Self-efficacy is considered a predictor for success in later life, as it is related to academic success and political participation (Hoskins et al., 2016; Solhaug, 2006; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). It is also known that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, who are overrepresented in (pre)vocational tracks, have lower self-efficacy compared to their peers from higher socio-economic backgrounds (e.g., Schulz et al., 2018; Sohl and Arensmeier, 2015). Differences in self-efficacy can thus play an important role in the reproduction of educational and civic inequalities (Hoskins et al., 2016; Badou et al., 2021).

Research has established that education programs can help strengthen students’ self-efficacy beliefs. Citizenship education (CE hereafter) scholars, for example, have shown how CE-programs have impacted citizenship efficacy beliefs (Beaumont, 2010; Levy, 2018; Kahne & Westheimer 2006). In her study into the political efficacy of high school students in the US, Beaumont (2010) identified four pathways of political learning that can spur hopeful and realistic political efficacy beliefs: (1) skill-building political mastery experiences (2); models of political efficacy and involvement; (3) social encouragement, supportive relationships and networks, and inclusion in political community; and (4) empowering and resilient political outlooks.

While scholars in the Netherlands, where this research is situated, have shed light on the self-efficacy of students in secondary and higher education, little is known about the self-efficacy of students in tertiary vocational education (VET hereafter) in the Netherlands. Moreover, at the start of our practice-oriented research project in 2019, there were no research-informed experiential CE-programs that specifically supported the development of vocational students’ political self-efficacy. Also, little is known about the interrelatedness of students’ self-efficacy in different domains.

To address these voids, this study examines the self-efficacy of VET-students from one large VET-institute (16.000 students) related to study, work, and politics, and the impact of a 10-week CE-program ‘Making a Difference’ (MADE hereafter) on students’ political efficacy, as well as on their self-efficacy related to study and work. Inspired by Beaumont’s (2010) four pathways to teaching political efficacy, students participating in MADE work together in small groups selecting, examining a societal issue that they are concerned about, organize a first action and present their project in class and for a larger audience. While a 10-weeks program is a rather short period of time to generate a substantial impact, this study does give an indication of what a single program can(not) do. In addition, the study also addresses differential effects of the program in relation to students’ background characteristics.

As half of the students in EU countries attend VET, and students with a migration background are overrepresented in VET (Elffers, 2011), insight into students’ self-efficacy and the impact of a CE-program targeting political efficacy are of interest to a broad range of scholars and practitioners involved in furthering educational and political equality in European countries.

The following questions are addressed:

1)    What is the self-efficacy of tertiary vocational students related to study, work and politics and does it vary across student groups related to background characteristics?

2)    How does the MADE-program impact vocational students’ self-efficacy related to study, work and politics and does its impact vary across students’ background characteristics and students’ appreciation of MADE?

3)    What are the experiences of students with MADE, what strengths and weaknesses of the prototype MAD- program do they identify, and how do they appreciate having a political efficacy-oriented CE-program in the curriculum?

Design, procedure, participants The research involved a mixed-methods pre-post intervention study with a CE-program (MADE) in The Netherlands. The study also included a control group which received CE as usual. Participants in the study were first year Economy students (N=192) attending a large vocational education school in the Netherlands. 5 classes belonged to the intervention group and 6 classes to the control group. Survey data (pre- and post) were collected in the spring semester (Feb-July) of 2022. 192 students completed the pre-survey, and 117 completed the post-survey. 99 students completed both surveys, 49 of which were from the intervention group. In addition, five focus group interviews with Economy students (N=16) were held two weeks after MADE. For these interviews, we selected student project groups (2-4 students each) with a good attendance rate. Nine male students and six female students participated. Measures and Research Instruments The online questionnaire instrument includes four scales related to self-efficacy in study namely, academic self-efficacy, self-efficacy for learning, self-efficacy related to self-regulated learning and self-efficacy for learning and performance related to CE, which are based on existing surveys (Midgley et al., 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007; Bandura, 2006; Usher and Pajares, 2008; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Chen, Gully & Eden, 2001). The scale (eight items) on Self-efficacy related to future work was adapted from the New General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen, Gully & Eden, 2001). Political efficacy was measured with five scales (with three items each), adapted from existing surveys (Syvertsen, Wray-Lake and Metzger, 2015; Thijs et al., 2019). All scales were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree. The self-efficacy for self-regulated learning scale ranged from 1-not at all certain to 5-totally certain. Reliabilities and the number of items in each scale related to the pre- and post-measurement will be provided in two Tables. Intervention group students’ experiences with MADE, were examined via a selection of items from the Carnegie Foundation Political Engagement Survey, tailored to the MADE context. The focus group interview guide contained similar questions on strengths and weaknesses of MADE as well as a question on students’ appreciation of a program at their institute that attends to their political self. Analysis Analysis of variance (GLM) with posthoc testing was conducted, and complemented with content analysis of the qualitative data.

Examination of the VET-students’ self-efficacy related to study, work and politics (RQ1) revealed that students scored highest on academic self-efficacy and self-efficacy related to work and CE, and lowest on individual and collective political efficacy, and perceptions of system responsiveness. In addition, some significant differences related to students’ background were found indicating lower individual civic and collective political efficacy of students with low-educated mothers compared to students with high-educated mothers, and lower individual political and collective civic efficacy and self-efficacy related to civics education and academics in general of students speaking mostly only another language than Dutch at home, compared to students speaking Dutch or a combination of languages (including Dutch) at home. Minor, yet no significant changes were found in students’ citizenship efficacy between the intervention and the control group (RQ2). That said, the impact score (0.16) is quite neat when taking into account the impact of Covid, the small sample, and the fact that we measured the impact of a pilot program. In addition, the first preliminary results on the potential differential impact of the intervention related to student background reveal significant differences related to the mother's education indicating that the intervention seems to have impact on students’ political efficacy, in particular, when the mother is very low educated, which resides with earlier findings (Sohl, 2014). Three directions for further development of MADE are identified: attention to political skepticism (Beaumont’s 4th pathway); guidance in student-collaboration and initiating an action; and teacher professionalization. Providing professionalization support is a known issue in Dutch VET-institutes where one in four CE-teachers has no teaching degree on the subject (Oberon, 2022). We also discuss how insights gained contribute to existing knowledge on effective ways to mitigate the civic engagement gap between low and high SES students across Europe via political learning.

Badou M. Day M. Verwey-Jonker Instituut (Utrecht) & Gelijke Kansen Alliantie. (2021). Kansengelijkheid in het onderwijs: verkennend onderzoek naar factoren die samenhangen met onderwijs(on)gelijkheid [Factors influencing educational inequality]. Verwey-Jonker Instituut. Retrieved January 13 2023 from INSERT-MISSING-URL. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Beaumont, E. (2010). Political agency and empowerment: Pathways for developing a sense of political efficacy in young adults. Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth, 525-558. Elffers, L. (2011). The transition to post-secondary vocational education: students’ entrance, experiences, and attainment. Ipskamp drukkers. Hoskins, B., Janmaat, J. G., Han, C., & Muijs, D. (2016). Inequalities in the education system and the reproduction of socioeconomic disparities in voting in England, Denmark and Germany: the influence of country context, tracking and self-efficacy on voting intentions of students age 16–18. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(1), 69-92. Kahne, J. & Westheimer, J. (2006). The limits of political efficacy: Educating citizens for a democratic society, Political Science & Politics, 39(2): 289-296. Levy, B. (2018). Youth Developing Political Efficacy Through Social Learning Experiences: Becoming Active Participants in a Supportive Model United Nations Club, Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(3), 410-448, DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2017.1377654 Oberon. (2022). Stappen in LOB en burgerschap Professionalisering en kwaliteitsverbetering LOB en burgerschapsonderwijs mbo [CE and professionalisation in VET]. Oberon. Sohl, S. (2011). Pathways to Political Efficacy – Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Illustrations on Youths’ Acquisition of Political Efficacy: Politics, Culture and Socialization, 2(4), 389-414. Sohl, S. (2014). Youths' political efficacy: sources, effects and potentials for political equality. Dissertation. Sweden: Örebro university. Sohl S & Arensmeier C (2015) The school’s role in youths’ political efficacy: Can school provide a compensatory boost to students’ political efficacy? Research Papers in Education 30(2): 133–163. Solhaug, T. (2006). Knowledge and Self-Efficacy as Predictors of Political Participation and Civic Attitudes: With Relevance for Educational Practice. Policy Future Education, 4, 265–278. Syvertsen, A. K., Wray-Lake, L., & Metzger, A. (2015). Youth civic and character measures toolkit. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Thijs, P., Kranendonk, M., Mulder, L., Wander, F., ten Dam, G., van der Meer, T. & van de Werfhorst, H. (2019). Democratische kernwaarden in het voorgezet onderwijs. Adolescentpanel Democratische Kernwaarden en Schoolloopbanen [Exploring SE students’ democratic values]. Jaar 1 – 2018-2019. Universiteit van Amsterdam.