Abstract
In this article, we examine the relationship between different career guidance styles of vocational education teachers and vocational education students’ career competencies (i.e. career reflection, career exploration and networking). Questionnaires on students’ perceptions of the career guidance of their teachers during career conversations, and students’ career competencies were issued to 579 vocational education students. By using multilevel analyses, the relationship between different career guidance styles of vocational education teachers and students’ career competencies was investigated, while controlling for student variables such as locus of control and career decision-making self-efficacy. The results showed that very little variance could be explained at the teacher level. Most of the differences between students’ career competency levels were related to differences between the students. Still, two of the four existing teacher profiles were positively related to career reflection of students.
Notes
1. One might argue that career conversations are present in other situations as well (e.g. during apprenticeships of students or in normal class situations). We underline the importance of these conversations, but in this article we focus on the formal career conversations taking place between career guidance teacher and student at school, usually planned every two months, as part of the career guidance of the student.
2. Senior secondary vocational education in the Netherlands consists of four levels: level 1 (assistant worker – one year), level 2 (junior worker – two years), level 3 (vocational training – three years), level 4 (middle-management training – four years).
3. Full-time students in Dutch vocational education spend four days of the week at school, and approximately one day of the week at their apprenticeship. Part-time students work four days of the week, and go to school one day of the week. There is not a difference in age, but in amount of time being in school or at work/apprenticeship.
4. Being Dutch was taken as baseline.
5. Being male was taken as baseline.
6. Profile 4 was taken as a baseline for interpretation purposes (and is therefore not shown as a teacher variable in Table ), it scored lowest on all variables of the questionnaire.