Abstract
Background: Global education frameworks increasingly emphasise the alignment of academic programmes with labour market demands and equity imperatives. Strengthening career guidance and enhancing curricular relevance are considered essential for supporting informed student decision-making and long-term employability.
Objectives: This study investigates motivational dimensions and gender-based differences influencing programme selection among Bachelor of Commerce and Economics students in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the National University of Lesotho. The study explores how demographic profiles and motivational orientations shape academic choices and perceived programme value.
Methods: A descriptive quantitative survey was administered to 159 first-year students. Data were analysed by using SPSS for exploratory factor analysis, reliability testing and independent samples t-tests to assess gender differences across seven motivational constructs. Chi-square analysis examined associations between gender and programme choice.
Results: Seven motivational factors emerged: instructional quality, academic ease, career value, social endorsement, programme popularity, intrinsic interest and prestige. While most factors showed no significant gender differences, male students scored significantly higher on intrinsic interest and future utility. No statistically significant association was found between gender and programme choice.
Conclusion: Student decision-making reflects a complex interplay of personal motivations and institutional influences. Although overt gender disparities in programme enrolment are narrowing, motivational differences persist, particularly among male students.
Contribution: The study offers actionable insights for gender-sensitive advising, inclusive programme design and strategic planning. The study supports Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 4 and SDG 5) by promoting motivation-aware academic environments that foster informed, aspiration-driven choices.
Keywords: programme selection; motivation; gender; Bachelor of Commerce; economics; higher education; career aspirations; academic advising.
Introduction
The transition from secondary education to higher learning represents a critical juncture in a student’s academic and professional development. Whether entering college or university, the selection of an academic programme is among the most consequential decisions students make and significantly shapes their career trajectory, personal growth and long-term opportunities (Lombard, 2020; Zaini et al., 2021). A well-aligned programme fosters intellectual engagement, skill development and career readiness, while a misaligned choice may lead to dissatisfaction, disengagement or limited professional mobility (Dillon & Smith, 2020).
While programme selection is often framed as a matter of personal interest or aptitude, students’ choices are rarely made in isolation (Matolo et al., 2022). A growing body of literature highlights the influence of external factors such as parental expectations, financial constraints, perceived job security and societal prestige (Brighton College, 2024). For instance, Celmar et al. (2024) found that employability concerns and family input frequently outweigh intrinsic motivation. Similarly, Mulenga and Miyoba (2024) observed that economic considerations and social pressure often override personal aspirations, revealing a disconnect between institutional offerings and student agency.
Compounding these influences is the issue of limited career awareness. Many students make programme decisions based on incomplete information, anecdotal advice or pressure to conform to socially endorsed professions (Bhujbal & Verma, 2024). According to Mowreader (2024), only one in five college students receives adequate education-to-career guidance. This lack of structured support contributes to programme misalignment, academic regret and attrition. Karp et al. (2021) argue that advising practices integrating career exploration and individualised support significantly improve retention and alignment between academic pathways and personal goals.
In the African context, these challenges are intensified by institutional disparities, socioeconomic constraints and evolving labour market demands, particularly the growing emphasis on employability, job security and alignment of academic programmes with workforce needs (Chiramba & Ndofirepi, 2023). Despite the growing importance of higher education in promoting social mobility, limited empirical attention has been paid to how motivational beliefs and demographic characteristics shape programme selection (Anyichie, 2024; OECD, 2022; Wiese et al., 2023). Genderism, the systemic privileging of certain gender identities, continues to influence access to specific fields of study, reinforcing occupational stereotypes and limiting students’ freedom to pursue programmes aligned with their interests and capabilities (Kiprop, 2025; Modungwa, 2015; Mulwa, 2021).
This study investigates the motivational and demographic predictors of academic programme selection among students enrolled in the Bachelor of Commerce (B. Com) and Economics programme at the National University of Lesotho’s Faculty of Social Sciences. Although both programmes share a thematic focus on economic systems and policy, they differ in academic orientation and career trajectories: the B. Com degree emphasises applied business and managerial skills, while the economics programme leads to a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree that offers a theoretical foundation geared towards research and policy analysis (Chitkara University, 2023).
The aim of this study is to examine how motivations shaped by gender norms and demographic factors influence students’ academic programme choices. The specific objectives are to:
- Identify key motivational factors influencing programme selection.
- Examine gender differences in motivational profiles.
- Analyse the relationship between demographic variables and programme choice.
- Propose evidence-based recommendations to strengthen career guidance and promote equitable access.
Literature review
Motivational drivers in academic programme selection
Students’ academic programme choices are shaped by a dynamic mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, including personal interest, perceived utility and social expectations (Bergann et al., 2025). Zaini et al. (2021) highlight intrinsic factors such as intellectual curiosity and enjoyment, while extrinsic drivers include career prospects, financial incentives and social prestige. Mwantimwa (2021) adds that alignment between programme choice and personal aspirations enhances academic satisfaction and persistence. These findings underscore the need to recognise motivational diversity when designing institutional support strategies.
Demographic influences on programme choice
Gender significantly shapes programme selection, with global data showing a predominance of female students in disciplines like social sciences and humanities (UNESCO, 2022). Geographic location also plays a role, especially for students from rural or underserved areas. Sadjail et al. (2022) found that such students often choose programmes based on proximity, affordability and job market outcomes rather than disciplinary interest. These patterns reflect ongoing structural inequalities in access to higher education. Collectively, the studies emphasise that programme choice is a socially embedded decision influenced by intersecting demographic factors. Understanding these dynamics is vital for crafting equitable policies and targeted institutional support (Tavares et al., 2022).
Gender and programme choice
Genderism, the systemic privileging of one gender over others, continues to shape access, experiences and outcomes in higher education (Farmer et al., 2019). Despite equity policies, structural biases persist in programme offerings, faculty representation and career pathways (Griffin, 2019). Intersectionality, as conceptualised by Crenshaw (1989), offers a lens to examine how overlapping identities compound educational disadvantage. Recent scholarship extends this framework to higher education contexts, highlighting how institutional policies and social class dynamics reproduce inequalities (Beeckmans et al., 2023; Fernandez et al., 2024). In African contexts, gender disparities are intensified by socio-cultural expectations and institutional constraints. Mokoena and Dlamini (2023) note that female STEM students face implicit bias, limited mentorship and exclusionary cultures, while male students in female-dominated fields encounter stigma and identity conflict (Tshabalala, 2024).
Intersectional analysis shows that gender alone cannot explain disparities in programme selection or success. Nyarko and Boateng (2022) found that rural, low-income female students face barriers like limited resources and early marriage expectations. Institutional factors such as the language of instruction, campus safety and availability of financial aid disproportionately affect marginalised groups. Higher education institutions often struggle to address these layered inequities. Gender mainstreaming efforts lack intersectional sensitivity and overlook how gender, class and ethnicity shape student experiences (Fernandez et al., 2024). As Chikoko (2025) argues, treating gender as a monolith risks missing the nuanced realities of students. Equity frameworks must integrate intersectionality into curriculum, support services and institutional policy.
Institutional support and career guidance
Effective academic advising is essential for informed programme selection. Karp et al. (2021) advocate for models that combine career exploration, motivational interviewing and personalised support. Yet, Mowreader (2024) notes that only 20% of students receive adequate education-to-career guidance, resulting in misalignment between academic paths and career goals. Lombard (2020) highlights a transition programme like JuniorTukkie, which supports students moving from secondary to tertiary education. These initiatives improve retention and satisfaction, particularly for first-generation and under-resourced students, by fostering inclusive environments and expanding academic support (Bassett, 2023). These findings stress the need for proactive, equity-driven institutional support.
Despite global insights into advising and programme selection, African institutions remain underrepresented in empirical research. Anyichie (2024) calls for localised studies that reflect regional labour markets, particularly the demand for specific skills, employment opportunities and wage prospects, alongside cultural dynamics and institutional realities. Without such evidence, policy interventions risk misalignment with student needs and institutional capacities.
Theoretical framework
This study explores how demographic factors shape students’ motivation for academic programme selection, drawing on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT) (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Self-determination theory distinguishes between intrinsic drivers, such as subject passion and curiosity, and extrinsic influences like financial incentives, parental expectations and career stability. Students with greater autonomy tend to choose programmes based on personal interest, while those under external pressure often prioritise economically secure or socially prestigious fields (De la Fuente et al., 2020). Expectancy-Value Theory complements this by examining students’ confidence in succeeding (expectancy) and perceived programme benefits (value). Student characteristics such as age, socioeconomic status, gender and parental influence shape these perceptions. Students from lower-income backgrounds often pursue high-earning disciplines, while those with financial stability lean towards personally meaningful fields (Sadjail et al., 2022). Gender norms also influence choices, with female students more likely to enrol in social sciences as a result of career expectations (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Koçak et al., 2021). Integrating SDT and EVT offers a comprehensive lens for analysing how internal aspirations and external constraints interact in academic decision-making, especially within unequal systems (Kurlaender & Hibel, 2018; Urhahne & Wijnia, 2023). Applied within Lesotho’s higher education and examined through gender–socioeconomic intersections, this integration extends established theories to a new context and highlights equity-focused programme choice. These theories also guide the study’s methodology. Self-determination theory informs the categorisation of motivation into intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions, measured through scaled survey items on interest, autonomy and external influence. Expectancy-Value Theory supports variables related to academic confidence and perceived programme value, enabling nuanced analysis across demographic groups (Rosenzweig et al., 2019). A quantitative design with stratified sampling ensures representation across age, gender and socioeconomic strata for comparative analysis of motivational patterns.
Research methods and design
Guided by SDT and EVT, the research design directly linked motivational constructs to the study objectives. This theoretical foundation informed the sampling strategy and analytic choices. This study employs a descriptive quantitative survey design to examine motivational dimensions and gender-based differences in programme selection among Bachelor of Commerce and Economics students at the National University of Lesotho (NUL). This approach enables the identification of observable patterns in student decision-making and provides a structured framework for analysing academic choices across a defined population (Bryman, 2016). The approach supports the study’s aim of tracking trends in motivation across gender and socioeconomic lines, documenting career trajectories, institutional influences and social expectations (Creswell, 2014). By focusing on ‘what’ students choose and ‘how’ they express motivation rather than the causal ‘why’, the design reflects a positivist epistemology, emphasising empirical observation and generalisable insight (Taylor & Medina, 2013).
Reliability and validity
The revised questionnaire preserved essential motivational dimensions originally validated by Ma et al. (2021), including academic ease, career relevance and social influence, each of which demonstrated robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.7) in prior applications. Survey items were mapped onto established theoretical frameworks to ensure construct validity, notably the integrative model proposed by Labib et al. (2021), which synthesises elements from EVT, SDT and achievement goal theory.
Population and sampling
A stratified random sampling technique was used to ensure equitable representation and valid comparisons, with gender as the primary stratification variable (Creswell, 2014). This method minimised bias and supported balanced subgroup analysis. The target population included undergraduate students enrolled in the Bachelor of Commerce and Economics programmes at the NUL during the 2024–2025 academic year. According to official records, 159 students were registered across these programmes. This cohort was ideal, having recently completed their major selection, offering a timely opportunity to examine motivational factors and gender-based differences in programme choice. To ensure equitable representation and valid comparisons, a stratified random sampling technique was used, with gender as the primary stratification variable (Creswell, 2014).
Data collection method
A structured, self-administered questionnaire was used to assess students’ motivations for academic programme selection. Grounded in SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and EVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), the instrument examined individual agency, perceived value and contextual influences. Items were adapted from validated scales to ensure cultural and linguistic relevance. Key constructs included intellectual curiosity, academic fit, financial expectations, job prospects, parental and peer influence, social prestige and institutional reputation (Ma et al., 2021). Responses were captured on a 5-point Likert scale, supporting descriptive, inferential and factor analyses. Content validity was ensured through expert review and a pilot test with eight students. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, with confidentiality safeguards to reduce bias. The final dataset enabled robust analysis of motivational patterns, demographics and programme choices, informing institutional strategies on guidance, gender equity and development.
Data analysis
Quantitative data from 159 respondents were analysed by using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0 (IBM Corp, 2021). The analysis included exploratory factor analysis, reliability testing, Pearson correlation and independent samples t-tests to examine motivational dimensions and gender-based differences in programme selection.
Factor analysis was conducted by using principal component extraction with Varimax rotation to identify latent constructs. Factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and item loadings of ≥ 0.40 were retained. Reliability was assessed by using Cronbach’s alpha, with α ≥ 0.70 considered acceptable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). For example, the career-oriented motivation factor comprising job prospects, financial expectations and career planning yielded α = 0.82.
Pearson correlations explored relationships between motivational factors and programme choices, accounting for gender and socioeconomic background. Independent samples t-tests assessed gender differences across seven motivational constructs. Chi-square analysis examined associations between gender and programme choice. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations and frequencies) were used to summarise demographic variables and item-level responses, supporting subgroup comparisons and contextual interpretation. These methodological choices were selected to align with the study’s objectives and ensure validity, consistent with established standards in educational research (Field, 2018; Hair et al., 2022).
Limitations
While the study offers valuable insights into gender-based enrolment motivations, several limitations affect its generalisability. The sample size of 159, although adequate for exploratory analysis, limits statistical power and broader representation (Turhan, 2020). Reliance on self-reported data introduces potential biases, including social desirability and subjective interpretation (Roeygens, 2023; Schunk et al., 2008), common in motivation research in which internal states are difficult to measure objectively. The study focused solely on B. Com and economics students at one institution, excluding other disciplines and geographic contexts. While necessary for feasibility, this limits transferability to wider academic settings (Coker, 2022).
Future research
Despite these constraints, the study provides a strong foundation for future research using larger samples, multi-institutional comparisons and longitudinal designs to track motivational shifts over time. Future studies could also incorporate mixed-method approaches to enrich quantitative findings with contextual insights (Sammons & Davis, 2017) and explore intersectional factors such as socioeconomic status or cultural expectations that may shape gendered enrolment decisions (Unterhalter et al., 2020). Such expansions would enhance both the depth and the applicability of motivational research across diverse academic and cultural settings.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Faculty of Health Sciences Ethics Review Board at the NUL (Ref. No. NUL/STA/2025/02). Participation was voluntary and anonymous.
Results
Demographic and academic profile of respondents
Table 1 presents a summary of key demographic and academic variables, including sex, age group and programme enrolment to contextualise the study sample.
| TABLE 1: Demographic and academic characteristics of the sample (N = 159). |
Table 1 presents the demographic and academic profiles of participants. The sample shows a gender imbalance (64.2% women, 35.8% men), possibly reflecting institutional enrolment patterns. Most respondents (74.2%) are aged 18–23 years, consistent with typical undergraduate cohorts, while mature-age students (24+) represent only 8.8%. Programme-wise, 61% are enrolled in B. Com and 39% in economics, suggesting a preference or institutional emphasis on the B. Com stream.
Factor analysis
Table 2 summarises the exploratory factor analysis results, including factor loadings, eigenvalues and explained variance, supporting construct validity and interpretation of motivational dimensions.
| TABLE 2: Rotated factor loadings for motivational dimensions (principal component analysis, Varimax rotation). |
Exploratory factor analysis identified seven motivational dimensions, ranging from institutional support to prestige, accounting for 54.1% of the total variance. These findings underscore a multifaceted decision-making process shaped by academic, social and personal factors, offering a foundation for gender-based analysis and strategic institutional alignment.
Reliability analysis
Table 3 presents the Cronbach’s alpha values for each motivational factor, indicating the internal consistency of the constructs identified.
Reliability analysis confirmed strong internal consistency for Institutional Support, Academic Simplicity, Career Utility and Social Endorsement (α > 0.70), supporting their statistical and conceptual validity in explaining programme selection. In contrast, programme popularity, Intrinsic Interest and Prestige showed weaker reliability (α < 0.70), indicating potential issues with item clarity or construct definition. While core factors are dependable, less stable dimensions require refinement to improve measurement and theoretical alignment in future research.
Gender differences in motivational dimensions
Table 4 summarises the mean scores and standard deviations for each motivational factor, highlighting their relative prominence in students’ programme selection.
| TABLE 4: Gender differences in motivational dimensions (independent samples t-test). |
Table 4 shows minimal gender differences across most motivational factors, with no significant variation (p > 0.05) in institutional support, academic simplicity, career utility, social endorsement, programme popularity and prestige. This observation suggests broadly similar motivational orientations between male and female students. However, a significant difference was found for Intrinsic Interest and Future Relevance (p = 0.016), with male students reporting higher mean scores. This finding implies that men may prioritise personal engagement and long-term utility more strongly. The findings highlight the value of gender-sensitive advising, particularly strategies that enhance programme relevance and engagement for female students. Building on these motivational findings, this study examined the association between gender and programme choice, using a chi-square test of independence (Table 5).
| TABLE 5: Gender distribution of respondents by programme choice (chi-square test results). |
Gender differences in programme choice
Table 5 presents the chi-square test results assessing the association between gender and programme selection. The analysis explores whether male and female students differ significantly in their enrolment patterns for the Bachelor of Commerce and Economics programme.
The chi-square test revealed no statistically significant association between gender and programme choice (χ2[1, N = 200] = 0.884, p = 0.347\chi^2 [1, N = 200] = 0.884, p = 0.347), indicating a comparable distribution of male and female students across the Bachelor of Commerce and Economics programmes. Although female students accounted for a larger proportion of enrolment, this difference was not statistically significant. These results suggest that gender does not exert a decisive influence on programme selection, underscoring the importance of examining individual motivational factors rather than relying on gender-based assumptions.
Gendered motivational profiles
This study offers a nuanced perspective on gender dynamics in motivational orientations and programme selection within the Faculty of Social Sciences at NUL. While most motivational constructs showed no statistically significant gender differences, Intrinsic Interest and Future Utility emerged as exceptions, with male students reporting significantly higher scores. This result indicates that motivations linked to personal enjoyment, intellectual engagement and long-term career relevance may resonate more strongly with male students.
These findings partially align with Naz et al. (2020), who observed that male students often prioritise extrinsic outcomes such as career advancement and societal recognition, whereas female students are more influenced by relational and intrinsic goals. Watt and Eccles (2008) and Stolk et al. (2021) similarly argue that gendered motivational schemas persist: men tend to associate academic choices with prestige and achievement, while women emphasise personal meaning and social contribution.
In contrast, Turhan’s (2020) meta-analysis reported minimal gender differences across motivational sub-dimensions, underscoring the importance of situating motivational patterns within specific institutional and cultural contexts, including historical perspectives from Lesotho’s higher education landscape (Ntimo-Makara, 2007).
Although chi-square analysis revealed no statistically significant association between gender and programme choice, the observed motivational differences, particularly in intrinsic interest, suggest that gendered patterns may still influence how students engage with academic pathways. This suggestion supports the EVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), which highlights the role of subjective task values, such as attainment and utility, in academic decision-making and their variation across gender lines.
Discussion
Regional context and comparative insights
The study’s findings resonate with Southern African literature on educational decision-making. Blake and Mestry (2021) highlight how parental income, education and language shape school choice in Gauteng, reflecting the socioeconomic drivers behind strategic academic engagement, paralleling our findings on career utility and instructional quality. Similarly, Mhlongo and O’Neill (2013) emphasise the role of family expectations and emotional support in programme selection at University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), reinforcing the influence of social endorsement and peer affiliation identified in our factor analysis. Further, Singaram and Sommerville (2018) demonstrate that race, language and financial support affect academic performance and motivation, echoing the observation that intrinsic interest and future relevance, particularly among male students, are shaped by broader demographic contexts. These regional insights affirm that motivational constructs are not isolated psychological traits but are embedded within structural and relational environments (Howard et al., 2020).
Implications for advising and institutional strategy
While overt gender disparities in programme selection appear to be narrowing, subtle motivational differences persist, with implications for advising and institutional strategy. Gender-sensitive counselling and tailored support that reflect diverse motivational profiles can enhance student engagement, improve programme fit and promote equity (Bustamante-Mora et al., 2024). Institutions should consider integrating motivational profiling into early advising to align guidance with students’ values and goals. Marketing efforts should highlight varied motivational drivers, such as career relevance, instructional quality and peer influence, to reach a broader and more diverse student audience. Institutional planning should also align with Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 4 and SDG 5), reinforcing inclusive, aspiration-driven programme selection and advancing transformative education (UNICEF, 2021).
Recommendations
Based on the study’s findings, the following strategies are proposed to enhance programme selection support and address motivational disparities within the Faculty of Social Sciences:
- Strengthen career guidance systems: Implement structured, early-stage advising that integrates motivational profiling and labour market insights to support informed programme selection and reduce academic misalignment (Blake & Mestry, 2021).
- Promote gender-sensitive advising: Tailor academic counselling to address gendered motivational differences and challenge disciplinary stereotypes, expanding students’ perceived academic and career options (Stolk et al., 2021).
- Align programmes with industry needs: Periodically review curricula to ensure responsiveness to labour market demands and national development priorities, enhancing programme relevance and utility (Turhan, 2020).
- Support sustainable development goals integration in institutional planning: Align programme development and student support strategies with SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) to promote inclusive and transformative education (UNESCO, 2022).
Conclusion
This study reveals that while enrolment gaps may be narrowing, gendered motivational profiles, especially among male students, continue to shape academic decision-making. The findings affirm EVT, highlighting how career utility and intrinsic interest influence programme engagement. To foster meaningful alignment between access and motivation, institutions must strengthen advising and promote inclusive programme messaging. By addressing these dynamics, the study contributes to SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) through evidence-based strategies that support equitable, aspiration-driven academic pathways.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National University of Lesotho’s administration for granting ethical clearance and access to conduct the research. Appreciation is also extended to the students whose participation and thoughtful responses enriched the study’s findings.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Regina M. Thetsane: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Motselisi C. Mokhethi: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data supporting this research are available on request from the corresponding author. Public access is restricted to safeguard participant privacy.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Anyichie, A. (2024). Motivational beliefs and programme selection in Nigerian higher education. Nigerian Journal of Educational Research, 15(2), 45–63.
Bassett Healthcare Network. (2023, September 15). Bassett CARES (Career Advancement and Retention Experience for Students) launches major workforce partnership with Hartwick College and SUNY Oneonta. Bassett Healthcare Network News. Retrieved from https://www.bassett.org/news/bassett-cares-career-advancement-and-retention-experience-students-launches-major-workforce
Beeckmans, L., Zanoni, P., & Van Laer, J. (2023). Intersectionality in higher education: Policies and practices. Journal of Gender Studies, 32(4), 567–582.
Bergann, T., Blüthmann, J., Neugebauer, M., & Watermann, R. (2025). Motivational diversity in academic programme choice. Higher Education Research, 48(3), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-025-00987-2
Bhujbal, M.P., & Verma, S. (2024). The influence of peer pressure on students: Cause, effect, and strategies for intervention. International Journal of Future Management Research, 6(5), 10. Retrieved from https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/5/28091.pdf
Blake, D., & Mestry, R. (2021). Parental income, education, and language in school choice: Evidence from Gauteng. South African Journal of Education, 41(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v41n3a1958
Brighton College. (2024). Parental expectations and career utility in programme selection. Brighton College Research Report. Retrieved from https://www.brighton.ac.uk/research-reports/parental-expectations-2024
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Bustamante-Mora, J., Sánchez, P., & Delgado, R. (2024). Gender-sensitive advising in higher education. Journal of Educational Equity, 12(1), 34–52.
Celmar, A.J.O., Calera, J.F.D., Imbien, M.R.C.B., Saito, O.M.R., Caubalejo, K.A.M., Schumann, K.P., Punzalan, E.O., Valdez, E.J.T., & Limos-Galay, J.A. (2024). Internal and external factors affecting the strand preferences of Grade 10 students in Divine Word College of San Jose. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 8(4), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrset.2024.8034
Chikoko, V. (2025). Intersectionality and gender in African higher education. African Journal of Education Policy, 14(2), 77–95.
Chiramba, O., & Ndofirepi, A. (2023). Institutional disparities and programme choice in African higher education. African Journal of Higher Education, 35(2), 112–130.
Chitkara University. (2023, June 19). Expert advice: B. Com (Hons.) vs. B.A. (Hons.) Economics – Which is right for you? Chitkara Blogs. Retrieved from https://www.chitkara.edu.in/blogs/expert-advice-b-com-hons-vs-b-a-hons-economics-which-is-right-for-you/
Coker, R. (2022). Transferability in educational research: Limits and opportunities. International Journal of Education Policy, 19(3), 211–225.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. Retrieved from https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.
De la Fuente, J., Sander, P., Kauffman, D., & Soylu, Y. (2020). Self-determination and expectancy-value in programme choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000400
Dillon, M., & Smith, J. (2020). programme misalignment and student dissatisfaction. Journal of Higher Education Policy, 43(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/hea.44_12142
Eccles, J.S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Farmer, L.B., Robbins, C.K., Keith, J.L., & Mabry, C.J. (2020). Transgender and gender-expansive students’ experiences of genderism at women’s colleges and universities. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(2), 146–157. http://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000129
Fernandez, D., Orazzo, E., Fry, E., McMain, A., Ryan, M.K., Wong, C.Y., & Begeny, C.T. (2024). Gender and social class inequalities in higher education: Intersectional reflections on a workshop experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, a1235065. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1235065
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
Griffin, K.A. (2019). Institutional barriers, strategies, and benefits to increasing the representation of women and men of color in the professoriate. In M.B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (vol. 35, pp. 1–73). Springer.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2022). Multivariate data analysis (9th ed.). Cengage Learning. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books/about/Multivariate_Data_Analysis.html?id=VvXZnQEACAAJ
Howard, J.L., Gagné, M., & Morin, A.J.S. (2020). Putting the pieces together: Reviewing the structural conceptualization of motivation within self-determination theory. Motivation and Emotion, 44(6), 846–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09838-2
IBM Corp. (2021). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, Version 27.0. IBM Corp.
Karp, M.M., Hughes, K.L., & O’Gara, L. (2021). Designing effective advising systems: Integrating career guidance and motivational support. Community College Research Center Brief, 58, 1–12. Retreived from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/designing-effective-advising-systems.html
Kiprop, C. (2025). Gender, academic freedom, and institutional cultures in Africa: Transforming practices to foster inclusion and equity. In Academic freedom and institutional cultures in Africa (pp. 45–62). CODESRIA. Retrieved from https://academicfreedom.codesria.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Catherine-Kiprop-Gender-Academic-Freedom-and-Institutional-Cultures-in-Africa-Transforming-Practices-to-Foster-Inclusion-and-Equity.pdf
Koçak, O., Ak, N., Erdem, S.S., Sinan, M., Younis, M.Z., & Erdoğan, A. (2021). The role of family influence and academic satisfaction on career decision-making self-efficacy and happiness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5919. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115919
Kurlaender, M., & Hibel, J. (2018). Students’ educational pathways: Aspirations, decisions, and constrained choices along the education lifecourse. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education in the 21st century (pp. 361–384). Springer.
Labib, A., Appiahene, P., & Boateng, R. (2021). An integrative model of student motivation in higher education: Combining expectancy-value, self-determination, and achievement goal theories. International Journal of Educational Research, 109, 101812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101812
Lombard, P. (2020). Factors that influence transition from high school to higher education: A case of the JuniorTukkie programme. African Journal of Career Development, 2(1), a5. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajcd.v2i1.5
Ma, B., Lu, M., Taniguchi, Y., & Konomi, S. (2021). Investigating course choice motivations in university environments. Smart Learning Environments, 8, a31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00177-4
Matolo, M.A.L., Sansawi, D.J., & Sadjail, S.A. (2022). Factors influencing students in choosing their college course. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3(8), 697–700. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6994851
Mhlongo, Z.S., & O’Neill, V.C. (2013). Family influences on career decisions by black first-year UKZN students. South African Journal of Higher Education, 27(4), 953–965. https://doi.org/10.20853/27-4-285
Modungwa, T. (2015). Genderism and academic tracking in Southern African universities. Gender and Education, 9(2), 112–128.
Mokoena, T., & Dlamini, Z. (2023). Gender bias and retention in STEM disciplines: A South African perspective. African Journal of Higher Education, 36(1), 55–70.
Mowreader, A. (2024). Majority of college students lack education-to-career guidance. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/student-success/life-after-college/2024/10/09/majority-college-students-lack-education-career
Mulenga, I.M., & Miyoba, B. (2024). Factors influencing students’ programme selection at Kwame Nkrumah University. Zambian Journal of Education Research, 12(2), 55–70.
Mulwa, D. (2021). Genderism and access to higher education in Kenya. East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 2(3), 45–58.
Mwantimwa, K. (2021). What motivates students’ decisions on Programme s to pursue at university level: The role of information and knowledge. Higher Education, 82(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00698-4
Naz, H., Rehman, S., & Fatima, S. (2020). Gender differences in academic motivation and career aspirations among university students. Journal of Educational Research, 23(2), 45–60.
Ntimo-Makara, M. (2007). Gender and the management of higher education institutions in Lesotho: A case of the National University of Lesotho. Review of Southern African Studies, 5(1–2), 170–190.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Nyarko, M., & Boateng, E. (2022). Intersectional barriers to higher education access among rural female students in Ghana. African Journal of Educational Equity, 5(1), 23–38.
OECD. (2022). Education at a glance 2022: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-at-a-glance-2022_3197152b-en.html
Roeygens, J. (2023). Mitigating the effects of social desirability bias in self-report surveys: Classical and new techniques. In A. Durmaz, İ. Dursun & E. Tümer Kabadayi (Eds.), Advances in library and information science (ch. 7). IGI Global.
Rosenzweig, E.Q., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S. (2019). Expectancy-value theory and its relevance for student motivation and learning. In K.A. Renninger & S.E. Hidi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning (pp. 617–644). Cambridge University Press.
Sadjail, A., Mthembu, S., & Banda, C. (2022). Geographic disparities in programme selection: A study of rural student motivations. Journal of African Educational Research, 11(2), 77–91.
Sammons, P., & Davis, S. (2017). Mixed methods approaches and their application in educational research. In D. Wyse, N. Selwyn, E. Smith & L.E. Suter (Eds.), The BERA/SAGE handbook of educational research (vol. 1, pp. 567–589). Sage.
Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R., & Meece, J.L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (3rd edn.). Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Singaram, V.S., & Sommerville, J. (2018). The impact of race, language, and financial support on academic performance in South African higher education. African Journal of Higher Education, 35(3), 78–95.
Stolk, V., Ziegler, A., & Dresel, M. (2021). Gender differences in achievement motivation: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1–28.
Tavares, O., Sá, C., Sin, C., & Amaral, A. (2022). Equity in higher education: Evidences, policies and practices. In A. Amaral (Ed.), Equity policies in global higher education: Reducing inequality and increasing participation and attainment (pp. 23–46). Springer.
Taylor, P.C., & Medina, M.N.D. (2013). Educational research paradigms: From positivism to multiparadigmatic. Journal for Meaning-Centered Education, 1(2), 1–16. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264196558
Tshabalala, N. (2024). Male identity conflict in feminized academic disciplines: A qualitative study. Journal of Gender and Society, 18(1), 33–49.
Turhan, B. (2020). Gender differences in academic motivation: A meta-analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 20(2), 1–20.
UNESCO. (2022). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802
UNICEF. (2021). Global annual results report 2021: Every child learns. UNICEF. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/reports/global-annual-results-2021-goal-area-2
Unterhalter, E., Robinson, L., & Balsera, M.R. (2020). The politics, policies and practices of intersectionality: Making gender equality inclusive and equitable in and through education. In Background paper for the global education monitoring report gender report 2020: A new generation. UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718
Urhahne, D., & Wijnia, L. (2023). Theories of motivation in education: An integrative framework. Educational Psychology Review, 35(3), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09767-9
Watt, H.M.G., & Eccles, J.S. (2008). Gender and achievement-related choices in STEM: The role of expectancy-value theory. In H.M.G. Watt & J.S. Eccles (Eds.), Gender and occupational outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of individual differences (pp. 87–113). American Psychological Association.
Wiese, M., Van Heerden, C.H., & Jordaan, Y. (2023). Motivational factors influencing programme selection in South African universities. South African Journal of Higher Education, 37(2), 112–130.
Zaini, S., Rahman, A., & Idris, F. (2021). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in academic programme selection: A Malaysian perspective. Asian Journal of Education, 42(2), 145–162.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
