Career decision-making self-efficacy after a discipline-specific career course for art and design students: a single-group, three-wave explanatory mixed- methods evaluation

For students studying art and design, the path to a future job looks very different from the straight lines drawn for most other graduates. While many careers follow a standard ladder of degrees and promotions, creative work often depends on a personal portfolio, freelance projects, and the ability to navigate a shifting landscape of clients and digital tools. In this uncertain environment, a student's belief in their own ability to make career choices becomes a crucial resource. Psychologists call this belief "career decision-making self-efficacy." It is not about knowing every job title, but rather having the confidence to figure out what one is good at, find reliable information about opportunities, set goals, and solve problems when the way forward is unclear. Another related concept is "career adaptability," which describes the inner resources—like curiosity and a sense of control—that help a person manage the transition from school to work. Understanding how to build these skills is vital, yet many general career courses feel too broad to help artists and designers navigate their specific, non-standard paths.

Researchers at North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power set out to see if a short, specialized course could boost these skills for art and design students. They followed a group of 210 students from eight different classes who took a routine career planning module designed specifically for their field. The course included a general introduction followed by four sessions focused on the realities of creative work, such as building a portfolio, finding clients, and dealing with the impact of artificial intelligence. The team measured the students' confidence before the course started, immediately after it ended, and again six weeks later. They also interviewed a smaller group of students to understand their personal experiences. The study observed that the students' confidence scores rose right after the course and remained above baseline even six weeks later. However, the researchers explicitly noted that because the study lacked a control group and experienced selective attrition, these temporal changes cannot be definitively attributed to the course itself. They also noted that while the initial increase was stable, the estimates for the six-week follow-up were sensitive to attrition and missing data assumptions, meaning the maintenance of these gains is less certain.

The study involved tracking these students through three distinct moments in time. Before the classes began, the students filled out a survey rating their confidence in various career tasks. The course itself was delivered as part of their normal school schedule, consisting of a foundational lesson and four specific sessions that lasted about ninety minutes each. One session included a "career carnival" where students could interact with professionals. Immediately after the final session, the students took the survey again. Six weeks later, they took it a third time. During this six-week gap, the students were not receiving further instruction from the course, but they were navigating their regular academic workload and other university events. The researchers also conducted in-depth interviews with eighteen students who had shown different patterns of change—some whose confidence stayed high, some whose confidence dropped, and some whose confidence improved later.

The results showed a clear, immediate lift in confidence scores. On average, the students' scores went up right after the course finished. When the researchers checked again six weeks later, the scores were still higher than they had been before the course started, though the gap had narrowed slightly. The data suggested that the initial boost was stable across different statistical checks, but the follow-up estimates were more sensitive to the loss of participants and assumptions about missing data, so the course cannot be confirmed as the sole cause of the changes. The students who kept their high confidence levels often credited the early parts of the course, where they mapped out their own skills and gathered information about different career paths. These activities helped them sort through scattered ideas and feel more organized. However, the interviews revealed why the confidence did not keep climbing. Many students explained that once the course ended and the teacher's feedback stopped, their momentum slowed down. They faced competing demands from other school projects and portfolio deadlines, which crowded out the time they had planned to spend on their career goals.

The researchers also looked at specific areas of confidence to see which ones changed the most. The students felt the biggest improvement in their ability to gather information about jobs and industries. They also felt more confident in selecting goals. However, their confidence in actually making and sticking to a plan was the area that showed the most decline after the course ended. This pattern suggests that while the course helped students understand the landscape and choose a direction, it was less effective at helping them sustain the daily actions required to move forward without ongoing support. The interviews confirmed this: students described a struggle to turn their plans into action once the structured environment of the class was gone. Some students who had initially felt confused actually recovered their confidence later, but only after they received feedback on a specific project or spoke with a professional, highlighting the need for external validation and real-world practice.

The study also examined how well the students liked the course and what they actually did to prepare for their careers. Most students found the content relevant and helpful for understanding their specific field, though they rated the practical "actionability" of the course as the lowest point. When asked six weeks later, about two-thirds of the students reported that they had taken some step toward their career, such as updating their portfolio, entering a competition, or talking to a mentor. However, the researchers could not verify these actions with outside evidence; they relied entirely on what the students said. The interviews provided a richer picture, showing that students who maintained their confidence often had a specific external trigger, like a new project or a conversation with an experienced practitioner, that reignited their motivation.

One of the most important findings was that the average numbers told only part of the story. While the group as a whole showed a small increase in confidence, individual students experienced very different journeys. Some students who started with high confidence felt the course changed little for them because they had already encountered similar ideas. Others who started with low confidence found the course helpful but still struggled to maintain their progress without follow-up support. The researchers noted that the study design, which did not include a separate group of students who did not take the course, means they cannot say for certain that the course caused the changes. Other factors, such as the natural growth of students over the semester or other university events, could have played a role. Nevertheless, the combination of the survey data and the student stories points to a clear conclusion: a short, specialized course can spark initial confidence and clarity, but keeping that momentum alive requires more than just a one-time lesson.

The researchers suggest that future versions of the course should include spaced reminders and follow-up feedback to help students bridge the gap between learning and doing. The interviews indicated that students valued the opportunity to organize their thoughts and gather information, but they felt lost once the course ended and they had to navigate their careers alone. The study did not find that the course solved the problem of career uncertainty, nor did it claim to be a magic fix. Instead, it offered a realistic view of what a short intervention can achieve: a temporary lift in confidence and a clearer map of the terrain, but not the fuel to keep the journey going without additional support. The findings highlight that for art and design students, who face a complex and non-standard job market, the most effective career education may need to be a continuous process of guidance rather than a single event.