Educating the Educators: Preparing Faculty to Teach Career Readiness: A Review of the Literature

Abstract

Higher education institutions have witnessed recent changes surrounding career readiness. Assumptions can be made as to why that is perhaps due to residual effects from the COVID-19 pandemic or the 2008 financial crisis and although the rationale could be varied, the next steps are quite clear: universities must pivot and identify innovative ways to engage students for their career readiness. As such, a team comprised of administrative and academic faculty at a large, public, urban, R1 university collaborated to produce a faculty development for career readiness course. The asynchronous, web-based career readiness course provides insight and practice materials for the campus regarding six major career competencies (i.e., as identified by the national association of colleges and employers): Leadership, communication, cultural intelligence, emotional intelligence, problem solving and critical thinking, as well as professionalism. This program’s aim is to not only assist higher education professionals on how to effectively develop a practical course for academic faculty, but also to help support career competency-learning and therefore, potential scaffolded teaching of such integral topics in the classroom, to in turn highlight a “collective responsibility” for undergraduates’ career readiness.

Keywords

Career readiness; Workforce development; Career competencies; Faculty-student interaction; Faculty development; Social mobility

INTRODUCTION

The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) is a proud minority-serving, hispanic-serving, and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving Institution with a diverse student body comprising over 55% first-generation college students (“UNLV Facts and Stats”, n.d.). As students typically spend more time with faculty than anyone else on campus and often look to them for career guidance and support, faculty have the potential to shape students’ professional goals, so it is crucial that faculty members are better equipped to serve and support students especially those with backgrounds different from their own for their post-graduate plans [1-3]. Thus, our team has developed a web-based, asynchronous course on the topic of career readiness in an effort to not only communicate to faculty which competencies are deemed most desirable by employers, but also to provide readily available examples on how to apply such competencies within the classroom.

Upon review of various works centered on career education and preparation, few studies in this area explore faculty perspectives, and none that have been reviewed consider faculty self-efficacy or their response to any trainings or interventions. Furthermore, there is limited research completed on faculty’s perceptions of undergraduate career readiness; thus, Schlesinger et al., conducted a qualitative design wherein faculty of an R1 institution voluntarily registered for focus groups regarding undergraduate students’ career progression. In said focus groups, five primary themes were identified, including: The overall positive perceptions of the university career center, certain barriers to engaging faculty, as well as the aforementioned “collective responsibility” for undergraduates’ career readiness [4]. A central barrier to engaging faculty in career services is their limited to no knowledge of myriad campus resources; as reiterated by Schlesinger et al., one’s “lack of awareness” does not necessarily equate to a “lack of support,” so resource-sharing and information sessions are crucial to expanding faculty’s education of salient and underutilized career resources, to ultimately share such information with students. Further, an implication of this research is that in order for university career service centers to adequately offer support, they must first require quality advising that encompasses a student’s academic and personal life, in addition to their career aspirations. As far as limitations go, the fact that the vast majority of participants identified as male limits the applicability of the findings; perhaps a broader reach is needed to engage more female perspectives in the future.

In an effort to better understand higher education’s role in the skills gap debate, Horra et al., interviewed 70 college educators and 75 business leaders in biotechnology and manufacturing across Wisconsin, a state where government leaders were endorsing the view that workforce development was the primary purpose of a college education. The authors also observed seven instructors in the classroom and conducted follow-up interviews with them.

Employers mentioned that the ideal employee had a strong work ethic, technology skills and knowledge, communication skills and a lifelong learner approach (which includes not just the desire and ability to learn new things, but also the ability to engage in self-regulated learning) [5]. Educators voiced similar competencies for the ideal employee, with technology skills and knowledge, work ethic, problem-solving, and teamwork topping their lists. Horra et al., provide examples from instructors at both two-year and four-year institutions, incorporating strategies for teaching the soft skills listed above (i.e., “habits of mind”) into classes, as well as the challenges in doing so. In advocating for more active learning and backward design approaches to teaching the soft skills necessary in the workplace, Horra et al., note that barriers to pedagogical change include large class sizes, overworked instructors, resistance to change, lack of teacher training in higher education, and faculty identity. The authors ultimately argue that the so-called skills gap involves more than skills–it involves ways of thinking and behaviors and that educators are not the only ones who should be implicated in the skills gap debate families, employers, places of worship, policy makers and educators all play a role in what Horra et al. deem a cultural issue. They also argue for a more holistic and nuanced narrative that includes a deeper understanding of curricular and pedagogical perspectives.

In another study, Omilion-Hodges et al., examined how millennial college students believe their professors help prepare them for the workplace. Survey data from 353 participants was analyzed qualitatively, yielding two major themes. The first theme involved students’ perceptions that faculty are managers of their classes. Participants said they learned by observing professors in their authoritative roles in the classroom and by practicing professional communication directly with professors. The second theme involved the connection between higher education and job/career preparation, for which there were two subthemes: Those who doubted the connection and those who co-created the connection between higher education and work with faculty. Participants expressed an “overwhelming concern” over the “lack of practical or applicable guidance from professors about expectations of future work, dealing with challenges about work or relating to future managers”.

Students failed to see the connection between course content and their future jobs, and they felt faculty had outdated ideas about working in the real world outside of academia. Participants who felt they co-created the connection with faculty were in the minority, nevertheless, saying professors were a source of support and wanted what was best for them, and they saw their professors as mentors. As Omilion-Hodges et al. state, “the data indicate that matriculating millennials are not necessarily seeing or making the connections” between course content and their future professions. In place of seeing faculty as a wealth of socialization knowledge, overwhelmingly, young adults report that professors provide content that is not likely to be directly applicable to their careers, though they do take away the importance of “respectful communication and the value of hard work”.

Furthermore, Trolian et al., examined how student-faculty interactions are associated with students' attitudes toward their careers and professional success, as reported by students during their fourth year of college. Five measures of faculty-student interactions served as independent variables: Frequency, quality, research-based interactions, discussion of personal problems, and the perception that faculty were willing to give the student time after class. The dependent variables included five measures of career attitudes in which students rated the importance of peer recognition, administrative responsibilities over others, occupational prestige, income and owning a successful business, as well as a composite professional success score serving as the sixth dependent variable. Using longitudinal data from the Wabash National Study, the sample for Trolian et al., study included 3,437 undergraduate students attending four-year colleges and universities. The study controlled for students’ pre-college career attitudes. Results showed that the frequency and quality of faculty-student interactions, as well as working on research with faculty, were positively associated with students’ hope to receive recognition from professional peers for contributions to their field. Frequent faculty-student interactions were also positively associated with students’ desires to have administrative responsibility over others’ work, a prestigious job, a high income and to own their own successful business, as well as students’ overall professional success score. Discussing researchand one’s personal problems with faculty were negatively associated with students’ desire to make a lot of money in their careers. The quality of faculty-student interactions had a negative association with students’ desire to have administrative responsibility over others’ work. Finally, the perception that faculty were willing to talk with students outside of class was negatively associated with their desire to have a prestigious job. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that faculty-student interactions can potentially influence students’ attitudes toward their careers, depending on the type of interaction and the career attitude. Trolian et al., suggested that colleges “develop and implement programs around career exploration or career preparation that involve faculty-student interaction”, which helps bolster the rationale for our course initiative since faculty are the lifeblood that connect opportunities to students through teaching.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study used program evaluation data embedded within the faculty development for career readiness course, a 10-hour asynchronous course offered through the university’s faculty center. The course, designed by a multidisciplinary group of faculty members, taught the six major career competencies developed through a UNLV Workforce Taskforce: Leadership, communication, cultural intelligence, emotional intelligence, problem solving and critical thinking, and professionalism. Participants completed reflection assignments with specific questions with two parts; the first portion was composed of a variety of question types aimed at reviewing the concepts covered in that section, while the second portion asked for ways in which the material could be integrated into their curriculum. The list of questions for each topic is described in Table 1.

Table 1. List of reflection assignment question prompts.

A pre-test was embedded in the introduction module of the course asking participants about their confidence and comfortability in teaching career readiness skills, using five-point Likert scale items (1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree) along with open-ended questions asking about perceived barriers in teaching such skills. A post-test was embedded in the conclusion module using the same Likert scale items asking about instructors’ confidence and comfortability teaching career readiness skills, as well as two open-ended questions: one about barriers in teaching the courses and one about ways they plan on integrating the course concepts into their own teaching. To allow researchers to match pre-test and post-test data while still maintaining confidentiality, class participants were asked to create a unique ID code.

Analysis

The data was analyzed with the sign test, non-parametric equivalent of a paired-samples t-test, to determine if participants’ scores on the Likert scale items differed significantly from pre-test to post-test. A non parametric approach was used due to small sample sizes and violation of normality.

As part of the course, participants were asked to write reflection assignments. Content analysis of these reflections was undertaken to gain a better understanding of what new knowledge and teaching ideas instructors gained from the course materials. Variables of new knowledge and teaching ideas were analyzed in relation to the six aforementioned core competencies taught as part of the course.

Participants

UNLV instructors at all ranks (n=1,287) and administrative faculty (n=1,527) were invited to participate in the faculty development for career readiness course. The course was offered in October 2022 and January 2023 with a total of 59 registrations. Out of the original 59 participants who registered, 37 (63%) initiated work in the modules. Of those who initiated the work, 51% (n=19) participants fully completed the workshop. However, of those who completed the workshop, only 38% of participants (n=14) completed the pre and post-test, of which results will be reported in this study.

Demographics for the 14 respondents who fully completed the quantitative portion of both the pre and post-tests are reported. 79.6% (N=11) reported having one to 10 years of teaching experience with 27.3% (n=3) participants having 11 to 20 years of experience.

Females comprised 79.6% of the sample (n=11) and males comprised 27.3% (n=3). The sample included a majority of Caucasians (n=9, 64.3%), followed by Black or African American (n=2, 14.3%), with a Hawaiian (n=1, 7.1%) and an Asian (n=1, 7.1%), and other (n=1, 7.1%). With regards to position, 3 (21.4%) were tenured faculty, 3 (21.4%) were faculty-in-residence and 3 (21.4%) were part-time instructors. The rest of respondents included three administrators (21.4%), one visiting research professor (7.1%), with one person preferring not to answer (7.1%). The respondents reported being employed under a variety of UNLV departments and schools, such as the school of public health, the college of liberal arts, the Lee business school, school of integrated health sciences, Greenspun college of urban affairs and the school of integrated health sciences. All participants reported to have prior work experience outside of academia in various capacities.

The mean pre-test scores for each of the eight questions of those who did not complete the workshop were not significantly different from those who completed the workshop. Therefore, perceived level of confidence in all eight domains did not lead to 51% attrition rate.

RESULTS

Due to the small sample size and violations of normality, the sign test was performed. The sign test was selected because it is used for ordinal data, non-parametric and does not require assumptions about the shape of the distribution. Furthermore, due to the nature of the workshop, the confidence level in participants was hypothesized to increase after completion. As a result, the significance levels of a one-tailed test were reported.

Pre-workshop concerns about teaching career readiness

Prior to beginning the modules, participants were asked, “What are concerns you have about teaching career readiness and/or barriers that prevent you from doing so?” Emerging themes with respect to perceived barriers included the need for lesson materials, industry knowledge, and industry connections. Some respondents also mentioned the challenges in teaching skills that are related to the evolving work environment and other miscellaneous factors, such as student receptivity and timing. The responses of 37 participants who initiated, but not necessarily completed the workshop, were reviewed for this analysis.

A majority of respondents (48.6%) who completed the pre workshop questionnaire expressed the need for effective and engaging lesson materials to integrate into their curriculum. The responses included under this thematic concern were also from those who indicated that time in embedding and designing the materials would be an issue. One person stated that they have never been trained to teach these skills, which may be applicable to almost all participants, given their decision to take the workshop on their own accord.

Another major pre-workshop concern (40.5%) related to industry knowledge or industry-specific standards. This includes: understanding and relaying the correct terms used in industry and being up-to-date with current work cultures and interview techniques. Both lack of experience outside of academia and large duration of time spent in academia were attributed to the lack of this knowledge. One respondent said, “It has been more than seven years that I've been exclusively dedicated to academia.” Of note, one person suggested the lack of experience in academia as a major barrier. This may mean that lack of teaching experience may hinder sound pedagogical practices in teaching workplace skills. Responses also revealed that discipline may play a large role in faculty’s perspectives in teaching. For example, one respondent commented: “ I think the only challenges are knowing the kinds of skills that I should be focusing on (those that are in demand in a variety of fields), not just archeology.”

Other themes that emerged, but were not as widely denoted related to industry connections, are the evolving work environment, student attitudes, and timing. For example, one respondent stated: “I need resources to help reinforce the information I need to convey to my students. I don't have enough connections with many institutional stakeholders in Las Vegas.” Two respondents suggested that student receptivity and student mindset poses a significant challenge. In addition, one participant shared that career readiness lessons may not be relevant to students in lower courses. Moreover, the most critical response to the workshop was conveyed in the following quote: “In a way, I feel that it cheapens the value of a higher education. Higher education should not be strictly about ‘getting a job.’ This has been an unfortunate consequence of the general trend in defunding higher education in the United States. More specifically in my teaching contexts, I worry about the student perceptions of such ‘career readiness,’ especially if students think that every professor is teaching them the same things.” Moreover, a respondent was concerned before taking the workshop about giving assignments that would be perceived as “busy work” by students. An additional summary of barriers and concerns is outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of pre-workshop teaching career readiness barriers and concerns.

Ability to teach career readiness

There was a statistically significant increase in ability to teach career readiness between pre-test (M=3.71, SD .914) and post-test (M=4.07, SD=1.141), with one negative difference, seven positive differences, and six ties, p<.05.

Based on the qualitative feedback, before taking the course, respondents expressed concern over not being aware of industry-specific standards and being able to train students in an evolving working environment and lack of experience in the corporate world and lack of community partnerships. After taking the course, respondents were able to articulate plans to teach career readiness in the future by being more explicit of the skills and adding dedicated assignments that emphasize career readiness competencies. Another highlight was respondents expressed they need to refine pre-existing assignments and be overt in stating when skills are practiced in class or through assignments that these are “career readiness skills. They also identified adding specific resources and “career readiness terms” to deepen engagement and understanding for their students in their courses. One respondent stated:“I was already connecting what we learn in (this) class with a professional life, but now I have the vocabulary and reference to specific professions from a range of fields I can reference to the (academic) class.”

Preparation for workplace

There was a marginal significant increase between pre-test (M=3.93, SD=.616) and post-test (M=4.21, SD=1.122) in preparation for the workplace, with two negative differences, eight positive differences and four ties, p<.10. Respondents stated they were concerned about student perceptions of career readiness and one remarked about students being resistant to education about career readiness.

Leadership skills

There was a statistically significant increase in leadership, between pre-test (M=3.93, SD=.997) and post-test (M=4.21, SD=1.122), with one negative difference, eight positive differences and five ties, p<.05. One respondent stated in the leadership reflection assignment: “The faculty experts focused on generalities and definitions of leadership styles. They emphasized the philosophical components that leaders should and can exude. Whereas the community partners were able to bring more applied examples on how they view past leaders and how they use that knowledge to build their own leadership skill. A key takeaway is that one size does not fit all and an understanding of the group you intend to lead is critical for success.”

Communication skills

There were no significant changes in communication between pre-test (M=4.43, SD=0.756) and post-test (M=4.43, SD=1.089), with one negative difference, four positive differences and nineties, p>.05. One respondent remarked that communication, cultural and emotional intelligence would be easiest to adopt into the curriculum.

Cultural intelligence

There were marginal significant increases in cultural intelligence, between pre-test (M=3.71, SD=0.994) and post-test (M=4.07, SD=1.207), with two negative differences, seven positive differences and five ties, p<.10. Respondents stated example assignments are really helpful in terms of having a foundation to work from. Other respondents mentioned that this is a vital area of importance and there should be more emphasis in integrating elements that address cultural intelligence. Appreciation for community partners’ strategies to create culturally inclusive work environments was expressed. One respondent stated, “their desire to learn about and understand other's uniqueness did not stop with the interview process but was an active process they used to alter company policies and the environment of the workplace on a regular basis so that everyone, employees, clients, and partner vendors felt their differences were respected and indeed sought after.” Another respondent discussed relaying information learned to students stating, “I was pleasantly surprised at how in-depth the discussion of how CQ is identified and measured in the hiring process with each of their firms. This is something that I can discuss with students so they are aware of how the interview process will include questions about their CQ and cultural awareness of both themselves and others. From what the community partners were saying, it is important for students to be their genuine self so they can find their right fit.”

Professionalism

There were marginal significant changes in professionalism, between pre-test (M=4.29, SD=.611) and post-test (M=4.50, SD=1.092), with one negative difference, seven positive differences, and six ties, p<.05. A few respondents shared statements in relation to professionalism: “(I) plan to rethink some of my policies while providing needed flexibility for equity while emphasizing traits of professionalism.” Another respondent stated: “Community partner videos helped (me) realize the need to add more instruction on professionalism.” Lastly, another respondent commented: “Incorporating articles provided on professionalism, emotional intelligence, and communication (is important moving forward).”

Critical thinking/problem solving

There was a marginal significant increase in critical thinking and problem solving, between pre-test (M=4.00, SD=0.784) and post-test (M=4.43, SD=1.089), with one negative difference, seven positive differences, and six ties, p<.05. In the critical thinking/problem solving reflection assignment, a participant shared: “I think that teaching students to be more self-sufficient by forcing them to go out and find resources that can help them answer a problem, instead of pointing them to a resource where they can find a solution (is more conducive to their success).” Another participant shared through the assignment: “Living in the information age, it is easy to be submerged in information overload, which has been linked to the reduction of the need for critical thinking skills.”

Emotional intelligence

There were only marginally significant differences in emotional intelligence, between pre-test (M=3.79, SD=1.051) and post-test (M=4.00, SD=1.109), with two negative differences, seven positive differences and five ties, p>.05. Responses related to this topic were pulled from the reflection assignment for this competency. The reflection assignment asked participants to describe ways they demonstrate emotional intelligence in the workplace and to specify aspects they need to work on. The second part asked for ways they could foster emotional intelligence in students (Table 3). Examples of responses include: “When I find myself frustrated, I demonstrate some self-awareness to find the true source of frustration,” “I can help students work on empathy… (and) can encourage students to participate in organizations to work on leadership/conflict management/adaptability/teamwork skills.” Overall, the reflection assignments conveyed appreciation for the various lesson materials in this module; “A particular activity I like is a peer discussion on what makes them feel safe to speak up and then after we have a round of discussions on very controversial topics (to) see how they handle different opinions,” “I can foster emotional intelligence by doing some of my existing pedagogical practices by being more explicit about how EQ can help. I can encourage students to check-in with their peers and have them engage in genuine conversations about their current states/ stresses,” “(I can) help them understand that experiencing different emotions is normal, but it is important that we recognize and control those emotions (as) another important aspect to review with students is developing empathy.”

Table 3. Sign test results.

As outlined in Table 3, a correlation analysis assessed if confidence scores of each of the eight domains were strongly associated. As expected, there were moderate to strong correlations among all of the pre-test items, with correlations ranging from 0.60 and above. On the other hand, there were not as many strong correlations among the post-test items, signaling that increased knowledge in the concepts led to more differentiation in respondents’ perceived efficacies under the different dimensions. As expected, responses in the pre-test appeared to be negatively associated with post-test scores, indicating that low pre-test scores tended to be associated with higher post-test scores; hence, changes in perceived confidence.

Future studies with a higher sample size can examine this to determine if certain dimensions tend to be linked together more than others. In addition, linking the confidence levels to measurable outcomes will be important to determine the true effectiveness of the workshop.

Post workshop overall feedback

The responses for overall feedback were categorized into positive reviews, perceived barriers, and recommendations for improvement. In general, comments were positive, indicating that the workshop offered several resources and examples that can be easily integrated into instructional curriculum. Increased awareness of a collection of experts and groups that could potentially serve as contacts for professional development assistance and advice was also valued. Perceived barriers mainly concerned the inability to transform student attitudes. In addition, one respondent conveyed apprehension in disregarding the personal interests and circumstances of individual students. Though this was not elaborated further, this comment is assumed to convey that developing the required soft skills may be hindered by individual upbringing and personality traits. In addition, some respondents expressed that students would likely embrace these lessons more readily if career readiness skills were directed from field professionals in comparison with faculty members. Recommendations include: the creation of a community in which faculty members can connect and learn from others regarding skills required from the field, and shorter community partner videos. Of note, one respondent indicated that it may be easier for some disciplines to teach career readiness than others, mainly due to discipline-specific hurdles.

Non-academic work experience limited to part-time jobs while completing formal education was also conveyed as a major barrier in using professors as a conduit for career readiness skills. Nevertheless, the progression from negative to more hopeful viewpoints regarding career readiness instruction were noticeable in the pre and post free responses from one participant:

“The most significant thing I realized through this course is that I am already teaching career readiness, however, it is just a matter of placing emphasis on these aspects in class activities and assignments. I think many students write-off liberal arts majors due to a lack of perceived benefit for career readiness, but liberal arts programs also have to step up to the challenge here. Also, what would very much help me in this kind of class is some kind of learning community-asynchronous delivery has its advantages, but connecting with others in similar or related disciplines in this course might have helped me come up with solutions to my barriers, or even just to brainstorm and find synergies with others.”To summarize, though the content of the workshop was generally received as informative and useful, several respondents noted the challenge in increasing student buy-in. This indicates that changing student attitudes may require more of a collective university-wide effort. In addition, respondents appeared to desire to continue the exchange of ideas regarding career development with others within and outside of academia, as described in Table 4.

Table 4. Overall feedback.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the increase in teaching confidence of instructors in a four-year university after completing an online, asynchronous course on career readiness. Data was analyzed using a convergent mixed methods design to merge quantitative and qualitative results to gain an understanding of the complexities faced by faculty in delivering and applying the workshop into their curriculum. Quantitative results showed significantly increased confidence in teaching career readiness skills, leadership, professionalism and critical thinking skills in classrooms. There were marginally significant increases in perceived ability to help students articulate how class assignments and content prepare them for the workplace. In addition, confidence in teaching cultural intelligence and emotional intelligence only reach marginal significance. The only topic that did not result in increased confidence was communication skills. When comparing barriers between pre and post workshop completion, the barrier of “time” and lack of access to resources were notably absent in post-test responses after completing the workshop. These unmentioned barriers signified the workshop’s overall positive impact, given past findings revealing the strong connection between faculty burnout and lack of resources and time [6].

Though marginal significance and non-significant findings may be due to low power because of small sample size, the results of the competencies, such as in cultural intelligence, emotional intelligence, and communication, can be explained by the body of research [7]. For example, instructors at this university may recognize that the deficiencies in communication skills, as demonstrated by student assignment submissions, may largely be due to socio-economic and language barriers. The large proportion of students whose secondary language may be English and first-generation students will likely require more assistance in mastering the level of communications skills necessary for career advancement [8]. In addition, several studies revealed declines in basic reading skills due to the pandemic, particularly in families with low socioeconomic status, as reported in a systematic overview by Hammerstein and colleagues [9]. As a consequence, instructors may be led to believe that mastery of communication skills cannot be achieved within the 15-week semester. Due to these findings, changing the survey to request instructors to rate their confidence in improving communication skills, as opposed to teaching, may shift results. The marginal results under confidence to teach emotional intelligence may have been influenced by the reflection assignment’s prompt requiring instructors to conduct a self-evaluation of their own competencies in this skill. The reflection assignment for the emotional intelligence component of the module asked instructors to self-evaluate their own emotional intelligence skills and to determine ways they can improve on this skill. The phrasing of the question may have arguably decreased instructors’ reported self-confidence in teaching this topic. Interestingly, this perception contrasts with a recent finding revealing that professors in higher education generally exhibit high emotional intelligence [10].

Future surveys or assignments may alternatively request for past approaches they have used to increase emotional intelligence and how they align with workshop materials. Of note, survey results indicated that career readiness would be most challenging for certain disciplines, which is assumed to be especially the case if the subject matter is not directly applied to high-demand workforce skills. This sentiment may have contributed to marginally significant findings with regards to articulating assignments into workplace skills exercises. To mitigate this challenge, instructors can leverage material with the aid of community partners. In the classroom, for example, soft skills relating to the etiquette aspects of written and oral exchanges may be effectively developed through role-playing materials created by university alumni working in industries that closely align with the target disciplinary area [11]. In addition, career development can be complemented with work or internship experience.

During the implementation of a soft skills training program, however, some employees reported having mixed feelings about offering soft skills training and shared the opinion that those responsibilities should be placed on instructors [12]. Accordingly, researchers suggested encouraging students to take on a proactive role by scheduling meetings with supervisors intended to specifically seek advice on ways to improve their interpersonal work skills. Together, the body of research suggests that effective instructional approaches for communication and soft skills require a combination of lecture, exposure to real-life situations or scenarios, and pupils’ dispositional openness to feedback [13]. In short, the understood complexity of teaching these soft skills may have led to marginally significant or non-significant findings in workplace skills, communication, cultural intelligence, and emotional intelligence [14],[15].

CONCLUSION

Gaining a general understanding of the impressions that faculty members had pre and post-course completion can serve as an indicator of the promise of implementing this program to supplement other operations serving to increase workplace readiness skills in the student population as a whole, including mentorship programs, internships, and career development centers. Furthermore, gauging faculty perceptions and attitudes allows administrators to identify any test solutions to remedy misconceptions or knowledge gaps that may hinder the transmissions of these skills to students.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

This study highlighted the importance of “educator education” to reinforce career readiness concepts within the classroom environment, but it is not without limitations. The low completion rate of the course provided a limited sample of pre-test and post-test data in which to evaluate. In addition, this study examined course participants who self-selected to take the course, perhaps due to a strong interest or pre-existing knowledge of career readiness concepts, and as such, the findings may not be generalizable to a broader university population. An opportunity for future research is to study a group required to take the course, thus increasing the number of participants who complete the program, as well as diversifying the pool. In addition, considerations should be made for disciplines that are regarded as high in workforce demands, such as medicine or technology, versus liberal arts or urban affairs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study was conducted not only to understand faculty development through career readiness coursework, but also to inform university workforce development practice and research. Pragmatically, from the workforce development perspective, it is imperative to utilize the findings to increase the effectiveness of career readiness education through examination of program implementation processes.

An implication of the current research is the need to continually offer career readiness as part of a broader range of development opportunities. Based on the research findings, it is believed that more meaningful development would occur with university staff members who are unsure or lack the confidence to incorporate career competencies within their program’s curriculum. Institutionalizing a formalized program would have the effects of narrowing competency gaps, increasing workforce readiness, and enhancing career-tracked employment opportunities for graduates.

FUNDING DECLARATION

No funding was provided for the research of this program.

COMPETING INTEREST

There are no conflicts of interest by any of the authors.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Heath designed the program, Barnes managed the course, Ullman analyzed the results, all authors wrote portions of the manuscript, Shenouda revised the draft.

ETHICS APPROVAL

Review and approval was obtained from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Institutional Review Board (approval number UNLV-2022-360). All participants provided informed consent prior to participating in the study.

REFERENCES

1. Omilion-Hodges LM, et al. Doubting the connection: millennials’ perceptions of the link between higher education and workplace readiness. Manag Res Rev. 2022;45:649-663.
2. Powers SR, et al. Vocational anticipatory socialization: College students’ reports of encouraging/discouraging sources and messages. J Career Dev. 2017;44:409-424.
3. Trolian TL, et al. Shaping students’ career attitudes toward professional success: Examining the role of student-faculty interactions. Innov High Educ. 2021;46:111-131.
4. Schlesinger J, et al. Undergraduate student career development and career center services: Faculty perspectives. Career Dev Quarter. 2021;69:145-157.
5. Horra MT, et al. Beyond the skills gap. Harvard Education Press. 2016.
6. Sabagh Z, et al. Antecedents, correlates and consequences of faculty burnout. Educ Res. 2018;60:131-156.
7. Gilar-Corbi R, et al. Can emotional competence be taught in higher education? A randomized experimental study of an emotional intelligence training program using a multimethodological approach. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1039.
8. Wang X, et al. The influences of student-and school-level factors on engineering undergraduate student success outcomes: A multi-level multi-school study. Int J STEM Educ. 2022;9:23.
9. Hammerstein S, et al. Effects of COVID-19-related school closures on student achievement-A systematic review. Front Psychol. 2021;12:746289.
10. Khassawneh O, et al. The relationship between emotional intelligence and educators’ performance in higher education sector. Behav Sci. 2022;12:511.
11. Warrner J, et al. Integrating soft skills into an academic curriculum. American Association for Adult and Continuing Education. 2021.
12. Dalporto H, et al. Implementing soft-skills programs in a postsecondary setting: Lessons from the New World of Work. MDRC. 2022.
13. Yeke S, et al. Relationships between personality traits, cultural intelligence and intercultural communication competence. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2016;235:313-319.
14. Economidou-Kogetsidis M, et al. Teaching email politeness in the EFL/ESL classroom. Elt J. 2015;69:415-424.
15. Vespia KM, et al. Psychology, careers, and workforce readiness: A curricular infusion approach. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology.