control has been considered as a moderator to career (Duffy & Dik, 2009). However, Duffy and Dik (2009) proposed that external factors, such as family, may be part of career development rather than negatively impact it. The moderate levels of both external control and the moderately high levels of internal control suggest that underprepared college students perceive they have control over their career, but are also aware of external factors, such as family, that may influence career development.

Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy

The CDSE-SF (Betz et al., 1996) measures an individual’s level of confidence in making career decisions. In this study, underprepared college students scored moderately high on career decision-making self-efficacy. For comparison, Chaney et al. (2007) reported similar mean scores for African American and Caucasian college students. On the basis of the results, underprepared college students seem to have confidence in their abilities to make career decisions. Research suggests that higher levels of attachment to parents and family influence may result in higher levels of career decision making (Germeijs & Verschueren, 2009; Hargrove et al., 2002). Relational theorists suggest that family members may be part of the career decision-making process (Duffy & Dik, 2009). Based on RCT, the findings of higher levels of career decision-making self-efficacy contradicts the lower to moderate scores on the subscales of the FIS. These findings indicate that there is not a relationship between family and career decision-making self-efficacy. However, this may be the result of unrealistic ratings of perceived success mentioned earlier. Students may be overly confident in their abilities to make career decisions without a realistic foundation for these beliefs.

Explaining Perceived Success

Academic success is related to career choices and career success (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). Therefore, understanding how the RCT constructs of family influence, locus of control, and career decision-making self-efficacy interact with perceived success in college can help us better understand underprepared college students. In this study, no relationship was found between RCT constructs and perceived success. No research has looked specifically at perceived success and RCT. However, Whiston and Keller (2004) reported various influences of family on career, including both positive and negative relationships and no relationships. Additionally, this lack of relationship may be due to unrealistic beliefs of perceived success of underprepared college students.

Although RCT was not found to be a predictor of perceived student success, significant findings from the correlational analysis do help to better explain RCT. First, external locus of control was related to different aspects of family influence. When students had higher levels of family expectations, financial support, and influence from values and beliefs, they indicated higher levels of external control attributed to powerful others and chance. One of the main tenets of RCT is that family does impact career development (Blustein, 2011). Duffy and Dik (2009) theorized that family influence may be related to external locus of control and, thus, serve as a moderator for career development. These findings support this suggestion. Additionally, career decision-making self-efficacy was found to be related to informational support from family and internal locus of control. Again, Duffy and Dik suggested that family may serve as a moderator to career development. By providing information about careers to underprepared college students, family members may be helping their students feel more confident in their ability to make career decisions. Feeling more confident in career decision making is also related to higher levels of internal control which has been related to positive career development (Bacanli, 2006; Powell & Luzzo, 1998). The findings from this study indicate relationships between the different RCT constructs of family influence, locus of control, and career decision-making self-efficacy.

Limitations

As with all studies, limitations did exist. The first limitation is the population being studied. Previous research indicates that underprepared college students who attend their developmental classes are successful (Goldrick-Rab, 2010). However, many students do not complete their developmental courses (Adams et al., 2012). For this study, students were surveyed in the middle of spring semester in class and via their campus e-mail accounts. So the population is limited to students who have already successfully completed a semester and who are attending their developmental classes or are checking their campus e-mail accounts. Students not attending or enrolled in the developmental classes were not introduced to the study in person and may not know how to access their campus e-mail accounts. Thus, the study is limited to students who are already demonstrating success in their courses. A second limitation of the study is that perceived success in college was measured rather than actual success. Students’ perceptions and intentions may be different than what actually happens. Finally, the small number of participants and participants from just one university are limitations. Because of the limited participants, researchers may not be able to generalize the results of this study.

Implications and Conclusions

Career counselors and academic advisors working with underprepared college students can utilize the findings from this study in various ways. First, underprepared college students are likely to be of a racial or ethnic minority and may be the first in their families to attend college. These factors bring about specific considerations for career counselors that might be addressed through RCT. RCT was developed to consider the impact that culture and family has on career (Blustein, 2011). Rather than only focus on the individual through the use of interest inventories and other traditional assessments, counselors and advisors can include questions related to family and culture. By discussing family and culture with clients, career counselors can work with clients to understand how culture and family affect career. Through more modern career counseling approaches, counselors can work with the client to develop goals for counseling outside of career and major decision making. For example, through RCT (Blustein, 2011), counselors may learn about issues such as having to work part-time or full-time jobs while in school, family pressure to pursue a certain major or career, or plans to marry and start a family directly after graduation. All of these issues should be considered in career planning but are rarely brought up when depending on traditional career assessments.

In this study, underprepared college students perceived themselves as likely to graduate from college. This differs greatly from the retention rates of the college they came from (69% freshman retention rate and 44% six-year graduation rate) and the graduation rates of underprepared college students (Adams et al., 2012). Therefore, career counselors and other practitioners may need to help underprepared college students understand the reality of their academic situation. According to Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2002), underprepared college students may not understand the implications of being remediated. When meeting with underprepared college students, career counselors should ensure that students understand what remediation means and how this may impact their academic and career development. For example, students may be limited on choices of major based on placement into remedial courses or students may be facing extra years in college.

This study has specific implications for the impact of family on career. Relationships were found between external locus of control and family influence. Duffy and Dik (2009) suggested this influence may moderate career development. Rather than considering family to be a negative influence on career development, career counselors can incorporate this influence into counseling with underprepared college students. By discussing the influence of family on career, counselors can better understand their clients as well as encourage better awareness in their clients. Additionally career decision-making self-efficacy was linked to internal locus of control and informational support. Underprepared college students reported high levels of career decision-making self-efficacy as well as internal locus of control. Because this is linked to high levels of career information received from parents, career counselors should be aware of the information received from family and the impact that it has on development. In practice, career counselors can talk about the career information underprepared college students receive from family and ensure the information is accurate. By understanding these interactions between the constructs, practitioners can better work with underprepared college students.

This study sought to provide more information about underprepared college students and RCT. More research can further support this theory and population. First, underprepared college students indicated high perceptions of success that do not fit with the real graduation rates of this population. Further research could focus on these high perceptions to better understand where they come from and what they mean. For this study, financial support was measured by a subscale in the FIS (Fouad et al., 2010). Future research could explore this relationship further through a more comprehensive scale that looks specifically at financial support or through qualitative methods that seek to further understand the impact of financial support on success. Additionally, the FIS (Fouad et al., 2010) measures support rather than influence. To better understand how family influences career, research utilizing a measure of influence could add to the literature. Overall, more research on family influence would benefit knowledge of RCT. Additionally, further research exploring gender differences in the different constructs of RCT would be beneficial. In this study, a low number of participants influenced the results but indicated there may be a difference.

We explored RCT as it explains the career development of underprepared college students. RCT constructs were found to be related to each other but not to perceptions of college success. It is important that RCT constructs are further studied to explore how family and societal influences affect career beliefs in remediating college students.

	N	M	SD	Score range
Family Influence Scale	117	70.94	11.71	22–110
Informational Support	132	29.43	7.62	8–40
Family Expectations	130	19.85	4.06	6–30
Financial Support	132	13.3	2.11	5–25
Values/Beliefs	133	8.33	3.5	3–15
Internality	119	32.92	6.43	0–48
Powerful Others	117	20.45	8.81	0–48
Chance	125	21.54	8.7	0–48
Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy	115	3.74	.72	1–5
Perceived success in courses
Algebra review	89	4.54	.85	1–5
Intermediate algebra	85	4.19	1.04	1–5
Strategies for writers	71	4.41	.94	1–5
Introduction to composition	80	4.41	1.03	1–5
Skills for college reading	74	4.53	.8	1–5
Academic reading strategies	102	4.58	.87	1–5
Perceived success in college
Likely to graduate from current college	130	3.88	1.3	1–5
Likely to graduate from 4-year college	130	4.2	1.14	1–5

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Informational Support	1.0
Family Expectations	.50	1.0
Financial Support	.07	.39	1.0
Values and Beliefs	.11	.31	.66	1.0
FIS Total	.83	.81	.22	.54	1.0
Internality	.15	.17	−.01	−.02	.12	1.0
Powerful Others	.14	.21*	.49**	.29**	.27	.09	1.0
Chance	.04	.19*	.47**	.24**	.18	.15	.64	1.0
CDSE	.25**	.16	−.18	−.13	.17	.44**	−.19	−.18	1.0
Graduate from current college	.05	.09	.16	−.01	.04	.08	.02	.08	.08	1.0
Graduate from any college	.15	.04	.13	−.06	.06	.09	.02	.05	.05	.53**

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 received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Amber N. Hughes is assistant professor in the Foundational and Graduate Studies in Education at Morehead State University.

Melinda M. Gibbons is an associate professor and program coordinator for the school counseling and doctoral programs at The University of Tennessee. Her research interests include career development for underserved populations, particularly prospective first-generation college students and students with intellectual disabilities. She currently helps coordinate two grant-funded programs designed to improve educational and career access and equity.

References

Adams, P., Adams, W., Franklin, D., Gulick, D., Gulick, F., Shearn, E.,…Mireles, S. V. (2012). Remediation: Higher education’s bridge to nowhere. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com.

Attewell

Lavin

Domina

Levey

(2006) New evidence on college remediation. The Journal of Higher Education 77(5): 886–924. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0037.

Aud

Hussar

Kena

Bianco

Frohlich

Kemp

Tahan

(2011) The condition of education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bacanli

(2006) Personality characteristics as predictors of personal indecisiveness. Journal of Career Development 32(4): 320–332. doi:10.1177/0894845305282941.

Baiocco

Laghi

D’Alessio

(2009) Decision-making style among adolescents: Relationship with sensation seeking and locus of control. Journal of Adolescence 32(4): 963–976. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.08.003.

Bassot

(2012) Career learning and development: A social constructivist model for the twenty-first century. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance 12(1): 31–42. doi:10.1007/s10775-012-9219-6.

Betz

N. E.

Klein

K. L.

Taylor

K. M.

(1996) Evaluation of a short form of the career decision-making self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment 4(1): 47–57. doi:10.1177/106907279600400103.

Blustein

D. L.

(2011) A relational theory of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior 79(1): 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.10.004.

Blustein

D. L.

Schultheiss

D. E. P.

Flum

(2004) Toward a relational perspective of the psychology of careers and working: A social constructionist analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64(3): 423–440. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.008.

10.

Chaney

Hammond

M. S.

Betz

N. E.

Multon

K. D.

(2007) The reliability and factor structure of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale–SF with African Americans. Journal of Career Assessment 15(2): 194–205. doi:10.1177/1069072706298020.

11.

Deil-Amen

Rosenbaum

J. E.

(2002) The unintended consequences of stigma-free remediation. Sociology of Education 75(3): 249–268. doi:10.2307/3090268.

12.

DeRosa

Dolby

(2014) “I don’t think the university knows me.”: Institutional culture and lower-income, first-generation college students. Interactions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies 10(2): 1–18.

13.

Drake

J. K.

(2011) The role of academic advising in student retention and persistence. About Campus 16(3): 8–12. doi:10.1002/abc.20062.

14.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

(2009) Beyond the self: External influences in the career development process. The Career Development Quarterly 58(1): 29–44. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2009.tb00171.x.

15.

Felsman

D. E.

Blustein

D. L.

(1999) The role of peer relatedness in late adolescent career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior 54(2): 279–295. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1664.

16.

Fouad

N. A.

Cotter

E. W.

Fitzpatrick

M. E.

Kantamneni

Carter

Bernfeld

(2010) Development and validation of the family influence scale. Journal of Career Assessment 18(3): 276–291. doi:10.1177/1069072710364793.

17.

Gati

Gadassi

Saka

Hadadi

Ansenberg

Friedmann

Asulin-Peretz

(2011) Emotional and personality-related aspects of career decision-making difficulties: Facets of career indecisiveness. Journal of Career Assessment 19: 3–20. doi:10.1177/1069072710382525.

18.

Germeijs

Verschueren

(2009) Adolescents’ career decision-making process: Related to quality of attachment to parents? Journal of Research on Adolescence 19(3): 459–483. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00603.x.

19.

Goldrick-Rab

(2010) Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success. Review of Educational Research 80(3): 437–469. doi:10.3102/0034654310370163.

20.

Goldstein, M. (1997). Financial aid and the developmental student. In J. Ignash (Ed.), Implementing effective policies for remedial and developmental education (New Directions for Community Colleges) (Vol. 100, pp. 81–87). doi:10.1002/cc.10008.

21.

Grimes

S. K.

David

K. C.

(1999) Underprepared community college students: Implications of attitudinal and experiential differences. Community College Review 27(2): 73–92. Retrieved from http://crw.sagepub.com/.

22.

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 Behavior 61(2): 185–201. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1848.

23.

Holland

J. L.

(1997) Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments, 3rd ed. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

24.

Hoyt

J. E.

(1999) Remedial education and student attrition. Community College Review 27(2): 51–72. doi:10.1177/009155219902700203.

25.

Kern

C. W. K.

(2000) College choice influences: Urban high school students respond. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 24(6): 487–494. doi:10.1080/10668920050137255.

26.

Kolajo

E. F.

(2004) From developmental education to graduation: A community college experience. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 28: 365–371. doi:10.1080/10668920490424078.

27.

Lachman

M. E.

Weaver

S. L.

(1998) The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(3): 763–773. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.763.

28.

Ladany

Melincoff

D. S.

Constantine

M. G.

Love

(1997) At-risk urban high school students’ commitment to career choices. Journal of Counseling & Development 76(1): 45–52. Retrieved from http://www.counseling.org/publications/journals.aspx.

29.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

(1996) Social cognitive approach to career development: An overview. The Career Development Quarterly 44(4): 310–322. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1996.tb00448.x.

30.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994) Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 45(1): 79–122. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027.

31.

Levenson

(1973) Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 41(3): 397–404. doi:10.1037/h0035357.

32.

Levenson

(1981) Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In: Lefcourt

H. M.

(ed.) Research with the locus of control construct Vol. 1, New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 15–63.

33.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Profile of undergraduate students: Trends from selected years, 1995–1996 to 2007–2008 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.nces.ed.gov.

34.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). First-year undergraduate remedial coursetaking: 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013013.pdf.

35.

Orange

Ramalho

E. M.

(2013) Remediation using self-efficacy to identify underprepared African-American and Hispanic adolescents. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology 11: 51–74.

36.

Palmer

R. T.

Davis

R. J.

Hilton

A. A.

(2009) Exploring the challenges that threaten to impede the academic success of academically underprepared black males at an HBCU. Journal of College Student Development 50(4): 429–445.

37.

Pascarella

E. T.

Pierson

C. T.

Wolniak

G. C.

Terenzini

P. T.

(2004) First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education 75(3): 249–284. doi:10.1353/jhe.2004.0016.

38.

Peterson

S. L.

(1993) Career decision-making self-efficacy and institutional integration of underprepared college students. Research in Higher Education 34(6): 659–685. doi:036l-0365/93/l200-0659.

39.

Phillips

S. D.

Christopher-Sisk

E. K.

Gravino

K. L.

(2001) Making career decisions in a relational context. The Counseling Psychologist 29(2): 193–214. doi:10.1177/0011000001292002.

40.

Powell

D. F.

Luzzo

D. A.

(1998) Evaluating factors associated with the career maturity of high school students. The Career Development Quarterly 47(2): 145–158. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1998.tb00548.x.

41.

Provasnik

Planty

(2008) Community colleges: Special supplement to the condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008–033), Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

42.

Reardon

R. C.

Melvin

McClain

M. C.

Peterson

G. W.

Bowman

W. J.

(2015) The career course as a factor in college graduation. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 17(3): 336–350. doi:10.1177/1521025115575913.

43.

Richardson

M. S.

(1993) Work in people’s lives: A location for counseling psychologists. Journal of Counseling Psychology 40(4): 425–433. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.40.4.425.

44.

Savickas

M. L.

(2011) Career counseling, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

45.

Stuber

J. M.

(2011) Integrated, marginal, and resilient: Race, class, and the diverse experiences of white first-generation college students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 24: 117–136. doi:10.1080/09518391003641916.

46.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Education pays [data file]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm.

47.

Walpole

(2003) Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education 27(1): 45–73. doi:10.1353/rhe.2003.0044.

48.

Whiston

S. C.

Keller

B. K.

(2004) The influences of the family of origin on career development: A review and analysis. The Counseling Psychologist 32(4): 493–568. doi:10.1177/0011000004265660.

49.

Young

R. A.

Collin

(2004) Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64(3): 373–388. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.00.