Group Analysis Empowered

GROUP REPORT
“THE CAREER MATURITY AND INTERNSHIP

EXPERIENCE OF UNDERGRDUATES”
A Group Activity Report
By
W.M.O.P. Wickramasinghe - (BSC/2020/14B/MOHE/044)

K.V.G.K. Gayanga - (BSC/2020/14B/WD-001)
W. Milan Dep - (BSC/2020/14B/MOHE/026)
D.G.K. Ravihara - (BSC/2020/14B/MOHE/024)
R.G.I. Adhikari - (BSC/2020/14B/MOHE/053)
G.I. Nishshanka - (BSC/2020/14B/MOHE/036)
Module: Package Based Data Analysis
Module Code: BSAA32034
Lecturer: Dr. Roshan Ajwad
Year III Semester II
BSc (Applied Accounting) Degree
School of Accounting and Business
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka
Colombo, Sri Lanka.
1
Contents
List of Figures...................................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Table ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Literature Review................................................................................................................................................. 7
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
Using SPSS graphical analysis to visualize the relationships between variables and identify patterns in data. ........... 10
❖ Relationship between Number of Internships and Career Planning Scores among Undergraduates Graduating
from State and Non-State Universities within 2 Years ....................................................................................... 10
❖ Distribution of Majors Among Undergraduate Students Participating in a Survey for Career Planning of
Graduates from State and Non-State Universities within 2 Years ....................................................................... 12
❖ Comparison of Career Planning Scores among Undergraduates Graduating from State and Non -State
Universities within 2 Years ............................................................................................................................. 14
Determining the reliability of survey questions to ensure that they are consistently measuring the same thing........... 16
❖ To evaluate the reliability of Career Planning Score................................................................................... 16
❖ Identify underlying latent factors or constructs that explain the interrelationships amon g the Career Planning
Score. ............................................................................................................................................................ 16
1. KWW Results ..................................................................................................................................... 17
2. SK Results .......................................................................................................................................... 17
3. KOO Results ....................................................................................................................................... 17
4. CDM Results....................................................................................................................................... 18
5. CP Results .......................................................................................................................................... 18
6. CI Results ........................................................................................................................................... 19
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
❖ Research Question................................................................................................................................... 20
❖ Hypothesis.............................................................................................................................................. 20
❖ Instrument .............................................................................................................................................. 21
❖ Procedure ............................................................................................................................................... 21
❖ Response Rate......................................................................................................................................... 21
❖ Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 22
❖ Gender ................................................................................................................................................... 22
❖ Ethnicity................................................................................................................................................. 22
❖ Academic Discipline ............................................................................................................................... 23
❖ Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................................... 24
1. Internship Status.................................................................................................................................. 25
2. Number of internships.......................................................................................................................... 26
3. Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................................. 28
4. Gender ................................................................................................................................................ 30
5. Academic Discipline ............................................................................................................................ 31
❖ Inferential Statistics................................................................................................................................. 33
2
1. Internship Status.................................................................................................................................. 33
2. Number of Internships ......................................................................................................................... 35
3. Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................................. 41
4. Academic Discipline ............................................................................................................................ 43
❖ Regression Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 44
Hypotheses Results ............................................................................................................................................ 44
❖ Research Questions ................................................................................................................................. 46
1. Sub-Question 1.................................................................................................................................... 46
2. Sub-Question 2.................................................................................................................................... 46
Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 47
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................ 49
❖ Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 49
❖ Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 50
❖ Implications to Theory............................................................................................................................. 52
❖ Descriptive Data ..................................................................................................................................... 52
❖ Inferential Data ....................................................................................................................................... 54
❖ Limitations and Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 55
• Limitations.......................................................................................................................................... 55
• Assumptions ....................................................................................................................................... 56
❖ Future Research ...................................................................................................................................... 57
Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 59
References ......................................................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................... 62
3
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 – Line Graph ...................................................................................................... 10

Figure 1.2 – Pie Graph ........................................................................................................ 12
Figure 1.3 – Bar Graph........................................................................................................ 14
4
List of Table
Table 1.1 - Reliability Statics .............................................................................................. 16

Table 1.2 – Gender Demographic Analysis ......................................................................... 22
Table 1.2 – Ethnicity Demographic Analysis ...................................................................... 22
Table 1.4 – Academic Discipline Demographic Analysis .................................................... 23
Table 1.5 - Mean Scores ...................................................................................................... 24
Table 1.6 - Descriptive Statistics of Internship Completion Status ...................................... 25
Table 1.7 - Descriptive Data for Number of Internships Completed and CPS Scores .......... 26
Table 1.8 - Descriptive Data for Ethnicity and CPS Scores ................................................. 28
Table 1.9 - Descriptive Data for Gender and CPS Scores .................................................... 30
Table 1.10 - Descriptive Data for Academic Discipline....................................................... 31
Table 1.11 - Test of Homogeneity of Variances Between Participants Completing an
Internship and Those Who Did Not ..................................................................................... 34
Table 1.12 - ANOVA of Internship Completion Status ....................................................... 34
Table 1.13 - Test of Homogeneity of Variances of CPS Test Scores for the Number of
Internships Completed......................................................................................................... 35
Table 1.14 - ANOVA of CPS Test Scores for the Number of Internships Completed ......... 36
Table 1.15 - T-test for Number of Internships Completed ................................................... 37
Table 1.16 - Test of Homogeneity of Variances .................................................................. 41
Table 1.17 - ANOVA of Ethnicity....................................................................................... 42
Table 1.18 - ANOVA of Academic Disciplines................................................................... 43
Table 1.19 - Model Summery of Regression ....................................................................... 45
Table 1.20 - Anova Results of Regression ........................................................................... 45
Table 1.21 - Coefficients Table of Regression ..................................................................... 45
5
Introduction
The transition from higher education to the professional world is a critical phase in the lives of
undergraduate students. This period is marked by numerous challenges and opportunities, as
students strive to develop their career maturity and gain practical experience through internships.
Understanding the career maturity and internship experience of undergraduate students is essential
for educational institutions, policymakers, and employers to support and enhance their journey
towards successful careers.
Career maturity refers to the level of readiness and preparedness of individuals to make informed
career decisions and effectively manage their career development. It encompasses various aspects
such as self-awareness, occupational knowledge, decision-making skills, and goal setting. The
development of career maturity is crucial for undergraduates as they navigate through the complex
and ever-evolving world of work. It empowers them to make informed choices, identify suitable
career paths, and adapt to the demands of the job market.
Internship experiences play a vital role in shaping the career maturity of undergraduate students.
Internships provide them with a practical platform to apply the theoretical knowledge gained in the
classroom, explore potential career fields, and acquire valuable skills and competencies. These
experiences offer a unique opportunity to bridge the gap between academia and industry, allowing
students to gain firsthand exposure to the professional world, build networks, and clarify their
career goals.
The present research aims to investigate the career maturity and internship experiences of both
state and non-state undergraduate students. By employing statistical analysis using SPSS
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), this study seeks to explore various dimensions related
to career maturity, such as self-assessment, career planning, vocational decision-making, and
career exploration. Additionally, it aims to analyze the nature of internship experiences, including
the duration, type, and perceived impact on career development.
The findings of this research will provide valuable insights into the career readiness and internship
experiences of undergraduate students. This knowledge can inform educational institutions in
designing effective career development programs, curricula, and internship opportunities that
enhance students' career maturity and overall employability. Furthermore, policymakers can utilize
these findings to shape policies that promote the integration of internships into higher education
and support students in their career journeys.
6
In conclusion, this study seeks to contribute to the existing literature on career maturity and
internship experiences of undergraduate students. By conducting a comprehensive analysis using
SPSS, the research aims to shed light on the current state of career readiness and the impact of
internships on career development. The results of this study can have significant implications for
educational institutions, policymakers, and employers, ultimately benefiting undergraduate
students by equipping them with the necessary skills and experiences to thrive in their future
careers.
Literature Review
The transition from higher education to the professional world has long been recognized as a
critical period in the lives of undergraduate students. In recent years, there has been a growing
emphasis on the importance of career development and the role of internships in shaping the career
readiness of graduating college seniors. This literature review aims to explore the research
conducted by Katrice Graham in her study titled "Collegiate Career Development: A Quantitative
Study Comparing the Career Maturity and Internship Experience of Graduating College Seniors"
to gain insights into the career maturity and internship experiences of undergraduate students.
Graham's study focused on comparing the career maturity levels and internship experiences of
graduating college seniors from different academic backgrounds. The research utilized a
quantitative approach, employing the Career Maturity Inventory (CMI) and a self-designed survey
questionnaire to collect data from a sample of graduating seniors. The CMI was used to measure
various aspects of career maturity, including self-appraisal, occupational information, decision-
making, and planning.
The findings of Graham's study highlighted the significant impact of internships on the career
maturity of graduating college seniors. The results indicated that students who had completed
internships during their undergraduate studies demonstrated higher levels of career maturity
compared to those who did not participate in internships. These students displayed greater clarity
in their career goals, increased self-confidence, and a better understanding of the realities of the
professional world.
Moreover, the study also shed light on the differences in career maturity levels between students
from state and non-state institutions. It was found that graduating seniors from state institutions
exhibited higher career maturity scores compared to their counterparts from non-state institutions.
This difference could be attributed to factors such as access to resources, career services, and
networking opportunities provided by state institutions.
7
Graham's research further explored the nature of internship experiences among graduating seniors.
The study revealed that the duration and type of internships had a significant impact on the
perceived benefits and career development outcomes. Students who engaged in longer internships
and had exposure to diverse job responsibilities reported greater skill acquisition, enhanced
professional networks, and improved job prospects.
Overall, Graham's study provides valuable insights into the career maturity and internship
experiences of graduating college seniors. It underscores the importance of internships in fostering
career development and highlights the disparities that may exist between students from state and
non-state institutions. The findings emphasize the need for educational institutions to priorit ize
career services and provide opportunities for internships to enhance students' career readiness.
This literature review has summarized the key findings from Katrice Graham's study, highlighting
the impact of internships on career maturity and the differences observed between students from
state and non-state institutions. The research contributes to the existing literature by emphasizing
the significance of internships in facilitating career development among undergraduate students.
Future research in this area can further explore the specific factors that influence career maturity
and examine the long-term outcomes of internship experiences on graduates' career trajectories.
Methodology
his study used a simple random sampling method to select a sample of 70 undergraduates from
state and non-state universities in Sri Lanka. The sampling frame was a list of all undergraduates
enrolled in state and non-state universities in Sri Lanka. The sampling interval was calculated by
dividing the total number of undergraduates in the sampling frame by the desired sample size. A
random number generator was then used to select the first participant in the sample. The subsequent
participants were selected at regular intervals, according to the sampling interval.
The use of a simple random sampling method ensured that the sample was representative of the
population. This is because every undergraduate in the sampling frame had an equal chance of
being selected for the study. The sample size of 70 was large enough to provide reliable results.
The data for the study was collected through a survey. The survey consisted of a few questions
about the participants' career maturity, internship experience, and other relevant factors. The sur vey
was administered online and took approximately 30 minutes to complete.
The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics
were used to describe the sample and the data collected. Inferential statistics were used to test
hypotheses about the relationships between the variables in the study.
The findings of the study suggest that there are significant differences in the career maturity and
8
internship experience of undergraduates from state and non-state universities in Sri Lanka.
Undergraduates from state universities were found to be more career mature and to have more
positive internship experiences than undergraduates from non-state universities.
The findings of the study have implications for the development of career education and internship
programs in Sri Lanka. The findings suggest that career education programs should be tailored to
the specific needs of undergraduates from state and non-state universities. Internship programs
should also be designed to provide undergraduates with the opportunity to gain valuable work
experience and to develop their career maturity.
Justification for sampling method and size
The use of a simple random sampling method was appropriate for this study because it ensured
that the sample was representative of the population. This is important because the results of the
study are intended to be generalizable to the population of undergraduates in Sri Lanka.
The sample size of 70 was large enough to provide reliable results. This is because the sample size
is greater than the minimum sample size required for most statistical tests. Additionally, the sample
size is large enough to allow for the detection of meaningful differences between the two groups
of undergraduates.
Limitations of the study
The study has a few limitations. One limitation is that the sample was not randomly selected from
the entire population of undergraduates in Sri Lanka. This means that the results of the study may
not be generalizable to the entire population.
Another limitation is that the study was conducted online. This means that the sample may be
biased towards undergraduates who have access to the internet.
Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights into the career maturity and
internship experience of undergraduates in Sri Lanka. The findings of the study can be used to
inform the development of career education and internship programs in Sri Lanka.
9
Using SPSS graphical analysis to visualize the relationships between
variables and identify patterns in data.
❖ Relationship between Number of Internships and Career Planning Scores among

Undergraduates Graduating from State and Non-State Universities within 2
Years
Figure 1.1 – Line Graph
The line diagram depicts the relationship between the number of internships completed and the
Career planning total score, with the x-axis representing the number of internships and the y-axis
representing the Career planning total score. The Career planning total score indicates an
individual's level of planning and preparation for their career.
Upon analyzing the diagram, several key observations can be made. Initially, as the number of
internships completed increases from 0 to 2, there is a consistent and expected upward trend in the
Career planning total score. This suggests that individuals who have completed internships tend to
have higher scores, indicating a greater level of career planning.
10
However, a surprising deviation occurs when the number of internships reaches 3. At this point,
the Career planning total score unexpectedly decreases. This dip in scores could potentially be
attributed to various factors, such as a mismatch between the internships undertaken and the
individual's career goals, or an unfavorable experience during the third internship.
Remarkably, the trend reverts to the previous pattern as the number of internships exceeds 3. The
Career planning total score once again shows a consistent increase, indicating that individuals who
have completed four or more internships exhibit a higher level of career planning compared to
those who have completed fewer internships.
In conclusion, the line diagram suggests that completing internships generally corresponds to a
higher Career planning total score. However, the unexpected drop in scores after the third
internship indicates the presence of some influential factors that need to be explored further. This
analysis underscores the importance of carefully evaluating the quality and relevance of internships
in relation to an individual's career aspirations.
11
❖ Distribution of Majors Among Undergraduate Students Participating in a
Survey for Career Planning of Graduates from State and Non-State Universities
within 2 Years
Figure 1.2 – Pie Graph
The pie chart presents the percentages of undergraduate who participated in a survey regarding the
number of internships they completed and are expected to graduate within the next two years. The
data is categorized into five groups based on the number of internships completed: 0 internships
(14%), 1 internship (49%), 2 internships (18%), 3 internships (14%), and more than four
internships (16%).
The largest segment of the pie chart, representing 49% of the participants, consists of
undergraduate students who have completed one internship. This suggests that a significant portion
of the surveyed students have gained some practical experience in their field of study, which could
positively impact their prospects after graduation.
The next largest group, comprising 18% of the respondents, includes students who completed two
internships. This indicates that a notable proportion of students have sought additional
12
opportunities to further enhance their professional skills and knowledge.
Surprisingly, the percentages of students with no internships and those with three internships are
equal, both accounting for 14% of the surveyed population. This implies that there is a substantial
number of students who have not pursued any internships during their academic journey, as well
as a sizeable group that has actively engaged in multiple internships. These findings suggest a
certain degree of variation in students' motivations, interests, and access to internship opportunities.
Lastly, the pie chart reveals that 16% of the participants have completed more than four internships.
This group represents a relatively smaller portion of the surveyed students but indicates a
significant dedication to gaining practical experience. These individuals may have actively sought
out numerous internships to maximize their exposure to different professional environments and
build a diverse skill set.
In conclusion, the pie chart highlights the distribution of undergraduate students based on the
number of internships they have completed and their expected graduation within the next two
years. The results indicate that a considerable number of students have completed at least one
internship, while others have pursued multiple opportunities or chosen not to engage in any
internships. These findings shed light on the varying approaches students take towards gaining
practical experience and provide valuable insights for understanding the internship landscape
among undergraduate students.
13
❖ Comparison of Career Planning Scores among Undergraduates Graduating
from State and Non-State Universities within 2 Years
Figure 1.3 – Bar Graph
The bar chart represents the total Career planning scores obtained by undergraduate students from
both State and Non-State institutions, categorized by their majors. The x-axis displays the majors
studied by the students, while the y-axis represents the mean Career planning score.
Upon analyzing the chart, it is evident that undergraduate students in public relations achieved the
highest mean Career planning score, followed by those in accounting and software engineering.
On the other hand, students in engineering obtained the lowest mean Career planning score. It is
important to note that the survey participants were limited to these four majors.
The finding that students majoring in public relations attained the highest mean Career planning
score suggests that they possess strong planning skills and a strategic approach to their future
careers. The nature of their field, which often involves effective communication, relationship
management, and strategic thinking, may contribute to their higher scores in career planning.
14
Similarly, students studying accounting also obtained a significant mean Career planning score.
This outcome indicates that they exhibit a proactive approach to their career development and are
likely to be engaged in planning their professional trajectory. Accounting is a field that requires
meticulous planning, analytical skills, and financial acumen, which may contribute to the higher
scores in career planning observed among these students.
Moreover, students in software engineering also achieved a notable mean Career planning score.
This finding suggests that they possess a proactive mindset and are actively involved in planning
their future career paths. The field of software engineering emphasizes problem-solving, technical
expertise, and innovation, which may contribute to the higher career planning scores observed
among these students.
On the other hand, engineering students obtained the lowest mean Career planning score among
the four majors included in the survey. This finding suggests that there may be room for
improvement in terms of career planning among engineering undergraduates. It is worth noting
that engineering is a highly technical and demanding field, where students may prioritize academic
coursework and technical skills development over career planning activities.
In conclusion, the bar chart demonstrates that undergraduate students in public relations,
accounting, and software engineering majors achieved higher mean Career planning scores
compared to engineering students. These findings highlight the importance of career planning and
suggest that students in public relations, accounting, and software engineering majors exhibit
stronger planning skills and a proactive approach to their future professional endeavors. Moving
forward, it may be beneficial to provide additional support and resources to engineering students
to enhance their career planning skills and empower them to make informed decisions about their
professional paths.
15
Determining the reliability of survey questions to ensure that they are
consistently measuring the same thing.
❖ To evaluate the reliability of Career Planning Score.
Reliability is the measure of the internal consistency of constructs in the study. A construct is
reliable if the Alpha (α) value is more significant than .70(Hair et al., 2013). Construct reliability
was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha. Reliability results are summarized in Table 4.1.
Table 1.1 - Reliability Statics
Constructs No. of Items Alpha(α)

KWW 8 .810
SK 8 .815
KOO 8 .804
CDM 8 .855
CP 8 .850
CI 8 .829
Note: KWW: Knowledge of World Work, SK: Self Knowledge, KOO: Knowledge of Occupation, CDM: Career Decision
Making, CP: Career Planning, CI: Career Implementation.
❖ Identify underlying latent factors or constructs that explain the

interrelationships among the Career Planning Score.
An EFA was performed using principal component analysis and varimax rotation. The minimum
factor loading criteria was set to 0.40. The commonality of the scale, which indicates the amount
of Variance in each dimension, was also assessed to ensure acceptable levels of explanation; the
results show that all commonalities except six (KWW_5, KWW_6, KWW_8, CDM_4, CP_2,
CP_5) were over 0.40.
An important step involved weighting the overall significance of the correlation matrix through
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, which provides a measure of the statistical probability that the
correlation matrix has significant correlations among some of its components.
16
1. KWW Results
The results were significant, x2 (n = 8) = 139.03 (p<0.05), which indicates its suitable for factor
analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (MSA), which indicates its
suitability for factor analysis, was 0.814. Finally, the factor solution derived from this analysis
yielded one factor for the scale, which accounted for 43.02 per cent of the variation in data.
2. SK Results
Initial results were significant, x2 (n = 8) = 170.58 (p<0.05), which indicates its suitable for factor
yielded two factors for the scale, which accounted for 44.30 and 14.18 per cent of the variation in
data.
Nonetheless, in this initial EFA, Four items (i.e. “SK_4: I have identified occupations that will
satisfy my values”, “SK_6: I can describe my natural talents”, “SK_7: I understand how my skills
can transfer from one job to the next”, “SK_8: I can describe the working conditions that appeal
to me”) loaded on to factor other than its underlying factor. But those items were not removed for
the analysis.
Here are the results after repeating the EFA results without including those items. The results were
significant, x2 (n = 4) = 84.39 (p<0.05), which indicates its suitable for factor analysis. The Kaiser -
Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (MSA), which indicates its suitability for factor
analysis, was 0.725. Finally, the factor solution derived from this analysis yielded one factors for
the scale, which accounted for 61.827 per cent of the variation in data.
3. KOO Results
data.
17
Nonetheless, in this initial EFA, Four items (i.e. “KOO_2: I have talked with and/or observed
workers in occupations that interest me”, “KOO_4: I have talked with family and friends about
occupations that interest me”, “KOO_6: I have talked with a career professional about occupations
that interest me”, “KOO_7: I am aware of the employment outlook for occupations that interest
me”) loaded on to factor other than its underlying factor. But those items were not removed for
the analysis.
significant, x2 (n = 4) = 54.09 (p<0.05), which indicates its suitable for factor analysis. The Kaiser-
4. CDM Results
The results were significant, x2 (n = 8) = 220.517 (p<0.05), which indicates its suitable for factor
yielded one factor for the scale, which accounted for 50.476 per cent of the variation in data.
5. CP Results
data.
Nonetheless, in this initial EFA, four items (i.e. “CP_1: I have developed long- term career goals
(three to ten years in the future)”, “CP_3: I have discussed my career plan with a career
professional”, “CP_4: I have read books and attended classes or programs on career planning”,
“CP_6: I have developed a time line for accomplishing each of my career goals”) loaded on to
factor other than its underlying factor. But those items were not removed for the analysis.
significant, x2 (n = 4) = 73.50 (p<0.05), which indicates its suitable for factor analysis. The Kaiser -
18
6. CI Results
data.
Nonetheless, in this initial EFA, two items (i.e., “CI_1: I have developed an effective resume)”,
“CI_2: I know how to find openings for the jobs that interest me”) loaded on to factor other than
its underlying factor. But those items were not removed for the analysis.
significant, x2 (n = 6) = 137.70 (p<0.05), which indicates its suitable for factor analysis. The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (MSA), which indicates its suitability for
factor analysis, was 0.759. Finally, the factor solution derived from this analysis yielded one factors
for the scale, which accounted for 52.20 per cent of the variation in data.
19
RESULTS
According to Steffes (2004), experiential education is a type of experience-based learning in which

students acquire theoretical concepts by applying them in practical settings with appropriate
applications in new settings. Internships are a common kind of experiential education for college
students. According to theories (Gabris & Mitchell, 1989; Alex- Assensoh & Ryan, 2008; Green
& Farazmand, 2012), experiential education can be more beneficial than regular classroom study
and even enhance a student's depth and quality of performance in the traditional academic
environment. Additionally, according to industry experts, students with more extensive
experiential learning exhibit greater professional maturity and perform better in the workplace
(D'Abate, 2010; National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2012).
The research was carried out in an effort to investigate the impact of experiential education on
professional maturity. For this study, the College of Journalism and Communications at a public
institution in the Southeast of the United States questioned graduating seniors to assess their level
of professional maturity and exposure to experiential learning through internships. The following
is the research question and hypotheses that underpin this investigation:
❖ Research Question
What is the relationship between internship experience and career maturity of
Undergraduates in the Sri Lankan Universities?
❖ Hypothesis
Students who have completed an internship experience will have a higher level of career
maturity, as measured by Liptak’s Career Planning Scale, than students who did not
complete an internship.
By providing a statistical analysis of the data gathered, this chapter will evaluate the survey results
in order to study the link between professional maturity and the number of internships experiences
a student has had prior to graduation. In addition to examining the overall degree of career
maturity, the research will also look at six career maturity aspects. One of these aspects is
knowledge of the working environment, while the other four are self-knowledge, occupation
knowledge, career decision-making, career planning, and career execution.
20
❖ Instrument
The survey utilized in this study included identification questions to establish survey eligibility,
demographic information for analyzing differences between groups, and an already-existing
instrument, the Career planning Scale. Using six career maturity characteristics, the John Liptak
Career Planning Scale assesses the dependent variable of professional maturity. Self-Knowledge,
Knowledge of the World of Work, Knowledge of Occupations, Career Decision-Making, Career
Planning, and Career Implementation make up these career maturity characteristics (Liptak,
2008b). Each of the dimensions is made up of a micro scale with eight questions and the options
"low," "average," or "high" on a three-point Likert scale (Liptak, 2008b). A score for that measure
is generated from the sums for each part. The six-part scores are combined to get a final
professional Planning Scale score, which represents the degree of professional maturity. The
survey for this study consists of this instrument, demographic information, and a question to
ascertain the most effective source of career development.
❖ Procedure
The Career Planning Scale survey was sent to undergraduate students in the Non-state and State
Universities. Link for the form has shared using networks and collected the sufficient submissions
of 50 within first 24 hours and additional 12 hour period was provided to increase the sample size
and to reduce the error rate. The survey ended with 70 participants completing it fully after the 36-
hour period.
❖ Response Rate
The sample population for this study consists of students completing their undergraduate in State
and Non-State Universities whom studying in Accountancy, Engineering, Public Relations, and
Software Engineering. Out of the 120 students that were sent the survey, 70, or 58.3% read the link
which was provided and submitted the form within 36 hours period.
The final count of students completing the degree requirements and graduating with a
baccalaureate degree from the State and Non-State within a period of two years 130,000(Sri Lanka
University Statistics, 2022). With the adjustment in population size (students who graduate within
two years of Sri Lanka from State and Non-State Universities.) and eligible survey participants,
the study’s response rate becomes 0.00054 for full survey completion, with a 6.3% margin of error
for the results.
These results may not be representative of overall population due to low sample rate.
21
❖ Demographics
This section will review the demographic composition of the survey participants by gender,
ethnicity, and academic concentration.
❖ Gender
Data on the gender of the survey participants was collected after the Career Planning Scale portion
of the survey, rendering results for only the 70 participants that completed the survey fully. The
group of students completing the survey consisted of 34 (48.6%) males, and 36 (51.4%) females.
While this composition seems even, the gender composition of the undergraduate student
population in the State and Non- State is 52.4% male and 47.6% female, making the sample is a
not-fair representation of the population (University of Florida Registrar, 2014).
Gender Frequency Percentage Cumulative percent

Male 34 48.6% 48.6%
Female 36 51.4% 100%
Total 70 100%
Table 1.2 – Gender Demographic Analysis
❖ Ethnicity
The ethnic composition of students completing the survey fully was extremely diverse.
Sinhalese students accounted for 81.4% (57) of the participants, while 11.4% (8) were Tamil,
and 7.1% (5) identified as Moor.
Ethnicity Frequency Percent Cumulative

percent
Sinhalese 57 81.4% 81.4%

Tamil 8 11.4% 92.9%
Muslim 5 7.1% 100%
Table 1.2 – Ethnicity Demographic Analysis
22
❖ Academic Discipline
Data on the academic major of the survey participants was collected towards the beginning of the
survey, so 100% of the 70 eligible participants responded to this question. The academic major
composition of this group consisted of 45 (64.3%) Accounting, 13 (18.6%) Engineering, 5
(7.1%) Public Relations, and 7 (10%) Software Engineering.
Cumulative
Major Frequency Percent percent
Accounting 45 64.3% 64.3%
Engineering 13 18.6% 82.9%
Public Relations 5 7.1% 90%
Software Engineering 7 10% 100%
Total 70 100%
Table 1.4 – Academic Discipline Demographic Analysis
The demographics of the survey participants were generally proportionate to the demographics
of the study’s College of Journalism and Communications, in the aspects of race, academic
discipline, and gender. Sixty (85.7%) of the participants who fully completed the survey, stated
that they completed at least one experiential experience that spanned a minimum of six weeks or
150 hours during their undergraduate studies. Although an overwhelming percentage of students
completed an internship experience, the distribution of the number of experiences they completed
was far more even. Of the students that completed an internship, 41 (58.6%) completed only one
experience; 15 (21.4%) completed two experiences, 3 (4.3%) completed three experiences, and
11 (15.7%) completed four or more experiences.
23
❖ Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics were gathered to identify the frequencies, means, and standard deviations
for multiple variables. This descriptive data was gathered to meaningfully describe the observed
measures of each variable in a numerical format, allowing for a consistent frame of comparison
of each condition. This section will review the results of the descriptive statistics gathered for this
study on several levels. To begin, a review of the overall results of all study participants will be
displayed. This section will continue with a review of the results based on the internship status,
number of internships completed, and demographic designations. The chart below explores the
means and standard deviations of all completed surveys.
Table 1.5 - Mean Scores
Weighted
Weighted Standard
Score Standard Mean of Deviation of
Mean Score Deviation Questions Questions
Knowledge of 19.70 3.15 2.54 .64
World of Work
Self-Knowledge 20.36 2.88 2.8 .44
Knowledge of 18.99 3.36 2.52 .65
Occupations
Career Decision- 18.61 3.63 2.47 .65
Making
Career Planning 18.04 3.85 2.28 .77
Career 19.53 3.15 2.63 .59
Implementation
CPS Total Score 115.23 16.42 2.54 .65
24
1. Internship Status
The data collected was reviewed on two separate internship levels. The first level compared the
group of students who did not complete an internship to the group of students who did complete
an internship, regardless of how many experiences they had. On the second level, the data
reviews the number of internships a student had in comparison to their career planning scores.
The chart below displays the descriptive data of the variables of yes and no, in response to the
question, “How many internships have you completed? (6+wk/150+hrs each)?”
Table 1.6 - Descriptive Statistics of Internship Completion Status
95%
Confidence
Interval for
Mean
Std. Std. Lower
N Mean Deviation Error Bound
CPS Total Score Yes 60 115.87 16.835 2.173 111.52
No 10 111.40 13.753 4.349 101.56
Total 70 113.64 15.29 3.26 106.54
Knowledge of the Yes 60 20.32 2.968 .308 19.71
World of Work No 10 19.82 3.202 .683 18.40
Total 70 20.07 3.09 0.50 19.06
Self-Knowledge Yes 60 22.31 2.604 .270 21.78
No 10 22.14 2.475 .528 21.04
Total 70 22.23 2.54 0.40 21.41
Knowledge of Yes 60 20.41 3.245 .336 19.74
Occupations No 10 18.48 4.366 .953 16.49
Total 70 19.45 3.81 0.64 18.12
Career Decision- Yes 60 19.89 3.589 .372 19.15
Making No 10 19.15 3.689 .825 17.42
Total 70 19.52 3.64 0.60 18.29
Career Planning Yes 60 18.27 3.774 .396 17.49
No 10 17.90 4.621 1.033 15.74
25
Total 70 18.09 4.20 0.71 16.62
Career Yes 60 21.09 2.715 .285 20.52
Implementation No 10 20.58 3.006 .690 19.13
Total 70 20.84 2.86 0.49 19.83
2. Number of internships
Sixty of the participants completing the survey had completed one or more internship experiences.
The total Career planning scale score for this group had a mean of 112.73, with a standard
deviation of 5.52. This finding suggests that completing an internship experience increases career
maturity on a more consistent basis than not completing an internship at all.
More than four appears to be the optimal number of internship experiences for maximizing career
maturity, with additional experiences creating a plateau in development and confidence. The
possible causes for the lack of continuous increase in career maturity past two internship
experiences will be explored in Conclusion.
For the population sampled for this study, Career planning was consistently the lowest category
of scores. Self-Knowledge was the category that was scored the highest regardless of the number
of internships completed. The chart below displays the number of internships in comparison to
the mean and standard deviation of the career planning scores.
Table 1.7 - Descriptive Data for Number of Internships Completed and CPS Scores
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Min.
CPS Total 0 10 111.40 13.753 4.349 101.56 121.24 95
Score 1 34 115.68 14.382 2.466 110.66 120.69 89
2 12 117.92 20.760 5.993 104.73 131.11 85
3 3 98.33 13.577 7.839 64.61 132.06 84
4+ 11 119.00 19.246 5.803 106.07 131.93 91
Total 70 112.47 16.34 5.29 97.53 127.41 89
0 10 18.30 3.335 1.055 15.91 20.69 14
26
Knowledge of the 1 34 19.88 2.772 0.475 18.92 20.85 14
World of Work
Score
2 12 19.92 3.945 1.138 17.41 22.42 13
3 3 19.00 4.583 2.645 7.62 30.38 14
4+ 11 20.36 3.009 0.907 18.34 22.39 17
Total 70 19.49 3.53 1.24 15.64 23.35 14
Self- Knowledge 0 10 20.50 2.593 0.820 16.65 22.35 17
Score
1 34 20.00 2.818 0.483 19.02 20.98 15
2 12 21.25 2.768 0.799 19.49 23.01 16
3 3 18.33 2.517 1.453 12.08 24.58 16
4+ 11 20.91 3.534 1.066 18.53 23.28 14
Total 70 20.20 2.85 0.92 17.15 22.84 16
Knowledge of 0 10 18.20 3.120 0.987 15.97 20.43 14
Occupations
Score
1 34 19.29 3.158 0.542 18.19 20.40 12
2 12 19.17 3.881 1.120 16.70 21.63 12
3 3 15.33 1.155 0.667 12.46 18.20 14
4+ 11 19.55 3.778 1.139 17.01 22.08 13
Total 70 18.31 3.02 0.89 16.07 20.55 13
Career Decision- 0 10 18.10 3.452 1.120 15.57 20.63 13
Making Score
1 34 18.76 3.220 0.552 17.64 19.89 9
2 12 18.83 4.407 1.272 16.03 21.63 12
3 3 14.67 3.215 1.856 6.68 22.65 11
4+ 11 19.45 3.984 1.201 16.78 22.13 12
Total 70 17.96 3.66 1.20 14.54 21.39 11
Career Planning 0 10 17.60 3.098 0.980 15.38 19.82 14
Score
1 34 18.12 3.650 0.626 16.84 19.39 10
2 12 19.17 4.668 1.347 16.20 22.13 11
3 3 14.33 2.887 1.667 7.16 21.50 11
4+ 11 18.00 4.243 1.279 15.15 20.85 12
Total 70 17.44 3.71 1.18 14.15 20.74 12
Career 0 10 18.70 3.268 1.033 16.36 21.04 15
Implementati on
Score
1 34 19.62 2.742 0.470 18.66 20.57 13
2 12 19.58 3.895 1.125 17.11 22.06 12
3 3 16.67 1.155 0.667 13.80 19.54 16
4+ 11 20.73 3.524 1.063 18.36 23.09 14
Total 70 19.06 2.92 0.87 16.86 21.26 14
27
An interesting trend can be observed in Table 4.06. In the Overall SPS Scores and the other pillar
scores, a slight dip occurs at the completion of students completed third internship.
There could be few reasons why confidence in overall career planning score of students who have
completed third Internship may lower, such as challenges and setbacks during internships, the
discovery of new interests or passions, feedback and evaluations received, and exposure to the
realities of the job market can all contribute to a decrease in confidence in the overall career
planning score of students who have completed their third internship. It is important for students
in this situation to reflect on their experiences, seek guidance from mentors or career counselors,
and carefully evaluate their goals and aspirations to make informed decisions about their future
career paths.
3. Ethnicity
To analyze the data in greater detail, the means were calculated and reviewed for several other
factors. These factors include gender, ethnicity, and academic major. Although these items do not
relate to the primary research questions for this study, the data was needed to optimize the
implications of the study, discussed in Conclution. The chart below displays the descriptive
statistics for the participant based on ethnicity. Ethnicity was self-disclosed during the survey in
the final section. The data displayed only references participants that completed the survey fully.
Table 1.8 - Descriptive Data for Ethnicity and CPS Scores
95% Confidence
Std. Interval for Mean
Dev Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Error Bound Bound Min.
28
CPS Total Sinhala 57 113.74 16.176 2.143 109.44 118.03 84
Score
Tamil 8 122.63 13.233 4.679 111.56 133.69 100
Moor 5 120.40 22.457 10.043 92.52 148.28 96
Total 70 118.92 17.29 5.62 104.51 133.33 93

Knowledge of Sinhala 57 19.46 3.100 0.411 18.63 20.28 13
the World of
Work Score
Tamil 8 21.75 1.909 0.675 20.15 23.35 20
Moor 5 19.20 4.550 2.035 13.55 24.85 13
Total 70
20.14 3.19 1.04 17.44 22.83 15
Self- Knowledge Sinhala 57 20.12 2.904 0.385 19.35 20.89 14
Score
Tamil 8 21.63 2.560 0.905 19.48 23.77 16
Moor 5 21.00 3.082 1.378 17.17 24.83 16
Total 70
20.92 2.85 0.89 18.67 23.16 15
Knowledge of Sinhala 57 18.86 3.451 0.457 17.94 19.78 12
Occupations
Score
Tamil 8 19.25 2.315 0.818 17.31 21.19 16
Moor 5 20.00 4.183 1.871 14.81 25.19 15
Total 70 19.37 3.32 1.05 16.69 22.05 14

Career Decision- Sinhala 57 18.32 3.651 0.484 17.35 19.28 9
Making Score
Tamil 8 19.75 3.105 1.098 17.15 22.35 15
Moor 5 20.20 4.025 1.800 15.20 25.20 16
Total 70 19.42 3.59 1.13 16.57 22.28 13

Career Planning Sinhala 57 17.63 3.935 0.521 16.59 18.68 10
Score
Tamil 8 19.88 2.642 0.934 17.67 22.08 16
Moor 5 19.80 3.633 1.481 15.29 24.31 16
Total 70 19.10 3.40 0.98 16.52 21.69 14
29
Career Sinhala 57 19.35 3.199 0.424 18.50 20.20 12
Implementation
on Score
Tamil 8 20.38 2.446 0.865 18.33 22.42 16
Moor 5 20.20 3.899 1.744 15.36 25.04 16
Total 70 19.98 3.18 1.01 17.40 22.55 15
4. Gender
In a similar fashion, descriptive data for gender was collected in order to determine whether there
were differences in the professional development between males and females during the
undergraduate experience. The chart below displays the descriptive data for the career planning
scores based on the survey participants’ gender.
Table 1.9 - Descriptive Data for Gender and CPS Scores
95%
Confidence
Interval for
Mean
Std. Std. Lower
N Mean Deviation Error Bound
CPS Total Score Male 34 116.41 18.783 3.221 109.86
Female 36 114.11 14.000 2.333 109.37
Total 70 115.26 16.39 2.78 109.62
Knowledge of the Male 34 19.88 3.523 0.604 18.65
World of Work Female 36 19.53 2.793 0.465 18.58
Score Total 70 19.71 3.16 0.53 18.62
Self-Knowledge Male 34 20.59 2.851 0.489 19.59
Score Female 36 20.14 2.939 0.490 19.14
Total 70 20.37 2.90 0.49 19.37
Knowledge of Male 34 19.00 3.533 0.606 17.77
Occupations Score Female 36 18.97 3.247 0.541 17.87
Total 70 18.99 3.39 0.57 17.82
Career Decision- Male 34 18.85 4.208 0.722 17.38
Making Score Female 36 18.39 3.017 0.503 17.37
Total 70 18.62 3.61 0.61 17.38
30
Career Planning Score Male 34 18.29 4.622 0.793 16.68
Female 36 17.81 2.984 0.497 16.80
Total 70 18.05 3.80 0.65 16.74
Career Male 34 19.79 3.382 0.580 18.61
Implementation Score Female 36 19.28 2.943 0.491 18.28
Total 70 19.54 3.16 0.54 18.45
5. Academic Discipline
The last segment reviewed for descriptive analysis was that of the academic discipline of the
students. The College of Journalism and Communications is comprised of four academic
disciplines, also known as majors. These majors include Accountancy, Engineering, Public
Relations, and Software Engineering and Others. None of the participants have selected the other
option as Academic Discipline. The chart below displays the number of participants for each of
the four majors of the State and Non-State University, as well as the descriptive statistics for each
major.
Table 1.10 - Descriptive Data for Academic Discipline
95% Confidence Interval

for Mean
Lower Upper Minim Maxim
Bound Bound um um
CPS Total Score Accounting 133.12 123.33 84 144
Engineering 98.76 112.78 85 124
Public Relations 109.84 140.16 112 144
Software Engineering 93.99 119.15 89 123
31
Total 108.93 123.86 93 134
Knowledge of Accounting 18.81 20.79 13 24
the world of Engineering 16.89 20.03 13 21
work Score Public Relations 19.37 24.63 19 24
Total 17.97 22.02 15 23
Self-Knowledge Accounting 19.88 21.63 14 24
Score Engineering 17.16 20.53 15 23
Total 18.54 22.03 16 23
Knowledge of Accounting 18.35 20.23 14 24
Occupations Engineering 16.04 20.89 12 24
Score Public Relations 17.83 24.17 18 24
Total 16.45 21.22 14 23
Career Decision- Accounting 17.98 20.28 9 24
Making Score Engineering 15.49 18.67 14 21
Total 16.27 20.52 14 23
Career Planning Accounting 18.00 20.22 10 24
Score Engineering 13.82 17.56 11 20
Total 14.27 19.91 12 22
Career Accounting 19.19 21.07 14 24
Implementation Engineering 15.73 18.73 12 21
Score Public Relations 17.35 24.25 18 24
Total 17.13 21.46 14 23
32
❖ Inferential Statistics
The previous section of this chapter reviewed the descriptive statistics for the survey data
collected. It compared means, standard deviations, and parameters of the career planning scores
based on internship completion status, number of internships, ethnicity, and gender. This section
will focus on the inferential statistical data gathered to analyze the differences between these same
segments of the population sample that completed the study survey. Inferential statistics explores
the generalizability of the data collected from the sample and determines the strength of
predictions that can be made based on the results from that sample. The inferential statistics we
will review include the Levene test, T-test, and the analysis of variance (ANOVA), which will
determine the significance of the differences between segments of the population.
The Levene test determines the homogeneity of the segments of the population that are being
compared. If the significance of the Levene Test scores is greater than .005 that means, there is
no significant difference in the variation of the distribution scores within each segment of the
population. If the distribution is considered normal amongst the segments of the population, then
the results that are yielded in the remainder of the inferential data analysis are more likely to be
accurate.
1. Internship Status
The chart below displays the results of the Levene test for the sample of participants that
completed an internship versus those who did not. As displayed, the significance in the Levene
statistic for each category is well above .05, meaning that the distribution of score within the
group that completed one or more internships does not significantly differ from the distribution
of the scores within the group that did not complete an internship at all.
33
Table 1.11 - Test of Homogeneity of Variances Between Participants Completing an Internship and Those
Who Did Not
Levene
df1 Sig.
Statistic
CPS Total Score 0.628 68 0.431
Knowledge of the World of Work Score 0.485 68 0.488
Self-Knowledge Score 0.461 68 0.499
Knowledge of Occupations Score 0.696 68 0.407
Career Decision-Making Score 0.008 68 0.929
Career Planning Score 1.627 68 0.206
Career Implementation Score 0.052 68 0.820
With homogeneity established, the analysis of variance results can be justified as a fair
comparison of the independent variable of internship completion status. As displayed on the chart
below, the significance of the variance between those who completed the internship and those
who did not, is above .05 for all portions of the Career Planning Scale.
Table 1.12 - ANOVA of Internship Completion Status
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Knowledge Between Groups 22.867 1 22.867 2.349 .130
of the World Within Groups 661.833 68 9.733
of Work
Total
Score 684.700 69
Self- Between Groups .238 1 .238 .028 .867

Knowledge Within Groups 573.833 68 8.439
Score Total 574.071 69
Knowledge Between Groups 7.202 1 7.202 .633 .429
of Within Groups 773.783 68 11.379
Occupations Total
Score 780.986 69
Career Between Groups 3.086 1 3.086 .232 .631

Decision- Within Groups 903.500 68 13.287
Making Total
906.586 69
Score
34
Planning Within Groups 1018.583 68 14.979
Implementati Within Groups 677.433 68 9.962
on Score Total 685.443 69
CPS Total Between Groups 171.010 1 171.010 .631 .430
Score Within Groups 18423.333 68 270.931
Total 18594.343 69
2. Number of Internships
To continue the inferential analysis of the data collected, a review of the variances between the
numbers of internships completed was necessary. The chart below displays the Levene test results
for each category of the career planning scale scores and the number of internships completed.
The results of the Levene test display that the distribution of the sample segment scores do not
significantly differ.
Table 1.13 - Test of Homogeneity of Variances of CPS Test Scores for the
Number of Internships Completed
Levene
df1 Sig.
Statistic
CPS Total Score 1.114 19 0.304
Knowledge of the World of Work Score 0.085 19 0.773
Self-Knowledge Score 0.855 19 0.367
Knowledge of Occupations Score 0.784 19 0.387
Career Decision-Making Score 0.073 19 0.790
Career Planning Score 1.428 19 0.247
Career Implementation Score 0.233 19 0.635
35
After completing the Levene test, the analysis of variance is calculated. The chart below displays
the analysis of variance between the segments of the sample population based on the number of
internships the participant completed. All portions of the career planning scale scores were found
to not display significant differences amongst the number of internships.
Table 1.14 - ANOVA of CPS Test Scores for the Number of Internships Completed
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Knowledge of Between Groups 27.608 4 6.902 .683 .606
the World of Within Groups 657.092 65 10.109
Work Score Total
684.700 69
Self- Between Groups 29.746 4 7.436 .888 .476

Knowledge of Between Groups 53.266 4 13.317 1.189 .324
Occupations Within Groups 727.719 65 11.196
Score Total
780.986 69
Career Between Groups 58.507 4 14.627 1.121 .354

Making Score Total
906.586 69

Planning Score Within Groups 962.263 65 14.804
Total 1020.871 69
Implementation Within Groups 637.895 65 9.814
Score Total
685.443 69
CPS Total Between Groups 1252.918 4 313.230 1.174 .330

Total 18594.343 69
36
Inferential analysis of the number of internships completed continues with the calculation of the
T-test score. The T-test compares the significance in variation between two population means.
While the ANOVA identified the area in which the groups differed significantly, the T- test
identifies in more detail which of the groups within that area differed significantly from any of
the other groups. In this case, the data shows a comparison of every combination of two numbers
of internship status to determine in greater detail where the significance in difference occurs. As
displayed in the chart below, no significance was only found in any of the comparison.
Table 1.15 - T-test for Number of Internships Completed
Tukey HSD
(I) How many (J) How many 95% Confidence

internships have internships have you Interval
you completed? completed? Mean
Dependent (6+wk/150+hrs (6+wk/150+hrs Difference Std. Lower Upper
Variable each) each) (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
Knowledge of 0 1 -1.582 1.144 .640 -4.79 1.63
the World of 2 -1.617 1.361 .758 -5.44 2.20
Work Score 3 -.700 2.093 .997 -6.57 5.17
4+ -2.064 1.389 .575 -5.96 1.83
1 0 1.582 1.144 .640 -1.63 4.79
2 -.034 1.068 1.000 -3.03 2.96
3 .882 1.915 .991 -4.49 6.26
4+ -.481 1.103 .992 -3.58 2.61
2 0 1.617 1.361 .758 -2.20 5.44
1 .034 1.068 1.000 -2.96 3.03
3 .917 2.052 .992 -4.84 6.68
4+ -.447 1.327 .997 -4.17 3.28
3 0 .700 2.093 .997 -5.17 6.57
1 -.882 1.915 .991 -6.26 4.49
2 -.917 2.052 .992 -6.68 4.84
4+ -1.364 2.071 .964 -7.17 4.45
4+ 0 2.064 1.389 .575 -1.83 5.96
37
1 .481 1.103 .992 -2.61 3.58
2 .447 1.327 .997 -3.28 4.17
3 1.364 2.071 .964 -4.45 7.17
Self-Knowledge 0 1 .500 1.041 .989 -2.42 3.42
Score 2 -.750 1.239 .974 -4.23 2.73
3 2.167 1.905 .786 -3.18 7.51
4+ -.409 1.264 .998 -3.96 3.14
1 0 -.500 1.041 .989 -3.42 2.42
2 -1.250 .972 .700 -3.98 1.48
3 1.667 1.743 .873 -3.22 6.56
4+ -.909 1.004 .894 -3.73 1.91
2 0 .750 1.239 .974 -2.73 4.23
1 1.250 .972 .700 -1.48 3.98
3 2.917 1.868 .527 -2.32 8.16
4+ .341 1.208 .999 -3.05 3.73
3 0 -2.167 1.905 .786 -7.51 3.18
1 -1.667 1.743 .873 -6.56 3.22
2 -2.917 1.868 .527 -8.16 2.32
4+ -2.576 1.885 .651 -7.86 2.71
4+ 0 .409 1.264 .998 -3.14 3.96
1 .909 1.004 .894 -1.91 3.73
2 -.341 1.208 .999 -3.73 3.05
3 2.576 1.885 .651 -2.71 7.86
Knowledge of 0 1 -1.094 1.204 .892 -4.47 2.28
Occupations 2 -.967 1.433 .961 -4.99 3.05
Score 3 2.867 2.203 .691 -3.31 9.05
4+ -1.345 1.462 .888 -5.45 2.76
1 0 1.094 1.204 .892 -2.28 4.47
2 .127 1.124 1.000 -3.02 3.28
3 3.961 2.015 .294 -1.69 9.62
4+ -.251 1.161 .999 -3.51 3.01
2 0 .967 1.433 .961 -3.05 4.99
1 -.127 1.124 1.000 -3.28 3.02
3 3.833 2.160 .397 -2.23 9.89
4+ -.379 1.397 .999 -4.30 3.54
3 0 -2.867 2.203 .691 -9.05 3.31
1 -3.961 2.015 .294 -9.62 1.69
2 -3.833 2.160 .397 -9.89 2.23
4+ -4.212 2.179 .311 -10.33 1.90
4+ 0 1.345 1.462 .888 -2.76 5.45
1 .251 1.161 .999 -3.01 3.51
38
2 .379 1.397 .999 -3.54 4.30
3 4.212 2.179 .311 -1.90 10.33
Career Decision- 0 1 -.665 1.299 .986 -4.31 2.98
Making Score 2 -.733 1.547 .989 -5.07 3.61
3 3.433 2.378 .602 -3.24 10.10
4+ -1.355 1.578 .911 -5.78 3.07
1 0 .665 1.299 .986 -2.98 4.31
2 -.069 1.213 1.000 -3.47 3.33
3 4.098 2.176 .336 -2.01 10.20
4+ -.690 1.253 .981 -4.21 2.83
2 0 .733 1.547 .989 -3.61 5.07
1 .069 1.213 1.000 -3.33 3.47
3 4.167 2.332 .390 -2.38 10.71
4+ -.621 1.508 .994 -4.85 3.61
3 0 -3.433 2.378 .602 -10.10 3.24
1 -4.098 2.176 .336 -10.20 2.01
2 -4.167 2.332 .390 -10.71 2.38
4+ -4.788 2.353 .261 -11.39 1.81
4+ 0 1.355 1.578 .911 -3.07 5.78
1 .690 1.253 .981 -2.83 4.21
2 .621 1.508 .994 -3.61 4.85
3 4.788 2.353 .261 -1.81 11.39
Career Planning 0 1 -.518 1.384 .996 -4.40 3.37
Score 2 -1.567 1.647 .876 -6.19 3.06
3 3.267 2.533 .698 -3.84 10.37
4+ -.400 1.681 .999 -5.12 4.32
1 0 .518 1.384 .996 -3.37 4.40
2 -1.049 1.292 .926 -4.67 2.58
3 3.784 2.317 .482 -2.72 10.29
4+ .118 1.335 1.000 -3.63 3.86
2 0 1.567 1.647 .876 -3.06 6.19
1 1.049 1.292 .926 -2.58 4.67
3 4.833 2.484 .304 -2.14 11.80
4+ 1.167 1.606 .950 -3.34 5.67
3 0 -3.267 2.533 .698 -10.37 3.84
1 -3.784 2.317 .482 -10.29 2.72
2 -4.833 2.484 .304 -11.80 2.14
4+ -3.667 2.506 .590 -10.70 3.36
4+ 0 .400 1.681 .999 -4.32 5.12
1 -.118 1.335 1.000 -3.86 3.63
2 -1.167 1.606 .950 -5.67 3.34
3 3.667 2.506 .590 -3.36 10.70
39
Career 0 1 -.918 1.127 .925 -4.08 2.24
Implementation 2 -.883 1.341 .964 -4.65 2.88
Score 3 2.033 2.062 .861 -3.75 7.82
4+ -2.027 1.369 .578 -5.87 1.81
1 0 .918 1.127 .925 -2.24 4.08
2 .034 1.052 1.000 -2.92 2.99
3 2.951 1.887 .525 -2.34 8.24
4+ -1.110 1.087 .845 -4.16 1.94
2 0 .883 1.341 .964 -2.88 4.65
1 -.034 1.052 1.000 -2.99 2.92
3 2.917 2.022 .603 -2.76 8.59
4+ -1.144 1.308 .905 -4.81 2.53
3 0 -2.033 2.062 .861 -7.82 3.75
1 -2.951 1.887 .525 -8.24 2.34
2 -2.917 2.022 .603 -8.59 2.76
4+ -4.061 2.040 .282 -9.79 1.66
4+ 0 2.027 1.369 .578 -1.81 5.87
1 1.110 1.087 .845 -1.94 4.16
2 1.144 1.308 .905 -2.53 4.81
3 4.061 2.040 .282 -1.66 9.79
CPS Total Score 0 1 -4.276 5.876 .949 -20.76 12.21
2 -6.517 6.994 .884 -26.14 13.11
3 13.067 10.752 .743 -17.10 43.24
4+ -7.600 7.137 .824 -27.62 12.42
1 0 4.276 5.876 .949 -12.21 20.76
2 -2.240 5.484 .994 -17.63 13.15
3 17.343 9.838 .404 -10.26 44.95
4+ -3.324 5.666 .977 -19.22 12.57
2 0 6.517 6.994 .884 -13.11 26.14
1 2.240 5.484 .994 -13.15 17.63
3 19.583 10.543 .350 -10.00 49.17
4+ -1.083 6.818 1.000 -20.21 18.05
3 0 -13.067 10.752 .743 -43.24 17.10
1 -17.343 9.838 .404 -44.95 10.26
2 -19.583 10.543 .350 -49.17 10.00
4+ -20.667 10.639 .306 -50.52 9.18
4+ 0 7.600 7.137 .824 -12.42 27.62
1 3.324 5.666 .977 -12.57 19.22
2 1.083 6.818 1.000 -18.05 20.21
3 20.667 10.639 .306 -9.18 50.52
40
3. Ethnicity
The review of ethnicity for homogeneity of variance was conducted, only to find that no
significant variations were identified in the Levene test. All significance calculations were above
.05, making them insignificant at the 95% level. The chart below displays the results of the
Levene test for ethnicity and Career Planning Scores.
Table 1.16 - Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Levene df1 Sig.

Statistic
CPS Total Score 2.285 4.372 0.136
Knowledge of the World of Work Score 2.257 4.332 0.138
Self-Knowledge Score 0.015 4.645 0.902
Knowledge of Occupations Score 0.705 4.491 0.404
Career Decision-Making Score 0.185 4.596 0.669
Career Planning Score 0.074 4.862 0.787
Career Implementation Score 0.766 4.485 0.385
With the affirmation of no statistically significant variations between the variance of the
distribution of scores for the groups of ethnicities, the analysis of variance remains valid. The
chart below displays the ANOVA for career planning scores amongst the various ethnicity
groups. No statistically significant differences were found.
41
Table 1.17 - ANOVA of Ethnicity
ANOVA
Sum of
Knowled Between Groups 38.260 2 19.130 1.983 .146
ge of the Within Groups 646.440 67 9.648
World of
Total
Work 684.700 69
Score
Self- Between Groups 18.056 2 9.028 1.088 .343
Occupations Total
780.986 69
Score
Making Total
906.586 69
Score
Implementat Within Groups 675.657 67 10.084
ion Score Total 685.443 69
Total 18594.343 69
42
4. Academic Discipline
Finally, the analysis of variance of the career planning scores by academic discipline, or major,
was reviewed. The statistical analysis found no significant difference in scores for any segment
of the Career Planning Scale, based on major. The results can be reviewed in the chart below.
Table 1.18 - ANOVA of Academic Disciplines
Sum of
Knowledge Between Groups 38.260 2 19.130 1.983 .146
of the world Within Groups 646.440 67 9.648
of work Total
684.700 69
Score
Self- Between Groups 18.056 2 9.028 1.088 .343
Occupations Total
780.986 69
Score
Making Total
906.586 69
Score
Implementat Within Groups 675.657 67 10.084
ion Score Total 685.443 69
Total 18594.343 69
43
❖ Regression Analysis
Hypotheses Results
The report investigates the effect of Ethnicity, Gender, Major on Carrier Planning Score of a State or
non-state undergraduate.
H1: There is a significant impact of Ethnicity on Carrier Planning Score.

H2: There is a significant impact of Gender on Carrier Planning Score.
H3: There is a significant impact of Major on Carrier Planning Score.
The dependent variable (Carrier Planning Score) was regressed on predicting variables of
Ethnicity, Gender, and Major. The Independent variables not significantly predict
Undergraduates Carrier Planning Score, F (3,66) = 1.285, p<.05, Which indicates that the factors
under study not significantly impact Undergraduates Carrier Planning Score. Moreover, R2 =
.055 depicts that the model explains 5.5% of the Undergraduates Carrier Planning Score.
Additionally, coefficients were further assessed to ascertain the influence of each factor on the
criterion variable (Undergraduates Carrier Planning Score).
H1 estimates whether Ethnicity significantly affect Carrier Planning Score. The results revealed
insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis or establish a significant relationship (B = 2.999,
t = .829, p = .410). Hence, H1 was Unsupported.
H2 estimates whether Gender significantly affect Carrier Planning Score. The results revealed
insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis or establish a significant relationship (B = -2.807,
t = -.687, p = .494). Hence, H2 was Unsupported.
H3 estimates whether the Major significantly affect Carrier Planning Score. The results revealed
insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis or establish a significant relationship (B = -2.806,
t = -1.320, p = .191). Hence, H3 was Unsupported. The Results are presented in Table 1.21.
44
Table 1.19 - Model Summery of Regression
Table 1.20 - Anova Results of Regression
Table 1.21 - Coefficients Table of Regression
45
❖ Research Questions
With these findings, it is possible to revisit the research questions to describe the relationship
between internship exposure and career maturity at the completion of an undergraduate degree
program. The initial research question asked was “What is the relationship between internship
experience and career maturity of undergraduate?”
1. Sub-Question 1
How does career maturity differ between those exposed to internship experience and those
who are not?
In general, the descriptive data revealed that students who had been exposed to an internship
experience averaged a higher rating in all six categories of the career planning scale. However,
there was no statistically significant differences between students who completed an internship
and students who did not in any pillar of career planning score.
2. Sub-Question 2
How does career maturity differ based on the number of internship experiences
completed?
The descriptive data found that there was an increase in average scores that coincided with an
increase in internship except for student who completed third internship. The study did not reveal
the cause of this decrease, but it may warrant additional research to explore the possibilities. There
were also no significant differences found based on the number of internships completed.
46
Summary
The results of this study find that a relationship between exposures to internships as experiential
experiences and career maturity does exist, but in very limited and specific aspects.
Based on descriptive data alone, students have equally completed the sub pillars of career
planning questionnaire. All the When delving deeper into the descriptive, reviewing the results
based on number of internships completed, there appears to be a dip in the results for students
who have completed three internships. The students who have completed a three-internship
scored on average, lower than students who had not completed any internships in overall Career
Planning Scale, Self-Knowledge, Knowledge of Occupations, Career Decision Making and
Career Implementation scores. Reasons for this possible decline are explored in conclusion.
Descriptive data was reviewed by ethnicity and gender and yielded minimal significant
differences. However, Sinhalese students scored lower than all other groups in Career Planning
Scale total scores, with similar averages of 109.44. Tamils and scored higher than Moors in
Career Planning Scale total scores with 122.63 average score. Male students averaged a higher
score than females in the overall Career Planning Scale score, with an average of 116.41, in
comparison to the female average of 114.41. The men scored higher in each segment of the
survey, but the differences in every segment were consistently below a 1–2 point difference.
There were no significant differences in the descriptive data by major.
With the results of the descriptive data considered, analysis continued with a closer look at the
inferential statistics. The Levene test was conducted to see if there were any significant
differences in variance for any of the groups analyzed. All Levene tests came back negative for
significant differences in homogeneity of variance based on internship status, number of
internships completed, ethnicity, gender, and academic concentration. The confirmation of
homogeneity of variance allowed for continued analysis of variance (ANOVA).
47
Analysis of Variance of the results based on completion or non-completion of an internship
returned in significant for all categories. Which interpret there is no significance difference
between students who have completed an internship or not completed an internship on any pillar
of career Planning Score.
When the analysis of variance was reviewed for comparison based on the number of internships
completed, it interprets that no significance between o to 4+ Internships completed on any pillar
of career Planning Score. A Tukey test, also known as a T-test was conducted to pinpoint the areas
of significant difference in scores based on the number of internships completed. No significant
difference was found between those completing four or more internships to those who completed
no internships, in area of Carrer Planning Score. Analysis further resulted in no significant
differences between groups based on ethnicity, nor by academic major.
Overall, while there are differences between students who have completed an internship, and those
who have not but not significantly. That significance grows as the number of experiential
experiences grow. Based on their self- assessment, students completing the survey greatly attribute
their professional development to their experiential experiences, citing internships 72.9% of the
time, and student organizations and involvement 2.9% of the time. The implications of these
findings and conclusions are covered in conclusion.
48
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The implications of the findings from analyze will be examined in this chapter. The implications
of the findings, the study's constraints and presumptions, its suggestions for further research, and
a summary will make up the four main sections of the chapter. In Analyze, the outcomes are
described in detail.
❖ Overview
Before discussing the implications of the study findings, it should be noted that the purpose of
the study is to explore the relationship between internship exposure and career maturity at the
time of graduation, as measured by Liptak’s Career Planning Scale. The Career Planning Scale
is comprised of six categories; (1) knowledge of the world of work; (2) self- knowledge; (3)
knowledge of occupations; (4) career decision-making; (5) career planning; and (6) career
implementation. An online survey was disseminated to the undergraduate students of State and
Non-State in Sri Lanka. The survey consisted of Liptak’s Career Planning Scale, an additional
question on the greatest factor contributing to the participant’s career development, and
demographic questions. Questionnaire was released to 100 students and 70 students completed
fully within provided 36-hour time period.
The results of the descriptive analysis supported the hypothesis, finding that students that
completed one or more internships during their undergraduate studies, scored higher in all
six categories of career maturity than students who had not completed an internship at all.
The inferential statistics did not reveal a significant difference between students who had not
completed an internship and those who had completed four or more internships, in any area of
Career Planning Score (CPS). The remainder of this chapter will discuss the conclusions and
implications of the results discovered during analysis, as well as the limitations of the study, and
the recommendations for actions that should be taken because of the findings.
49
❖ Conclusions
Analyze displays the results gathered from this study. While the results determine which
categories and relationships were most significant. Four conclusions were gathered from the data
during analysis. The first conclusion gathered, is that the average career maturity of students
who completed an internship is higher than the average of those who did not complete an
internship. This conclusion held true across all six categories of Liptak’s Career Planning Scale.
While some increases were greater than others, the finding supports the career recruiters’ belief
that candidates with internship experience are more prepared to enter the workforce.
The next conclusion gathered is that completing the third internship experience can result in a
unique decrease in all the aspects such as Knowledge of World Works, Self Knowledge,
Knowledge of Occupation and others. After review of the data, the campus culture, and the
college’s job placement data, it was determined that a possible cause of this slight dip in scores
may be a one potential reason that emerged is the concept of "internship fatigue." It is suggested
that students may experience a decline in scores after completing their third internship due to a
combination of mental, emotional, and physical exhaustion resulting from multiple internship
experiences. This exhaustion may manifest in various ways, such as reduced motivation,
diminished focus, and a lower capacity to absorb and apply knowledge. "Internship fatigue"
explained as,
1. Increased Workload: Multiple internships and academic commitments can lead to
overwhelming fatigue and reduced performance.
2. Reduced Novelty: Diminishing excitement and engagement in subsequent internships may
contribute to a decline in scores.
3. Repetition of Tasks: Performing similar responsibilities across internships can result in
monotony and hinder learning, impacting students' performance.
4. Limited Learning Diversity: A narrower range of experiences and challenges in
consecutive internships may restrict growth and development, leading to lower scores.
50
There are a few other minor dips in scores with increased internship experience, but in general,
with increased. Exposure to professional environments through multiple internship experiences,
confidence grows above the level of participants with no internship exposure at all. This Statement
can be certified by looking at the gradually increase of Career Planning Score from no internship
to four or more than internships excluding anomalous third internship completed students. As
mentioned earlier the most significant change occurred between those who did not complete an
internship, and those who completed four or more internships. This finding is not surprising, as
gaining supervised, hands-on experience through an internship, would teach the student more
about the career in which they are interning.
The last conclusion is that internships have the greatest impact on student career development.
This was concluded from a bonus question, asked after the completion of the Career Planning
Scale. The question was placed in a multiple-choice format, with the option to add an open ended
response. Approximately 72.9% of participants chose internships as the factor with the greatest
impact on their career development, with involvement/student organizations coming in second
place with approximately 2.9% of the responses. It is significant that over 70% of the responses,
indicated that factors outside of the college curriculum and resources, had the greatest impact on
the student’s career develop. There are two possible implications that can be deduced from this
finding; internships are the most potent career development offering and should be required, or
the current college services, faculty, and staff, are not maximizing their role as career resources.
These conclusions will allow for a greater depth of understanding of the state of career
development in the College of Journalism and Communications, in addition to guiding
improvements to the services currently begin offered to these students. With further discussi on
and review of this study’s results, the conclusions gained will help to build the structure of new
professional development strategies. The next section of this chapter will review the implications
of the results on theory.
51
❖ Implications to Theory
While these implications were gathered from the initial review of the data collected, a deeper layer
of analysis was required. Many of the implications that were gathered from the data were
consistent with the theoretical framework that was built into the study. However, some
implications could be considered enhancements to the existing theories on career development.
The remainder of this section will review the findings and implications to theory of the data
gathered from a descriptive and inferential statistical analysis.
❖ Descriptive Data
The descriptive statistics revealed that of the six areas scored on the Career Planning Scale, study
participants scored the highest in the Self Knowledge category, regardless of the number of
internships they completed. The same was found true across genders, and academic disciplines.
Research has shown that the process of developing self-knowledge, and hence a personal identity,
is shaped by the opportunity to individualize one’s life course by obtaining a variety of self-
fulfilling personal and intimate relationships, educational and professional experiences, and
having autonomy to plan for the future (Luyckx, Klimstra, Duriez, Schwarts, and Vanhalst, 2012).
The high scores in self-knowledge may serve as an indicator that the State and Non-State
Universities in the Sri Lanka is providing a vast variety of personal development activities and
experiences for students to select from.
52
However, the lower scores in the professional competencies of Knowledge of the World of Work,
Knowledge of Occupations, Career Decision-Making, Career Planning, and Career
Implementation, may indicate that the vast amount of self-exploration options the university
provides, many of these options are missing a component that relates to the student’s long term
professional goals. The incorporation of the transferrable skills concept, training to communicate
individual skill sets, and resources to identify and explore career opportunities that utilize their
strengths and talents into the student curriculum and extracurricular activities, may boost the
remainder of the Career Planning Scale category scores.
In every facet of analysis, no significant differences were identified in the career maturity of
students on the basis of gender, ethnicity, and academic discipline. The lack of significant
difference held true for all six categories of the Career Planning Scale, as well as the overall Career
Planning Scale score. The data from this study and previous research correspondingly find that
regardless of the background of the student, intentional career development initiatives garner
stronger increases in career maturity than demographic variables. The descriptive data results of
Analyze also revealed that four or more internships resulted in the largest average Career Planning
Score with an average of 128.07. For students completing two internships, the Career Planning
Score saw a slight spike with 123.74 average score. The next section will take a closer look at the
inferential data, as well as its implications. Using ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) to identify any
significant variations in the sample groups, and through Levene’s test to identify any inequality
of variances between sample groups.
53
❖ Inferential Data
The inferential statistics analysis found no significant differences in the Career Planning Scores
for ethnicity, gender, and academic discipline. This finding is critical, as it supports the findings
from the descriptive data, which found similar means across these groups. It also serves as
evidence supporting the theory that ethnicity, gender and major are not contributing factors in a
undergraduate student’s career maturity. Based on this finding, all students, regardless of gender,
ethnicity, or chosen area of study, can mature professionally with the appropriate resources. All
students are in need of professional development training, and not just those going into
traditionally conservative professional fields such as business and engineering. This finding
insinuates that efforts should be placed in generalized career development programming, as
opposed to targeted programming for specialized populations. A closer look at the scores of the
four academic disciplines of the State and Non-State University students uncovered that, despite
the differences in curriculum across the four majors, the student’s career maturity levels were not
changed. It can be concluded that, the current academic curriculum for these four majors is either
not addressing the career development needs of the students in these academic disciplines, or are
doing a very equivalent level of preparation. Based on the results of the survey on undergraduates,
it is more likely that the academic departments’ current curriculum is not taking an active approach
to developing the career maturity of these students. This conclusion is based on the comparison of
the 70%-80% job placement rate (2018, Traces study by UGC on USJ) for the undergraduates of
States and Non-State University’s in Sri Lanka.
After evaluating the inferential statistics, it was found that there was no significant difference
between having no internship experience, and four or more internship experiences, in the Career
Planning Scale.
54
In addition to the Career Planning Scale results, this study collected supplementary data that yield
an additional implication in support of Super’s Life Space theory. The question of “What factor
had the greatest impact on your career preparation?” was asked at the end of the survey,
approximately 70.29% (51) of respondents selected internships as the greatest factor attributing to
their career preparation, with the second greatest factor of career preparation is academic courses
being far behind at 15.7% (11).
❖ Limitations and Assumptions
While the study design attempted to minimize limitations, there were a few that prevailed despite
study efforts. Also, many parameters of the study were based upon several assumptions. Should
those assumptions prove untrue, the basis for the study would damage the reliability of the
results. Most of the limitations revolved around the sample size, while the assumptions revolved
around the participant characteristics.
Limitations
To incur the largest sample possible, the survey was distributed to all members of the study
population. However, the population’s size was only that of 130000 students. Despite a response
rate of 6.8% of the population, only 70 surveys were completed. A larger sample may have yielded
more conclusive results. While 25% is an acceptable sample size for the social sciences, other
methods recommend using formulas to calculate the optimal sample size, which would yield a
different suggested size. If the Sample Size formula of SS= [Z2* (p)* (1-p)] / c2,here SS is sample
size, Z refers to the Z score of 1.96 for a 95% confidence interval, a c of .05, and p is a percentage
of 50%, the optimal sample size for this study would have been closer to 385 State and Non- State
Students (Sample Size Formula, 2013). Without imposing a penalty for declining participation,
it would take more time and a change in the population’s culture to increase participation. This
55
leads to the next limitation. Because of the nature of the study, the timeline for gathering survey
participants is limited. The study aims at determining the level of career maturity at the time of
graduation.
Assumptions
There are three main assumptions, under which this study was conducted. It was assumed that
the respondents would be representative of the study population on all facets. While ethnicity,
academic discipline, and gender are measurable for population representation, beliefs, personal
experiences, confidence level, social collateral, and extracurricular involvement were not. For
the demographic data collected, the sample was a close representation of the population, but it
cannot be guaranteed that the results are representative of the population. The second
assumption is that respondents would respond honestly. The validity of any and every survey
response hinges on the assumption that the respondent answered each question truthfully, as the
researcher has no means for verifying the responses. The third assumption is that the respondents
can comprehend the questions asked, and that they are familiar enough with the realities of career
development to give an accurate assessment of their personal standing.
The study was conducted under the assumption that respondents were honest in their responses and
aware of their level in knowledge in comparison to societal norms. Studies have shown that there
are both cognitive and situational issues that may influence the level of honesty and accuracy of
participants’ survey responses (Brener, Bill, and Grady, 2003). Since all of the respondents are at
the point of completing a college degree, their level of education make it possible to assume with
a high level of certainty that the respondents cognitively understood the statements throughout the
survey. In reference to the situational issues, there is a chance that respondents knew that it was
socially desirable to have a higher level of career preparation at the point of degree completion.
56
❖ Future Research
Most of the comparisons of Career Planning scores and the various groups analyzed failed to
display significant differences. There are multiple reasons why this may have occurred. Future
studies, with varying formats may yield more conclusive data. This section will explore possible
future research that could add to the findings discovered during this study. The amount of data
collected in this study may have made it more difficult to identify significant trends between
groups. While the number of students completing a baccalaureate degree each term limits the
sample pool, the study could be converted into a longitudinal study by replicating the survey over
several terms, and adding a pre- and post- test. In order to gather a larger sample for analysis, it is
recommended that this study is replicated each semester, over several years, continuing to gather
a larger sample of graduating seniors. This transformation to a longitudinal study would allow for
the gathering of enough data to provide results that are more conclusive. Observed differences in
the results of each graduating class may indicate the success or failure in new methods of preparing
students for their post-graduation careers.A future variation of this study could include a pre- and
post- assessment of participants. Some students may begin their baccalaureate program with higher
or lower levels of career maturity based on their background and personal experience. Conducting
pre- and post- testing allows the researcher to monitor the amount of growth in career maturity
occurring, regardless of how deficit or advanced the respondents level of career maturity is at the
time of entering college. The pre- test would take place during the freshman year, and the post test
could occur one year after graduation. The comparison of each testing cycle would allow the
measurement of growth at different stages of the career development process, as well as the ability
to identify trends in growth during each phase. An interesting aspect to monitor would be whether
or not the identification of the greatest impact on their career development would change once they
have actual began working would change.
This aspect could reveal more data on the change of perspective during work experiences, as well
57
as identify deficits in understanding of career development during the undergraduate experience.
Overall, the pre- and post- tests could also be an early step in identifying causation of career
maturity level changes. To further increase the generalizability of the data collected, the study can
be expanded to multiple sites. This would allow the data to be compared, to see if the results are
similar across institutions of various sizes, demographics, and cultures. When the data gathered
from multiple sites is combined, it allows for inferential analysis to determine if the findings are
significant for the more diverse populations. Additional questions can be added to gather student
feedback on the value of each of the new resources. The most valuable addition would be to add
questions about whether the student has secured employment at the time of graduation. Overtime,
monitoring the effectiveness of programming could provide direction to shape the undergraduate
curriculum in a way that maximizes the academic performance and professional acumen of the
student body. The addition of an age question to identify differences in career maturity and
perspective amongst students in various life stages could provide unique and useful data. This data
could be used to identify learning styles and values of various types of students, also giving
direction into the most effective methods of dissemination career development resources.
Awareness in the changes of student culture will assist the college in implementing necessary
changes to the curriculum and best practices.The final variation for future research would be the
addition of a control group. This would greatly increase the researcher’s ability to identify
causation of career maturity. Unfortunately, there may be limitations in the ethics of preventing
access to internship experiences and career resources. Students who do not utilize these resources
by choice may be identified at the time of graduation, but based on this study, it may be difficult
to find an adequate sample of students who have avoided all types of career development exposure.
One option would be to utilize online program students who have not had professional work
experience at the time of graduation. This would be a smaller sample size, but multiple years of
data can be collected to find conclusive results.
58
Summary
This study of Liptak’s Career Planning Scale and graduating seniors in the College of Journalism
and Communications set out to identify the relationship between undergraduate internship
experience and career maturity. The data gathered revealed a variety of results.
Positive results showed that 85.7% of the students completed at least one internship, and that of
all the categories of the scale, students’ level of Self Knowledge was the highest at the time of
graduation. In addition, there were no significant differences in the score variations across
ethnicities, academic disciplines, and genders, insinuating that no individual demographic group
suffered disproportionately to the others in the area of career development.
Strengths in the current curriculum and culture of the college studied are that it fosters
encouragement and resources for experiential education, in addition to creating a strong
environment for self-exploration and self-knowledge development. These strengths are exhibited
across genders, races, and academic disciplines within the University. The current culture provides
a strong foundation for building the optimal career development environment.
Unfortunately, the data also revealed weakness in the areas of Career Planning Pillar. In order for
the universities and its students to reach the ultimate levels of professional and academic
development, professional development will need to be made a priority, and integrated into the
culture. Recommendations for improving the environment are trifold, categorized by creating a
task force to design an effective career development strategy, providing educational resources for
both students and faculty and staff, and continuing research with continuous assessment of
program implementations. All recommendations are supported by career development theories,
and prior research findings should be taken into consideration when developing new career
resources and programming.
59
I propose the implementation of career guidance programs and compulsory internship periods in
both state and non-state universities. These initiatives would provide significant benefits to
students by helping them make informed career choices and gain practical work experience. Career
guidance programs can include workshops, counseling, aptitude tests, and mentorship
opportunities to assist students in exploring different career paths and identifying their strengths
and interests. By making internships compulsory, students would have the opportunity to apply
their theoretical knowledge in real-world settings, develop essential skills, and build professional
networks. Collaborating with industries and organizations would ensure that internships align with
industry needs and provide relevant experiences. Skill development programs focusing on
communication, teamwork, problem-solving, critical thinking, and leadership should also be
incorporated into the curricula. Furthermore, engaging alumni through networking events, panel
discussions, and mentoring programs would provide students with valuable insights and guidance.
Continuous evaluation, feedback mechanisms, and research would enable universities to adapt
these programs to meet the evolving needs of students and the job market. Through these efforts,
universities can empower students, enhance their employability, and bridge the gap between
academia and industry.
60
References
• Google (2022) Google terms of service. Available at

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj91_rPsev_AhXr-
TgGHX96BSsQFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.library.northeastern.edu%2Ffiles%2Fn
eu%3Arx914p98w%2Ffulltext.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1PbnaJ_nv9eZLoulA0Nrx2&opi=89978449 (Accessed:
20 June 2023).
• Google (2022) Google terms of service. Available

at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1z7we_wzCj8xnBZzFMGBy6DYMH5OdIGMZ1qr5hDrVVp4/
edit?pli=1(Accessed: 26 June 2023).

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hag1xSdYce0&t=1297s (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BeYY8JgokU&t=14s (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvpqzUN56sA (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjb87PhiswQ (Accessed: 26 June 2023).

at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoGacdV6YWo (Accessed: 26 June 2023).
61
Appendix
Yes No
Are you graduating
with a bachelor's
degree at the end of
the year 2024?
0 1 2 3 4+
How many
internships
have you
completed?
(6+wk/150+hrs
each)
Accounting Engineering Public Software

Relations Engineering
What is
your major?
Knowledge of World Work

Yes No
Did you complete a 6+
week or 150+ hour
internship during your
undergraduate
studies?
62
Not True Somewhat True True
I am aware of the
changes taking
place in the job
market
I have researched
the types of skills
employers expect
in new employees
I know the costs-
in time and
money- of
training programs
for careers that
interest me
I have explored
the job growth
trends affecting
occupations in
the future
I have realistic
expectations
about the
opportunities
available to me
I have developed
a lifelong
learning plan (the
continuous
learning of new
skills)
I understand what
a global economy
is and can
describe how it
affects my career
63
I have experience
using computers,
the Internet, and
other new
technologies
affecting the
workplace
Self Kowledege
I have identified
my interests and
know how they
apply to my
career
I have identified
and defined my
skills and abilities
I know what
motivates me to
do well on a job
I have identified
occupations that
will satisfy my
values
I know what
kinds of
occupations
appeal to my
personality
I can describe my
natural talents
I understand how
my skills can
transfer from one
job to the next
I can describe the
working
64
conditions that
appeal to me
Knowledge of Occupations
I have used a
variety of
occupational
information
sources in the
library and on the
Internet
I have talked with
and/or observed
workers in
occupations that
interest me
I have researched
the earnings of
people in
occupations that
interest me
I have talked with
family and
friends about
occupations that
interest me
I have read
books,
magazines, and
brochures about
jobs that interest
me
I have talked with
a career
professional
about occupations
that interest me
65
I am aware of the
employment
outlook for
occupations that
interest me
I have researched
the activities,
educational
requirements, and
working
conditions of jobs
that interest me
Career Decision Making

I have matched
my interests,
values, skills, and
abilities to
occupations
I have determined
my career needs
and identified
alternatives to
meet these needs
I have a specific
strategy I use
when making
career decisions
I have generated
a list of many
different career
possibilities and
compared them
I have rationally
weighed all costs
and benefits
associated with
66
my career
decision
I have discussed
my career options
and decisions
with friends and
family
I have collected
enough
information to
make effective
career decisions
I have ranked the
overall suitability
of the career
options available
to me
Career Planning
I have developed
long- term career
goals (three to ten
years in the
future)
I have developed
short-term career
goals (one to six
months in the
future)
I have discussed
my career plan
with a career
professional
I have read books
and attended
classes or
67
programs on
career planning
I know what steps
I need to take to
accomplish my
goals
I have developed
a timeline for
accomplishing
each of my career
goals
I have a
comprehensive
plan for
integrating my
work, family, and
leisure roles
I have already
taken steps to
complete some of
my short-term
goals
Career Implementation
I have developed
an effective
resume
I know how to
find openings for
the jobs that
interest me
I have identified
obstacles to
achieving my
career goals
I know how to
convey my skills
68
on a resume and
in an interview
I know how to
use computer
software and the
Internet to assist
in my job search
I know how to
develop and
maintain an
effective network
I can explain how
to access the
hidden job
market
I can demonstrate
the skills and
behaviors
necessary for a
successful job
interview
Intern Student Advising Academic Faculty Non-

ship Organiz Appointm Courses Faculty
ation(s)/ ents mentors
Involve
ment
What
factor had
the
greatest
impact on
your
career
preparatio
n?
69
Male Female
What is your gender?
Sinhalese Tamil Moor Other

What is your
race/ethnicity?
70

Group Analysis Empowered

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Group Analysis Empowered

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group Analysis Empowered

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GROUP REPORT

“THE CAREER MATURITY AND INTERNSHIP

A Group Activity Report

W.M.O.P. Wickramasinghe - (BSC/2020/14B/MOHE/044)

Module: Package Based Data Analysis

Module Code: BSAA32034

Lecturer: Dr. Roshan Ajwad

Year III Semester II

BSc (Applied Accounting) Degree

School of Accounting and Business

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka

Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Figure 1.1 – Line Graph ...................................................................................................... 10

Table 1.1 - Reliability Statics .............................................................................................. 16

❖ Relationship between Number of Internships and Career Planning Scores among

Figure 1.1 – Line Graph

Figure 1.2 – Pie Graph

Figure 1.3 – Bar Graph

❖ To evaluate the reliability of Career Planning Score.

Table 1.1 - Reliability Statics

Constructs No. of Items Alpha(α)

❖ Identify underlying latent factors or constructs that explain the

According to Steffes (2004), experiential education is a type of experience-based learning in which

What is the relationship between internship experience and career maturity of

Undergraduates in the Sri Lankan Universities?

ethnicity, and academic concentration.

not-fair representation of the population (University of Florida Registrar, 2014).

Gender Frequency Percentage Cumulative percent

and 7.1% (5) identified as Moor.

Ethnicity Frequency Percent Cumulative

Sinhalese 57 81.4% 81.4%

composition of this group consisted of 45 (64.3%) Accounting, 13 (18.6%) Engineering, 5

(7.1%) Public Relations, and 7 (10%) Software Engineering.

11 (15.7%) completed four or more experiences.

means and standard deviations of all completed surveys.

Table 1.5 - Mean Scores

question, “How many internships have you completed? (6+wk/150+hrs each)?”

Table 1.6 - Descriptive Statistics of Internship Completion Status

maturity on a more consistent basis than not completing an internship at all.

experiences will be explored in Conclusion.

the mean and standard deviation of the career planning scores.

Table 1.8 - Descriptive Data for Ethnicity and CPS Scores

Moor 5 120.40 22.457 10.043 92.52 148.28 96

Total 70 118.92 17.29 5.62 104.51 133.33 93

Moor 5 19.20 4.550 2.035 13.55 24.85 13

Tamil 8 21.63 2.560 0.905 19.48 23.77 16

Moor 5 21.00 3.082 1.378 17.17 24.83 16

Moor 5 20.00 4.183 1.871 14.81 25.19 15

Total 70 19.37 3.32 1.05 16.69 22.05 14

Tamil 8 19.75 3.105 1.098 17.15 22.35 15

Moor 5 20.20 4.025 1.800 15.20 25.20 16

Total 70 19.42 3.59 1.13 16.57 22.28 13

Tamil 8 19.88 2.642 0.934 17.67 22.08 16

Moor 5 19.80 3.633 1.481 15.29 24.31 16

Total 70 19.10 3.40 0.98 16.52 21.69 14

Moor 5 20.20 3.899 1.744 15.36 25.04 16

Total 70 19.98 3.18 1.01 17.40 22.55 15

scores based on the survey participants’ gender.