KARMAŞIK FTMM ALANLARINA İLGİLERİN ÖNCÜL DEĞİŞKENLER VE MESLEKİ UYUM ÖLÇÜTLERİ ARASINDA ARACI ROLÜ

Year 2017, Volume: 57 Issue: 2, 1103 - 1126, 01.01.2017

Yonca Toker

Abstract

Kişi ve meslek arasındaki uyuşma geleneksel olarak Holland'ın mesleki kişilik kuramı çerçevesinde çalışılmış, ancak bu bağlamda geliştirilen ölçeklerle ölçütlerde açıklanan varyans kısıtlı kalmıştır. Fen bilimleri, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik FTMM alanlarında mesleki ilgi envanterlerinin iyileştirilmesi için ilgili mesleklerin karmaşıklık zorluk düzeylerinin de dahil edildiği “FTMM Meslek Alanlarında Karmaşıklık Düzeyine İlgi” envanteri geliştirilmiş Toker ve Ackerman 524 ve ölçütlerde daha çok varyans açıkladığı bulunmuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, yapısal eşitlik modellemesi kullanarak, karmaşık FTMM alanlarına ilgilerin öncül değişkenler ve mesleki uyum ve başarı ölçütleri arasındaki aracı değişken rolünü test etmektir. Üniversitede bir FTMM alanında okuyan 122 öğrenci üzerinde test edilen modelin veriye uyduğu bulunmuştur. Sayısal yetenek, matematik-fen benlik algısı ve tipik entelektüel eğilim karmaşık FTMM alanlarına ilgileri yordamaktadır. FTMM ilgileri akademik alandan doyumu, karmaşık bir FTMM mesleği seçme niyetini ve FTMM not ortalamasını yordamaktadır. Sayısal yetenek de not ortalamasını doğrudan yordamaktadır. Bu model erkek örneklemi verisine de uymakta, ancak kadın örnekleminde matematik-fen benlik algısının akademik alandan duyulan doyum üzerindeki rolü ön plana çıkmaktadır. Araştırmanın bulguları, karmaşıklık düzeyi dahil edilmiş olan bir ölçümün mesleki ölçütleri açıklarken oynadığı aracı role dikkat çekmektedir.

Keywords

Mesleki İlgiler, Mesleki Karmaşıklık, Fen Bilimleri, Teknoloji, Mühendislik, Matematik (FTMM), Mesleki Uyum, Matematik-Fen Benlik Algısı, Yapısal Eşitlik Model

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF INTERESTS TOWARDS COMPLEX STEM AREAS BETWEEN ANTECEDANTS AND VOCATIONAL FIT CRITERIA

Abstract

Person-occupation t has traditionally been studied within Holland's six occupational interest types framework; however the variance explained in t criteria with assessments derived from this framework has remained limited. In order to improve assessments in the elds of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics STEM , a new scale named STEM Interest Complexity was developed by integrating occupational complexity levels Toker and Ackerman 524 . This scale proved useful by explaining more variance in criteria. The aim of the present investigation was to test the mediating role of STEM interest complexity between antecedents and vocational t criteria, by means of structural equation modeling. The model, which was tested on 122 university students enrolled in STEM majors, revealed good t to the data. Quantitative abilities, math-science selfconcept, and typical intellectual engagement predicted STEM interests. STEM interests predicted academic domain satisfaction, intentions to work in a highly-complex STEM occupation, and STEM grade point average. Quantitative abilities also directly predicted STEM grades. The model also t the data of men; however the predictive role of mathscience self-concept on academic domain satisfaction came forth in the sample of women. Study ndings highlight the mediating role of an interest measure that includes assessing interests towards complex STEM tasks.

Keywords

Vocational Interests, Occupational Complexity, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), Occupational Fit, Mathscience Self-concept, Structural Equation Modeling

References

• Ackerman, Phillip L. ve diğerleri. “Determinants of Individual Differences and Gender Differences in Knowledge.” Journal of Educational Psychology 93.4 (2001): 797–825.
• Ackerman, Phillip L. ve Maynard Goff. “Typical Intellectual Engagement and Personality: Reply to Rocklin (1994).” Journal of Educational Psychology 86. 1 (1994): 150–153.
• Ackerman, Phillip L. ve Eric D. Heggestad. “Intelligence, Personality, and Interests: Evidence for Overlapping Traits.” Psychological Bulletin 121. 2 (1997): 219– 245.
• Ackerman, Phillip L., Ruth Kanfer, ve Maynard Goff. “Cognitive and Non-cognitive Determinants of Complex Skill Acquisition.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 1(1995): 270–304.
• Ackerman, Phillip L. ve Eric L. Rolfhus. “The Locus of Adult Intelligence: Knowledge, Abilities, and Nonability Traits.” Psychology and Aging 14. 2 (1999): 314–330.
• Ackerman, Phillip L., Stacey Shapiro ve Margaret E. Beier. “Subjective Estimates of Job Performance After Job Preview: Determinants of Anticipated Learning Curves.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 78 (2011): 31–48.
• Armstrong, Patrick, James Rounds ve Lawrence Hubert. “Re-conceptualizing the Past: Historical Data in Vocational Interest Research.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008): 284–297.
• Bandura, Albert. “Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychology Review 84 (1977): 191–215.
• Barrick, Murray R., Michael K. Mount ve Timothy A. Judge. “Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next?” International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9 (2001): 9–30.
• Byrne, Barbara M. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2006.
• Campbell, Nancy K. ve Gail Hackett. “The Effects of Mathematics Task Performance on Math Self-efficacy and Task Interest.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 28 (1986): 149–162.
• Ferguson, Eamonn. “A Facet and Factor Analysis of Typical Intellectual Engagement (TIE): Associations with Locus of Control and the Five Factor Model of Personality.” Social Behavior and Personality 27. 6 (1999): 545–562.
• Frome, Pamela M. ve diğerleri. “Why Don't They Want a Male-Dominated Job? An Investigation of Young Women Who Changed Their Occupational Aspirations.” Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice 12. 4 (2006): 359–372.
• Goff, Maynard ve Phillip L. Ackerman. “Personality–intelligence Relations: Assessment of Typical Intellectual Engagement.” Journal of Educational Psychology 84. 4 (1992): 537–552.
• Gottfredson, Linda S. “Occupational Aptitude Patterns Map: Development and Implications for a Theory of Job Aptitude Requirements.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 29 (1986): 254–291.
• Hogan, Joyce H. ve Brent Holland. “Using Theory to Evaluate Personality and Job- Performance Relations: A Socioanalytic Perspective.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (2003): 100–112.
• Holland, John L. “A Theory of Vocational Choice.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 6. 1 (1959): 35–45.
• Hunter, John E. ve Frank L. Scmidt. “Intelligence and Job Performance: Economic and Social Implications.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2. 3 (1986): 447– 472.
• Hurtado, Sylvia ve diğerleri. “Degrees of Success: Bachelor's Degree Completion Rates among Initial STEM Majors.” University of California Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute. Web. 12 Temmuz 2010.
• Kanfer, Ruth, Mark B. Wolf ve Tracey M. Kantrowitz. “Ability and Trait Complex Predictors of Academic and Job Performance: A Person–Situation Approach.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 59. 1 (2010): 40–69.
• Lent, Robert W., Steven D. Brown, ve Gail Hackett. “Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 45 (1994): 79–122.
• Lent, Robert W., Steven D. Brown ve Kevin C. Larkin. “Comparison of Three Theoretically Derived Variables in Predicting Career and Academic Behavior: Self-Efficacy, Interest Congruence, and Consequence Thinking.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 34. 3 (1987): 293–298.
• Lent, Robert W. ve diğerleri. “Sources of Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectations for Career Exploration and Decision-Making: A Test of The Social Cognitive Model of Career Self-management.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 99 (2017): 107–117.
• Lent, Robert W. ve diğerleri. “Social Cognitive Predictors of Domain and Life Satisfaction: Exploring the Theoretical Precursors of Subjective Well-being.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 52. 3 (2005): 429–442.
• Lindley, Lori D. ve Fred Borgen. “Generalized Self-efficacy, Holland Theme Self- efficacy, and Academic Performance.” Journal of Career Assessment 10. 3 (2002): 301–314.
• Mau, Wei C. “Factors that Influence Persistence in Science and Engineering Career Aspirations.” The Career Development Quarterly 51 (2003): 234 – 243.
• Nauta, Margaret M. “The Development, Evolution, and Status of Holland's Theory of Vocational Personalities: Reflections and Future Directions for Counseling Psychology.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 57. 1 (2010): 11–22.
• Nauta, Margaret M. ve diğerleri. “Identifying the Antecedent in the Relation Between Career Interests and Self-Efficacy: Is It One, the Other, or Both?” Journal of Counseling Psychology 49. 3 (2002): 290–301.
• Pässler, Katja, Andrea Beinicke ve Benedikt Hell. “Interests and Intelligence: A Meta-analysis.” Intelligence 50 (2015): 30–51.
• Pässler, Katja ve Benedikt Hell. “Do Interests and Cognitive Abilities Help Explain College Major Choice Equally Well for Women and Men?” Journal of Career Assessment 20. 4 (2012): 479–496.
• Randahl, Gloria J. “A Typological Analysis of the Relations between Measured Vocational Interests and Abilities.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 38.3 (1991): 333–350.
• Roth, Bettina, ve diğerleri. “Intelligence and School Grades: A Meta-analysis.” Intelligence 53 (2015): 118–137.
• Schaefers, Kathleen G., Douglas L. Epperson ve Margaret M. Nauta. “Women's Career Development: Can Theoretically Derived Variables Predict Persistence in Engineering Majors?”Journal of Counseling Psychology 44. 2 (1997): 173– 183.
• Schmidt, Frank L. ve John Hunter. “General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86. 1 (2004): 162–173.
• Schroeders, Ulrich, Stefan Schipolowski ve Katrin Böhme. “Typical Intellectual Engagement and Achievement in Math and the Sciences in Secondary Education”. Learning and Individual Differences 43 (2015): 31–38.
• Spokane, Arnold R., Elchanan I. Meir ve Michele Catalano. “Person-environment Congruence and Holland's Theory: A Review and Reconsideration.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 57. 2 (2000): 137–187.
• Tabachnick, Barbara G. ve Linda S. Fidell. Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th Ed. Bostan MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2007.
• Toker, Yonca ve Phillip L. Ackerman. “Utilizing Occupational Complexity Levels in Vocational Interest Assessments: Assessing Interests for STEM Areas.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012): 524–544.
• Toker, Yonca ve Mehmet Gültaş. “STEM Interest Complexity Inventory – Short form with IRT and DIF applications.” Değerlendirme aşamasında.
• Tracey, Terence. J. G. ve Steven B. Robbins. “The Interest-major Congruence and College Success Relation: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 69. 1 (2006): 64–89.
• Van Iddekinge, Chad H., Dan J. Putka, ve John P. Campbell. “Reconsidering Vocational Interests for Personnel Selection: The Validity of an Interest-based Selection Test in Relation to Job Knowledge, Job Performance, and Continuance Intentions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 96. 1 (2011): 13–33.
• Wilk, Steffanie L., Laura B. Desmarais ve Paul R. Sackett. “Gravitation to Jobs Commensurate with Ability: Longitudinal and Cross-sectional Tests.” Journal of Applied Psychology 80 (1995): 79–85.