Discussion – Logistic regression analysis (WIL)

The findings of the present research showed that all three components of self-efficacy, initiative, effort and persistence, were insignificant in relation to WIL participation. As far as can be ascertained, the three-factor construct of self-efficacy has not been examined before in association with WIL participation, therefore this study could not compare and confirm results due to the absence of prior evidence in this context. However, there are prior research results on the relationship between WIL and the overall self-efficacy of students towards a performance outcome (i.e., students’ academic performance as per Hendry et al. 2005). The researchers suggested that although, as a result of training, students reported greater self-awareness of their own learning and acceptance of others' styles, their self-efficacy was not significantly associated with learning during the workshop training programs.

On the other hand, Reddan (2016) emphasised the significant role of WIL in developing students’ perceived work self-efficacy. Freudenberg et al. (2010b) also confirmed that a WIL program in an undergraduate degree in partnership with industry assisted students in improving their self-efficacy. In addition, Green (2011) found that students felt better as a result of gained work experience. Furthermore, Laguna (2013) indicated the relationship between the self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions of unemployed people, claiming that self-efficacy beliefs are important predictors of positive intention. This could be applicable to participation in WIL.20

20 _{The present research assumes that accounting near-graduates desired to participate in WIL. This is}

reflected in the logistic regression model for WIL, where the dependent variable was coded as 0 = non- WIL participation and 1 = WIL participation; where 1 equals the desired outcome.

180

Similarly, Carpara et al. (2011) studied the impact of students’ personality traits and self- efficacy beliefs on their academic achievements and found a significant and positive relationship between them. This accords with the findings of Gracia (2010), indicating that students’ positive attitudes towards WIL and greater expectations are associated with satisfaction and better outcomes from the WIL experience.

Thus, in relation to the current study, it could be implied that higher levels of self-efficacy result in a greater awareness of benefits and opportunities, such as participation in WIL, since this participation would improve students’ chances of securing employment. This, however, was not evident in the results of the present research. Specifically, no significant relationship was revealed between self-efficacy factors on the dependent variable (WIL participation). Thus, this study’s results indicate that self-efficacy levels (initiative, effort and persistence), whether high or low, did not impact on WIL participation. This would imply that near-graduate accounting students do not view WIL as an important part of their degree program.

While examining the perceptions of different stakeholders on WIL in foundation degrees, Burke et al. (2009) revealed the mixed understanding and interpretation of work-based learning across stakeholder groups. Harvey et al. (1997) found that employers generally had positive views of students who had undertaken WIL training, while the students themselves may not fully realise the benefits that such training offers. This attitude towards WIL training programs is evidenced by the relatively low participation rate of students’ in WIL programs overall: less than 10% as per historic university data.21 The study findings imply that even students with high levels of self-efficacy did not view WIL participation as essential for their degree completion. Gracia (2010) highlighted that there is little understanding of students’ views on WIL and the benefits they could derive form work-related training during transition from university to real workplaces. The effectiveness of WIL could be achieved if students had a better understanding of the transition phase of WIL learning, and its importance in contributing to their employment prospects. As a consequence, students would exhibit greater initiative, effort and persistence in utilising the opportunities provided by WIL training.

Accordingly, this study suggests that perhaps universities need to take a greater responsibility in making WIL more attractive and accessible in degree programs. This

181

would assume a more proactive approach from education, which in turn would require extra resourcing. Smith (2010), and Richardson et al. (2009) emphasised the need for stronger and longer-term partnerships with industry and the accounting profession to assist in designing and implementing work-related courses in accounting degree programs and promoting them to students.

Regardless of the degree of involvement of industry and professional stakeholders in this process, universities remain the most responsible stakeholders (Gracia 2010) and would need to take a stance in order to change the current WIL situation.

While these issues are outside of the scope of this study, further studies are suggested to explore and provide more insight on the strengths and opportunities of different approaches to WIL, to make work-training a compulsory part of degree programs, and subsequently to change student attitudes and motivation towards participation in work- related training.