大学生职业价值观调查研究外文文献.doc

大学生职业价值观调查研究外文文献The work values of first-year college students: exploring group differencesA sample of 3,570 first-year college students were surveyed regarding the factors they deemed most important to their long-term career choice. Students as a whole identified intrinsic interest, high salary, contributions to society, and prestige as their 4 most important work values. Additional analyses found men more likely to espouse extrinsic values, women more likely to espouse social values, and students from median parental-income groups more likely to espouse intrinsic values. In light of these results, counselors are encouraged to place a greater emphasis on the role of work values in the decision-making process.Several major career development theorists have recognized that values play an important role in career counseling and in the career decision-making process (Dawis, 2001; Holland, 1997; Super, 1980). Work values refer to what a person wants out of work in general and also which components of a job are important to their work satisfaction (Dawis, 2001; Elizur, 1984). Work values have been viewed as critical to the career counseling process with college students (Luzzo, 2000). However, empirical studies examining college student work values have been limited with respect to vocational skills and interests. In addition, specific groups of students, such as those in their 1st year who are at a critical point in the career process, have received surprisingly little attention. The purpose of the current study is, therefore, to explore the general work values of 1st-year college students; to determine how these values differ according to gender, race, parental income, and educational aspirations; and to examine how the resulting findings may be applied to career counseling.Research examining differences in work values among specific groups has most often focused on gender, culture, and race. Numerous studies have found that men typically rate values related to prestige, responsibility, and pay as more important than do women. Conversely, women are more likely to rate social values, such as helping others and working with people, higher than do men (Abu-Saad & Isralowitz, 1997; Elizur, 1994; Perrone, Sedlacek, & Alexander, 2001; Singh, 1994). Work value differences by race have also been examined in a limited number of studies. Black adolescents tend to place a greater emphasis on extrinsic- and prestige-oriented values, White students tend to place a greater emphasis on social values, and adolescent White men tend to report work values focused on economic rewards and job security (Carter, Gushue, & Weitzman, 1994; Johnson, 2002). In light of this previous research, we hypothesized that there would be significant gender differences and racial differences in work values, with men and Black students more likely to espouse extrinsic values, and women and White students more likely to espouse social values. We also examined work value differences among parental income groups and educational aspiration groups. Participants were 3,570 incoming 1st-year students at a large mid-Atlantic university. Of the participants, 2,124 (59.1%) were White, 371 (10.3%) African American, 478 (13.3%) Asian American, and 189 (5.3%) Latino/a. There were nearly equal numbers of men (1,782, 50%) and women (1,788, 50%).men may be more prone to receiving messages that reinforce extrinsically oriented goals such as high anticipated earnings, while women may be more socialized to go into careers related to the work values of working with people and contributions to society. Similarly, students whose parents had either lower or higher than average incomes may have been influenced by both the negative and the positive effects of salary on a family environment and thus would have had more extrinsically oriented goals. 大一学生的职业价值观：探索他们的差异对一个样本为3,570个大一学生进行了调查，他们认为最重要的因素是其长期的职业选择。学生整体的内在的兴趣、薪水高、对社会的贡献和信誉是他们认为最重要的4个工作价值观。更多的分析发现，男性更加在乎外在价值，女性更倾向于社会价值观，而那些来自中层收入的学生更加看重内在价值。根据这些结果显示，辅导员都鼓励学生注重职业价值观决策过程中的扮演的角色。几个著名的职业发展理论家们已经认识到，职业价值观在职业咨询和职业生涯决策过程中发挥重要作用(Dawis, 2001; Holland, 1997; Super, 1980)。职业价值观是指一个人想离开该工作时，该工作中影响他们工作满意度的因素(Dawis, 2001; Elizur, 1984)。职业价值观被视为大学生生涯辅导过程中的关键(Luzzo, 2000)。然而，实证研究表明学院学生的职业价值观被限制于职业技能和兴趣。此外，一些特定群体的学生，比如那些处在第一个职业生涯关键时刻的学生，已经收到了令人吃惊的关注。因此，本研究的目的是探索大一学生的职业价值观，以确定不同性别、种族、父母的收入和教育抱负的特点，并探究如何将产生的结果用于职业辅导。研究特殊群体的职业价值观的差异往往集中在性别，文化，种族。大量研究发现，男性一般最求威望，责任，比女性扮演更重要角色。相反，女性更容易倾向社会价值，如帮助他人，比例高于男人 (Abu-Saad & Isralowitz, 1997; Elizur, 1994; Perrone, Sedlacek, & Alexander, 2001; Singh, 1994)。在数量有限的研究中，职业价值观的差异有种族而不同也被认证了。黑种人的学生往往更注重外在和威望导向的价值观，而白种人学生趋向于社会价值观，白种人中的男性的职业价值观倾向于经济报酬和工作保障(Carter, Gushue, & Weitzman, 1994; Johnson, 2002)。鉴于之前的研究，我们会假设职业监制关会有显著的性别差异和种族差异，男性和黑人学生更容易注重外在价值，而女性和白人学生更有可能支持社会价值观。我们还研究了职业价值观受父母的收入和教育抱团等因素的差异。研究对象为一所大西洋沿岸中部大学的3570名大一学生。在受试者中，2124（59.1）是白种人，371（10.3）是非裔美国人，478（13.3）是亚裔美国人和189（5.3）是拉丁裔。有几乎同等数量的男性（1,782，50）和女性（1,788，50）。男人可能会更容易接收消息，加强外在导向的目标，如高预期收益，而女性可能更社会化进入职业生涯相关的工作价值观与人们的工作和对社会的贡献。同样，学生的父母有低于或高于平均收入的消极和积极影响工资的家庭环境，因此可能是受到了更多的外在导向的目标。 Professional Values and the Allure of the MarketAs consumers, students no longer see themselves as apprentices who come to the university to sit at the feet of distinguished scholars and enjoy learning for its own sake. Instead, they feel compelled to maximize their investment in education, and they migrate to high-end professional colleges or preprofessional (law and medicine) programs. The liberal arts has lost students, and it depends more and more for enrollments on required general education courses and electives, often taught by less expensive adjunct faculty.Money is also transforming graduate education, drawing students into fields promising immediate financial rewards. Because of competition for entry into programs in medicine, law, and business, and the high rates of return that accrue to degrees from them, institutions have started to charge higher tuition in these programs than in others. Enticing graduate students into the physical and biological sciences remains difficult, because these fields still demand arduous apprenticeships. In other words, corporations seek profits from universities, administrators seek institutional revenues through corporations, and some professors rely on university resources to make money from corporations. (Graduate students are often left out of these revenue-generating activities, because universities define them as employees and, by extension, their work as work for hire. Ironically, universities often fight against classifying graduate students as employees when collective bargaining is at issue.) Corporatization is thus a two-edged sword, even though corporations may be Goliath to the administrators and professors David. In the postmodern twenty-first century, the professional values that once marked the boundary between the corporate world and universities seem quaint, impossibly naive. Yet if professors and administrators want to continue to receive public trust and financial support, they must differentiate themselves from the corporate world and figure out a new social contract. Such a contract would not capitulate to the market, nor would it simply defend the older system. Faculty members who want to preserve professional space outside the market will have to dedicate themselves to working out such a contract and enlist the support of administrators, students, and citizens. Such a project will have to be a collective endeavor, perhaps involving groups of professors qua professors, such as the AAUP, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association, as well as the learned and professional societies. At some point, administrative associations, such as the Association of American Universities, the Association o