This document summarizes a research study that assessed the self-efficacy, interests, and outcome expectations of first-year engineering students in India. The study administered questionnaires to 370 students from various engineering disciplines. It found that students' outcome expectations were significantly higher for biotechnology and mechanical engineering. Interest levels were highest for electrical/electronics, mechanical, and electrical/electronics engineering students. Statistical analysis showed that interests fully mediated the relationship between self-efficacy and outcome expectations. The results supported prior research showing that self-efficacy, interests, and outcome expectations interact and predict students' academic and career choices.

1. International Journal of Management (IJM), OF 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL (2013)MANAGEMENT (IJM) ISSN
6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April
ISSN 0976-6502 (Print)
ISSN 0976-6510 (Online)
Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013), pp. 125-131
IJM
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijm.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 6.9071 (Calculated by GISI) ©IAEME
www.jifactor.com
SELF-EFFICACY, INTERESTS, AND OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS: A
HOLISTIC ATTITUDE ASSESSMENT OF FIRST YEAR
ENGINEERING STUDENTS
S.Sridharan1, Dr.B.Kalpana2
1
Assistant Professor, Career Development Center, SRM University, Chennai
2
Assistant Professor, SRM University, Chennai
ABSTRACT
Indian higher education has undergone a remarkable changes, and in particular to
Engineering and Technology. With growing opportunities in IT/ITES related fields the
parents as well as their children preferred to take engineering educations in spite of the cost
involved. The cost is looked upon as investment and the career opportunities associated with
the high salary. But the fact is that the required capabilities to do engineering study are
ignored. The quantity in engineering education has impacted the quality of education as well
as the students. A study was undertaken with the first year, first semester students of faculty
of engineering and technology in a private university. The path analysis could reflect a clear
image about the importance of Interest associated with Self-efficacy to Outcome
expectations.
Key words: Engineering Education, Career Opportunities, Self-efficacy, Interests, Outcome
Expectations.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
First Jed-i Engineering Education Round Table Report states “Given the right
opportunities and enablers, Indian youngsters can be the engineers for the world in the 21st
century.”(Jed-i, 2012). India as the second largest populated country, there are eligible youths
who can make this possible. The report further adds that Parents dream is that qualifying as
an engineer offers good salary and also hope for an upward mobility and a stable long career.
The parents for this take all responsibilities including a huge monetary investment. This has
created a need for more engineering colleges. The Indian government through its apex body
All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has given approval to open new
125

2. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –
6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013)
engineering colleges. The Statistics(AICTE) about the students intake in UG/PG/Diploma(All
Inclusive) the approved intake for the year 2012-13 is 344,3355 and when compared to the
year 2008-09 the approved intake of 1700,325 seats, with an increase of 80 percent in five
years. There are 3,393 Engineering colleges with a capacity of 14.85 lakhs across 36 courses
of which 65 percent of colleges in South India and rest in North India. (Geetha Rao, 2012). In
Tamil Nadu the hub for engineering education has approved seats 5, 31,986. AICTE has also
lowered the aggregated percentage in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics to 50 percent in
the class XII exams. But on the contrary Aspiring Minds an employee assessment service
provider has in their report states that five lakhs engineers who passed out in the year 2011
only 17.45 percent are employable. This figures are very less to the figures given by
NASSCOM (National Association of Software and Service Companies) in their survey report
2011 that 25 percent of the Technical gradates are only employable. The National
employability report given their opinion that concentrating in increasing the quantity that
impacted the quality (Ravikanth Reddy, 2012). This has created a need to really look into the
student’s attitude towards engineering, specifically with reference to their Self-efficacy,
Interests and Outcome expectations.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Attitude: Engineering student’s attitude assessments studies were numerous and provide a
wide scope for understanding and also for further research possibilities. The studies in first
year engineering students attitude (Sacre, 1998), Attitude of Engineering students and the
roles and responsibilities (Sandra, 2011), Engineering is Elementary on students attitude
towards engineering and science (Christine, 2010), Attitude towards learning English
(Tamini, 2009), students attitude towards computer science (Hoegh, 2009; Fuller 2007). In
this study the factors like self-efficacy, interests and outcome expectations are taken for
analysis on the engineering students. Lots of research was conducted on the Social Cognitive
Career Theory (Lent, 1994). The studies related to career and academic interests (Lent,
1994), Academic Interests and Goals in Engineering Women Students at Historically Black
Universities (Lent, 2005), social cognitive model of choice in engineering students at
historically Black universities (Lent, 2010), Meta analysis on self-efficacy and interests
(Rottinghaus, 2003), Students’ achievement values, goals and interests (Wigfield, 2010), First
year students perceived self-efficacy (Fields, 2005), Inspiring students for computer science
(Akbulut, 2007) and self-efficacy on educational aspects (Schunk, 2001).
Self-efficacy: Understanding Self-efficacy is the most important one when analyzing the
attitude. Self-efficacy is the conviction of one’s own. Albert Bandura defined Self-efficacy as
“peoples judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute course of action required to
attain designated types of performances.” It is concerned not with skills one has, but the
judgments of when one can do with whatever skills one has possess. (Bandura, 1986).
Schwarzer observed that those with high self-efficacy can take up challenging tasks, continue
till they complete, and in the event of failure can revert back to normalcy. They can visualize
optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. (Schwarzer, 1977). The popularity of self-efficacy is
also with the controversies. In relation to fear and avoidant behavior, self-efficacy theory is
conceptually problematic and is not unambiguously differentiated from outcome
expectations. (Eastman, 1984). The observation about test of ability is that the relationships
between self-efficacy and outcome expectations are inconsistent with the method of
measuring the construct. (Kirsch, 1985). Here in this study self-efficacy is looked upon as an
academic and career related choice and performance indices.
126

3. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –
6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013)
Interests: In simple terms Interest is stated as an activity liking, (Lent, 2008). The relationship
of self-efficacy, outcome expectations and interests are the important constructs either
independently or cumulatively to develop the students aspirations (Akbulut, 2007) when
choosing a major, computer science. The Interests can be influenced through ‘Novelty,
Complexity, Conflict and uncertainty (Berlyne, 1978). The novelty and complexity are the
fruitful factors which could enhance the student’s interests, in which novelty relates to the
rapidly evolving new technologies and current developments in academics. (George, J.F,
2005). The social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) reiterates self-efficacy and outcome
expectations give raise to interests which provide a conceptual support to make educational
and vocational relevant choices (Lent, 1994). It also observed that self-efficacy and interests
are Bi-directional with over varying time of intervals (Nauta, 2002). Students from their
school years with their interests and skills develop a passion for career but this may be
affected because of the socio and economic factors (Lent. 1994). There is a finding to show
that partial interest’s determination may be attributing to the genetic factors (Bestworth,
1994).
Outcome Expectations: The observation about outcome expectation by Bandura (1986) is as
contingent on the adequacy of their performances and care is taken as outcome expectations
are the course of action taken with self- judged efficacy. He further classified outcome
expectations as Physical (eg Monetary), Social (eg approval), and self-evaluative (eg self-
satisfaction). Bandura defined outcome expectations as the persons’ estimate that a given
behavior will lead to certain outcome. The outcome expectancy can be correlated as it is the
personally determined to self-efficacy. The low self-efficacy is experienced by those who
lack skills and view actions with a sense of futility. The correlation based on the law of effect
Baum (1973) observed differently to behavior which is controlled by its immediate
consequences or momentary effects. This has relation to outcome expectations at the level of
aggregated consequences. It is also stated that outcome expectations are the belief about the
given action (Lent, 2008).
3.0 METHODS AND RESULTS
The study was conducted by administering a questionnaire to the first year, first
semester under graduate students engineering of a private university in south India. The data
was analyzed with Statistical package (SPSS) version 17.0 at p < 0.05 to test the significance.
The total students are 370 in which 17.3 percent are from Biotech, 15.7 percent students are
from Civil, 16.5 percent students are from Computer Science (CSE), 18.1 percent students
are of Electronic and Communication Engineering (ECE), 14.6 percent students are from
Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE) students, and 17.8 percent students are from
Mechanical Engineering. The samples were selected through stratified random sampling with
equal proportionate. The students mean age is 17.8 ± 0.660 years. The gender representation
is 78.6 percent are boys and 21.4 percent are girls. Reliability measure (Cronebach Alpha)
was estimable in the domain self-efficacy (0.542), Outcome Expectations (0.584) and Interest
(0.628).
The hypotheses of self-efficacy, outcome expectations and interest were subjected for their
significance using the analysis of variances (Table 1.). It shows there is significance in the
outcome expectations with the biotech tech (2.4 ± 0.45) and mechanical (2.5 ± 0.37) students.
127

4. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –
6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013)
Table 1. Analysis of Variance
Parameter Branches Mean ± SD F Sig.
Bio-Technology 3.2 ± 0.69
Civil 3.1 ± 0.38
CSE 3.3 ± 0.10
Self-Efficacy 2.049 .071
ECE 3.2 ± 0.57
EEE 3.3 ± 0.30
Mechanical 3.1 ± 0.33
Bio-Technology 2.6 ± 0.40
Civil 2.4 ± 0.35
CSE 2.3 ± 0.41
Outcome Expectation 4.904 .000**
ECE 2.4 ± 0.39
EEE 2.3 ± 0.42
Mechanical 2.5 ± 0.37
Bio-Technology 2.4 ± 0.45
Civil 2.3 ± 0.40
CSE 2.0 ± 0.52
Interest 6.993 .000**
ECE 2.2 ± 0.44
EEE 2.0 ± 0.46
Mechanical 2.1 ± 0.52
** - significance at 1% level
The significance of Interests has seen the highest level with students of ECE (2.2 ±
0.44), Mechanical (2.1 ± 0.52), and EEE (2.0 ± 0.46). But for self –efficacy; there is no
considerable difference between the branches. The linear structural relation of three
constructs Self-efficacy, Interests and Outcome expectations were examined through the
Mediation Analysis (Table 2).
Table 2. Model Summary
Std.
Unstd. Coeff.
Coeff.
Model R R Square t Sig. F Sig.
Std.
Beta Beta
Error
(Constant) 3.051 0.201 15.151 0.000
1 Self- 0.175 0.031 -0.175 11.614 0.001
-0.206 0.060 -3.408 0.001
Efficacy
(Constant) 2.429 0.249 9.761 0.000
Self-
2 0.27 0.073 -0.146 0.061 -0.124 -2.403 0.017 14.469 0.000
Efficacy
Interest 0.199 0.049 0.212 4.102 0.000
The model 1 indicates negative trend (β direct = -0.206) towards the outcome
expectation while there is an increment in self-efficacy scores. Arbitration of “Interest” in the
model 2; implies the positive trend (β indirect = β M - β X = 0.199 - (- 0.146) = 0.345)
towards the outcome expectations.
128

5. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –
6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013)
Fig.1: Mediation Model
Outcome Expectation = 0.199*Interest - 0.146*Self-Efficacy, Errorvar. (Residuals) = 0.34,
R² = 0.073.
The Adjusted R Square value was increased from the model 1 (0.031) to Model 2 (0.073)
indicates the increased precision along with the Minimum Fit Function Chi-Square (P =
1.00). Infers; Interest is a completely mediating between Self Efficacy and Outcome
Expectation. i.e., Self Efficacy exerts its total influence via Interest (β SE – β SE(INT) ) = - 0.206
– (- 0.146) = 0.060 ~ 0.000 (Fig.1).
4.0 DISCUSSION
There is an evident of results goes against the study findings of Akbulut and Looney
(2007) that the higher levels of self-efficacy will lead to increased outcome expectations, but
goes with the fact that Self-efficacy, Interests and Outcome expectations are the important
constituents either independently or cumulatively reflects the students aspirations. The
studies by Lent et al (1991 & 1993) further confirms that the combination of Self-efficacy
and Outcome expectations predicts Interests better than self-efficacy alone. There is finding
of Alexander et al (2010), despite the fact that there is a considerable differences on the
questions related to self-efficacy and outcome expectations, has not affected the Interests.
The meta analyses (Rottinghaus, 2003) of Self-efficacy and Interests authenticates that the
domains of Self-efficacy and Interests are overlapping and to prove a moderate relation
between Self-efficacy and Interests.(Lent et al, 1994). The threshold effect regarding the
association of Self-efficacy and Interests is also hypothesized by Bandura (1986) that
minimum amount of Self-efficacy is required to create Interest and continue the activity, but
above threshold levels there will not be any increase in Interests. Further on this Lenox and
Subich (1994) found that the mean Interests scores will be stable at lower levels of Self-
efficacy and increases linearly at higher levels. The studies Nauta et al (2002) and Tracey
(2002) starts a new dimension on Self-efficacy and Interests that they have reciprocal effect
in each other, which is also allowed by the SCCT Model (Lent at al, 1994). Tracey (1997 &
2002) further states that Interest may impact Self-efficacy development in motivational
capacity.
129

6. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –
6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013)
5.0 CONCLUSION
The fancy of engineering education has attracted majority of students to opt for
engineering as their higher education. The constructs Self-efficacy, Outcome expectation,
Interests and choice goals are analyzed by Akbulut and Looney (2007) on computer major
students. But in this study the Self-efficacy, Outcome expectation and Interests are the only
factors studied as the study was carried out with only first year first semester students where
the interest is the one which is driving them. Another study is also carried out with the social
cognitive career theory (SCCT, Lent et al,1994) on the fourth year seventh semester students.
What is the most required thing is that their self-efficacy beliefs is alone not sufficient but the
element of Interest is the most wanted one to have a desired outcome. The students should be
educated to analyze about themselves and prepare them to decide with the required Interest so
as to confirm with Lent et al (1994) that career oriented Self-efficacy and Outcome
expectation relates positively to vocational interests.
6.0 REFERENCES
1. Intake seats Region wise UG/PG/Diploma (All Inclusive)/ Students/ Statistics/AICTE/
www.aicte-india.org
2. Alexander, P.M., Holmer, M., Lotriet, H.H., Matthee, M.C., Pieterse, H.V., Naidoo, S.,
Twinomurinzi, H., Jordaan, D., Factors Affecting Career Choice: Comparison between
computer and other disciplines, Journal of science education, (2010) pp1-32.
3. Allan Wigfield., and Jenna Cambria., Students’ achievement values, goal orientations and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes, Developmental
Review, 30, 2010. pp 1–35.
4. Anne M. Fields., Self-Efficacy and the First-Year University Student’s Authority of
Knowledge: An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 31,
Number 6, 2005, pp 539–545.
5. Asli Yagmur Akbulut and Clayton Arlen Looney., Inspiring Students to pursue Computing
Degrees, Communications of the ACM /vol. 50, no. 10, 2007, pp 67-71.
6. Atef Al-Tamimi and Munir Shuib., Motivation And Attitudes Towards Learning English:
A Study Of Petroleum Engineering Undergraduates At Hadhramout University Of Sciences
And Technology, GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies Volume 9(2), 2009, pp29-55.
7. Bandura, A., Social foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Englewood cliff, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1986, p 39.
8. Baum, W.M., The correlation based on Law of effects, Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 20, 1973, pp 137-153.
9. Berlyne, D.F., Curiosity and Learning, Motivation and Emotions, 2, 1978, pp 97-175.
10. C. Eastman., and J. S. Marzillier., Theoretical and Methodological Difficulties in
Bandura's Self-Efficacy Theory, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1984, pp.
213-229.
11. D. H. Schunk., Self-efficacy: Educational Aspects, International Encyclopedia of the
Social ler& Behavioral Sciences, 2001, pp 13820-13822.
12. Geetha Rao, Engineering tops as the most favoured discipline, Times of India, May 28,
2012, timesofindia.indiatimes.co.in>Tech>careers
13. George, J.F., Valacich, J.S., and Valor, J., Does Information system still matter?, Lesson
from disciplines, Comun AIS,16, 2005, pp 219-232.
130

7. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 –
6510(Online), Volume 4, Issue 2, March- April (2013)
14. Irving Kirsch., Self-Efficacy and Expectancy: Old Wine With New Labels, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 49. No. 3, 1985, pp 824-830.
15. Jed-I, Engineering education Round Table Report, 2nd March 2012, www://jed-
i.in/engineering–education-round-table rt/industry pdf
16. Lenox, R. A., & Subich, L. M. The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and
Inventoried vocational interests. Career Development Quarterly, 42, (1994). pp 302–313.
17. Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., and Bieschke, K.J., Mathematics self-efficacy: source and
relation to science- based career choice, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, (1991).
18. Lent, R.W., Lopez, F.G., and Bieschke, K.J., Predicting Mathematics – related choice and
success behaviors: Test of an expanded social cognitive model, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 42, (1993), pp223-236.
19. Margaret M. Nauta, Jeffrey H. Kahn, James W. Angell, and Erika A. Cantarelli.,
Identifying the Antecedent in the Relation Between Career Interests and Self-Efficacy: Is It
One, the Other, or Both?, Journal of Counseling Psychology , Vol. 49, No. 3, 2002, PP 290–
301.
20. Mary Besterfield-Sacre., Cynthia,J, Atman., and Larry, J. Shuman., Engineering Student
Attitudes Assessment, Journal of Engineering Education, 1998, pp133-141.
21. Patrick J. Rottinghaus., Lisa M. Larson., and Fred H. Borgen., The relation of self-
efficacy and interests: A meta-analysis of 60 samples, Journal of Vocational Behavior 62,
2003, pp 221–236.
22. Ravikanth Reddy, just three percent of engineers are job ready, Mar 12 2012,
www.thehindu.education>careers
23. Robert W,Lent., Steven D. Brown., and Gail Hackett., Toward a Unifying Social
Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interests, Choice and Performance, Journal of
vocational Behaviour, 45, 1994, pp79-122.
24. Robert W. Lent., Hung-Bin Sheu., Clay S. Gloster., and Gregory Wilkins., Longitudinal
test of the social cognitive model of choice in engineering students at historically Black
universities, Journal of Vocational Behavior 76, 2010, pp387–394.
25. Robert W. Lent., Hunh-Binsheu., Daniel Singley., Janet A.Schmidt., Linda C.Schmidt.,
and Clay S.Gloster., Longitudinal relations of self-efficacy to outcome expectations, interests
and major choice goals in engineering students, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 2008, pp
328-335.
26. Sandra, A.Lathem., Maureen,D.Neumann., and Nancy Hayden., The Socially Responsible
Engineer: Assessing Student Attitudes of Roles and Responsibilities, Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 100, No. 3, 2011, pp. 444–474.
27. Terence J. G. Tracey., The Structure of Interests and Self-Efficacy Expectations: An
Expanded Examination of the Spherical Model of Interests, Journal of Counseling
Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 1,32, (1997), pp32-43.
28. Tracey, T. J. G. Development of interests and competency beliefs: A 1-year longitudinal
study of fifth- to eighth-grade students using the ICA–R and structural equation modeling.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, (2002). pp148–163.
29. Ursula Fuller and Bob Keim., Should we assess our students’ attitudes?, Seventh Baltic
Sea Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling 2007), Koli National Park,
Finland, November 15-18, 2007, pp1-4.
30. Ms. Nisha Ashokan and Dr. Jayshree Suresh, “A Study on the Entrepreneurial Intention
among Students”, International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 3, Issue 3, 2012,
pp. 1 - 7, ISSN Print: 0976-6502, ISSN Online: 0976-6510
131