Cross-sectional survey reveals institutional quality drives domestic enrollment in Vietnamese university students, indicating that school excellence outweighs parental influence.
The number of “in-situ” students, those who study in their home country, is always higher than that of students studying abroad. However, students' motivation to study in their home country has received scant attention and remains underexplored. Drawing on situated expectancy-value theory, this study investigated students' expectancy-related beliefs, perceived values, and cost-related appraisals underlying their decision to study in situ and examined how perceptions of contextual and social factors predict these motivational dimensions. Utilizing a cross-sectional correlational design with a 56-item questionnaire, the current study employed non-probability sampling methods at six accessible universities in Southern Vietnam, which were selected, and participants were approached through convenience sampling. After screening, 631 valid responses were retained and analyzed. Descriptive analyses indicated that students showed stronger endorsements of expectancy-related beliefs and perceived values than of cost-related dimensions, and that institutional quality was a stronger signal for their choice to study in situ than parental influence. The structural model further indicated that institutional internationalization and quality assurance were positively associated with students' expectancy-related beliefs, perceived values, and perceived financial advantages, whereas parental influence was more strongly associated with emotional and academic barriers, loss of alternatives, and perceived financial advantages. The findings suggest that Vietnamese students' choice of in-situ higher education is shaped by students’ institutionally grounded confidence, socially embedded value, and perceptions of trade-offs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: