4.4 Article

Social cognitive predictors of academic persistence and performance in engineering: Applicability across gender and race/ethnicity

Journal

JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Volume 94, Issue -, Pages 79-88

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.012

Keywords

Social cognitive career theory; Self-efficacy; Outcome expectations; Support; Positive affect; Interests; Satisfaction; Choice goals; Persistence; Performance

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [0827470]
  2. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  3. Division Of Human Resource Development [0827470] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined the utility of social cognitive variables in the longitudinal prediction of academic persistence and success of engineering students. The participants, 908 students enrolled in engineering majors at two state universities, completed measures of academic support, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interests, satisfaction, positive affect, and intended persistence at the end of each of their first four semesters. In the current study, students' first and second semester responses were used to predict persistence and grade performance in engineering by the end of six semesters. Path analytic findings indicated that second-semester persistence intentions, satisfaction with the major, self-efficacy, and social support each produced direct paths to persistence. Objective ability (mathematics SAT scores), outcome expectations, and interests were linked to persistence indirectly via their relations to other variables in the model. In addition, self-efficacy and objective ability jointly predicted grade performance. Results were stable across gender and racial/ethnic groups. Implications for research and practice on academic adjustment in engineering are considered. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available