Behavioral models of educational choice: A classification of decision-making patterns among Ukrainian higher education applicants

  • 4 Views
  • 1 Downloads

Creative Commons License DMCA.com Protection Status
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Type of the article: Research Article

Abstract
Educational choice is increasingly understood as a multidimensional decision-making process, shaped not only by economic, institutional, and social determinants but also by behavioral mechanisms that operate under uncertainty. Drawing on human capital theory, rational choice theory, social norms theory, and behavioral economics, this study develops a theoretically grounded, a priori classification of behavioral response patterns in educational choice – a rational model, a social-norms model, and a bounded-rationality model – and quantifies the distribution of model-coded responses among Ukrainian higher education applicants. It further examines whether this distribution varies by gender, admission score, family income, and locality of secondary education. The empirical analysis is based on a survey of 405 first-year students at five Ukrainian universities, using descriptive statistics and Pearson’s chi-squared test. Rational responses predominate in the choice of higher education institution (54.0%) and study program (49.0%), whereas the choice of study city is distributed almost evenly across all three models. Gender is the only variable significantly, though weakly, associated with the distribution of model-coded responses (Cramer’s V = 0.138); admission score, family income, and locality show no statistically significant association. The findings also point to the growing role of official university websites and social media in applicants’ information-seeking behavior, and to the importance of security considerations as a context-specific factor shaping institutional choice under wartime conditions. By integrating established determinant-based theories with a behavioral decision-making perspective, the study offers a novel classification framework and practical implications for evidence-informed recruitment and communication strategies in higher education.

Acknowledgment
Funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine under the project “Higher education in the conditions of war and post-war recovery: determinants of development to overcome threats to the restoring of human capital” (State registration number 0124U000351).

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Theoretical framework for classifying behavioral response patterns in the higher education choice process
    • Figure 2. Choice of city for study among first-year students in Ukraine, share of responses, %
    • Figure 3. Motivations for pursuing higher education among first-year students in Ukraine, share of responses (%)
    • Figure 4. Factors influencing first-year students’ choice of higher education institution in Ukraine, share of responses, %
    • Figure 5. Motives influencing first-year students’ choice of educational programs in Ukraine, share of responses (%)
    • Table 1. Theoretical basis of applicants’ behavioral models in the educational choice process
    • Table 2. Behavioral indicators of applicants’ educational choice
    • Table 3. Characteristics of respondents in the educational choice survey
    • Table 4. Distribution of responses across the three theoretically defined behavioral models by object of educational choice (%)
    • Table 5. Results of hypotheses tests on socio-demographic characteristics and model-coded response patterns
    • Data curation
      Anna Boiko, Olha Hrynkevych, Yuriy Bilan
    • Formal Analysis
      Anna Boiko, Olha Hrynkevych, Halyna Mishchuk, Yuriy Bilan
    • Funding acquisition
      Anna Boiko, Halyna Mishchuk
    • Investigation
      Anna Boiko, Olha Hrynkevych, Halyna Mishchuk
    • Project administration
      Anna Boiko, Halyna Mishchuk, Yuriy Bilan
    • Resources
      Anna Boiko, Olha Hrynkevych, Halyna Mishchuk, Yuriy Bilan
    • Software
      Anna Boiko, Olha Hrynkevych
    • Validation
      Anna Boiko, Olha Hrynkevych, Halyna Mishchuk, Yuriy Bilan
    • Visualization
      Anna Boiko, Olha Hrynkevych
    • Writing – original draft
      Anna Boiko, Olha Hrynkevych, Halyna Mishchuk, Yuriy Bilan
    • Writing – review & editing
      Anna Boiko, Olha Hrynkevych, Halyna Mishchuk, Yuriy Bilan
    • Conceptualization
      Olha Hrynkevych, Halyna Mishchuk, Yuriy Bilan
    • Methodology
      Olha Hrynkevych, Yuriy Bilan
    • Supervision
      Halyna Mishchuk, Yuriy Bilan