Career Maturity : A Priority For Secondary Education

Department of Education Research Methods and Diagnostics, University of Barcelona

Spain

Concept, Structure and development of career maturity Career Maturity (CM) has its root in the conception of career development proposed by Super (1951, 1963). Career choice is conceived as a series of events which take place in an individuals life. The process follows models which correspond to a persons stage of life, & is the result of psychological, physical & social factors which interact in the life of the individual. After half a century of studies on CM, agreement has yet to be reached on the concept & the most suitable model for explaining the CM construct. Studies began in the decade of the 50s, but not until the 70s & early 80s did the CM construct show its greatest development, especially on the part of super (1974); super & Thompson (1979); Super et al. (1972, 1981) & crites (1971, 1973, 1978). These researchers can easily be considered the fathers of career maturity. Conceptualizing career maturity Different authors have not agreed on how to conceptualize career maturity , Specifically , for super (1951 , 1963) , career maturity is the maturity which a person shows relative to their developmental stage, that is, comparing the individuals stage of maturity with his or her chronological age. On the other hand, Crites (1968) compares a persons maturity with others who differ in age, but are in the same stage of maturity. For example, students in the exploratory stage (15-21 years). Since the two authors did not agree, a symposium was organized in Montreal (1974) in order to try to reach consensus on this concept. After much discussion, the experts attending the Symposium redefined CM as ones disposition to confront vocational or career development tasks as they are encountered. As compared to others who are in the same stage of life & facing the same development tasks.

Structure of career maturity Just as the different authors have not reached agreement in conceptualizing career maturity, the same can be said with regard to the structure of the construct. Fundamentally two models emerge from the different conceptions:

. The super model (1961, 1974) which is structured in five dimensions or factors: planfulness, resources for exploration, information, decision making & really orientation & 19 variables. The structure is the same for adolescence & for adulthood, what varies are the content of each of the factors & the variables.

The Crites model (1965 , 1971) has three levels: at the first level are the variables ( a total of 20); at the second, intermediate level are the four factors (consistency, realism, competencies & attitudes) which group the variables; & the third level consists of the degree of career development . This is a hierarchical model where significant, relatively high correlations exist between variables within one factor, & moderate correlations are found between variables in different factors.

Developing career maturity With regard to development of career maturity, both the Super & Crites models address how the factors or dimensions of career maturity are placed & develop differentially across ages & educational levels. In the case which concerns us, adolescence as the stage of maturity, & secondary education as the academic period, the process of developing career maturity presents the following characteristics:

a)

The pace of development varies, it is not uniform across the different dimensions of age or educational level. Certainly, greater development of career maturity takes places as the subject grows older and reaches higher levels in education, although in some school years the differences are barely perceptible. Different studies (Alvarez Gonzalez, 1989; Alvarez Gonzalez et al. 1990, 1995, 2007; Jordaan & Heyde, 1972, 1979; Super & Overstreet, 1960) confirm that the dimensions of information and decision making show increasing development as age and years in school increase, and the exploration dimension is what shows the least development. In particular, the study by Alvarez Gonzalez (1989) confirmed that development of career maturity over the years of secondary education does no t progress in a linear or uniform fashion during these ages and school years; instead, it becomes stagnant at certain times.

b)

The development of career maturity in adolescents has not reached the level required for making career decisions with any assurance of success. Changes in career development are not as substantial as one might have hoped; there are certain stoppages in this development. In the section on proposals for improvement, we will discuss deficient aspects are seen at this stage.

c)

The stability of career maturity remains less than that of others traits or variables which , while separate from career maturity, are related to it (intelligence, year in school, self-concept, academic achievement, aspects of personality , ethnic group, socio-economic status, career indecision, cognitive styles, etc.).

Consequently, it is difficult to make predictions as to the career maturity of students in this development stage (adolescence) & educational stage

(secondary), whether they are in compulsory, post-compulsory or vocational training, since correlations of career maturity with other variables are unsubstantial. The studies do not explain more than 25% of the variance, with one exception, the recent study by Creed & Patton (2003), with a sample of 365 secondary students from grades 8 to 12, where predicting variables are age, gender, family socio-economic staus, academic achievement & work experience . Together these variables explained 525 OF THE ATTITUDINAL DIMENSION OF CM & 41% of the competency dimension (Alvarez Gonzalez et al. 2007). And studies have appeared which relate CM with emotional competencies (brown, George-Curran & Smith , 2003; Fraga, 2007; Vila & Perez Gonzalez, 2007). These studies show moderate correlations between emotional intelligence & CM. By way of conclusion, career maturity is a development construct which matures with age & years in school. However, this development is not uniform; in certain school years the differences are minor. The factors or dimensions which show greater progression with age & school year are information & decision making and career planfulness; however, what shows the least progression is exploration of resources. All this confirms that the development of career maturity in adolescence goes through phases of intense development, stagnation, and moderate growth. The characteristics of Supers and Critess and developmental models can be specified as follows:

They are multifactorial models that can be verified empirically, and differ only in the number of factors and their representativeness

They show a moderate predictive value, that is, it is probable that people who are vocationally mature make more realistic, stable decisions

For both models, career maturity is a developmental process which begins in early years and continues throughout a persons stages.

Career maturity is a continuous process but not uniformly so. Its rate of development is not constant.

The development process is partially irreversible, since once a person has pursued one option of studies, it is difficult to discontinue that option without experiencing some setback.

In contrast, a body of research findings has accumulated confirming that socio-economic factors do exert an influence on career development (Cosby & Picou, 1973; Khan & Alvi,1983; McNair & Brown,1983; Neely & Johnston,1981). Ansell & Hansen (1971) concluded that economic background & differences as manifested in the schools attended, played a greater role in the development of career maturity than did racial background. Holland (1981) found SES to be significantly correlated to attitudinal career maturity in 6th graders, among whom it was a better predictor of career maturity than sex, place of residence, age, or self-concept. The vital influence of SES on female career development was recognized by Rice(1981) who reviewed other research supporting this relationships. Research conducted by Mclaughlin, Hunt, & Montgomery (1976) concluded that womens career perceptions, values, & aspirations conform to long-prevailing patterns of differences based on socioeconomic milieu (p. 162). In a recent study, King (1989) found there was a tendency for SES to have a stronger effect on the career maturity of girls than of boys. A study conducted by Rodriques & Blocher (1988) revealed that positive changes in career maturity & locus of control can be facilitated in academically & economically disadvantaged groups by the use of carefully designed career interventions.

Implications for Counseling & Future Research The career maturity construct has emerged after four decades of research as the most commonly employed outcome employed outcome measure in career counseling (Spokane, 1991) & the most widely used in the world. Due to the lack of systematic research, the substantial world. Due to the lack of systematic research, the substantial volume of research conducted since the early 1950s has tended to focus on identifying isolated correlates rather than examine the multidimensional nature of career maturity. Career maturity does appear to be multi-determined, being influenced by several crucial demographic factors. However, the effects of race, culture, sex. & SES on career maturity need to be further unraveled in both emic & etic studies. There are indications that certain career maturity measures are valid among majority groups but not among minority groups. This underscores the importance of using separate ethnic grouping in the analysis & interpretation of scores on attitudinal measures of career maturity (Westbrook & Sanford,1991) & the continued use of multiple measures of career attributes in cross-cultural & cross-racial studies (Leong,1991). Counselors therefore need to be cautious in interpreting career maturity scores. Low career maturity scores may be a reflection of perceived societal barriers, restricted access & to the job market, & limited opportunity & mobility in the job market. Low scores may represent a realistic appraisal of how minority clients perceive job prospects for members of their community. Counseling activities would need to explore the external as well as the internal factors affecting the career development of minority clients. Ability, gender, experience, interests, & goal are important to the career growth of all individuals, although the content & development of these variables may differ as a function of race & culture (Hawks & Muha, 1991).

Few studies have included multiple determinants in analyzing both the direct & indirect effects of target variables on career maturity. More refined & indirect effects of target variables on career maturity. More refined causal models need to be constructed so that theoretically frameworks can be developed to assess the importance of multiple determinants of career maturity. Examining the direct, indirect, & total effects of independent variables on career maturity for different groups will we arrive at a more systematic & contextual understanding of the career maturity construct.