Why, When, and for Whom Does Career Education in Secondary Schools Work? A Qualitative Study of Stakeholders’ Perspectives in The Netherlands

Abstract

Career education in secondary schools plays a pivotal role in supporting students as they navigate the complex decision-making process involved in the transition to higher education. However, the evidence base regarding the effectiveness of career education is limited and fragmented, with a distinct lack of clarity regarding the underlying mechanisms. This study aimed to identify the best practices and underlying mechanisms of career education within Dutch secondary education. Based on focus group interviews with stakeholders with diverse interests and positions (N = 25), we identified five categories of best practice activities alongside a framework consisting of ten mediators, eight moderators, a meta-moderator, and four contextual factors. This framework, while reinforcing some previous identified mechanisms, brings new elements into focus, distinguishing additional mechanisms and their categorisation as mediators, moderators, and contextual factors. These findings may serve as a foundational framework for future research and can support schools in enhancing their career education curricula. It is crucial that career education activities align with the students’ current capacities and potential for growth, ensuring that these programs are responsive to students’ developmental stages and their zone of proximal development.

1. Introduction

The process of selecting a study program in higher education (HE) has become increasingly complex due to—amongst other factors—societal changes, the forces of globalisation, technological progress, and disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. These factors have collectively broadened the spectrum of available study programs and increased occupational mobility [1,2,3]. In response, career education (CE) within secondary schools aims to help students navigate the educational and occupational landscapes alongside their personal interests, abilities, and motivations [4]. As a pivotal element of student development throughout secondary schooling, CE aims to equip students with the essential skills to navigate the complex decision-making process associated with transitioning from compulsory education to a selected HE study program, preparing them to adeptly manage the dynamic pathways they may encounter later in life.

An examination of current CE practices in the Netherlands shows, informed by anecdotal evidence, a pressing need for a better understanding of CE approaches that are evidence-based or evidence-informed. Despite a wealth of initiatives and extensive reporting, schools continue to encounter challenges designing their CE curriculum. Moreover, recent international and national reviews of CE revealed that the scientific evidence base is notably limited and fragmented, with a distinct lack of clarity regarding the underlying mechanisms [5,6,7,8,9]. Practitioners and researchers alike have called for deeper insight into effective elements of CE and its mechanisms, which is essential to strengthen the evidence base and to enable educators to design CE curricula that are informed by empirical findings.

Exploring the underlying mechanisms of programs or interventions is inherently complex, as these mechanisms are not directly observable and contingent upon context [10]. To navigate this complexity, we can employ qualitative research involving various stakeholders [11]. The aims of this study were twofold: to identify the best practices of CE and to delve into stakeholders’ perceptions of the mechanisms at play. We achieved this by examining the perspectives of multiple stakeholder groups within a collaborative regional network of secondary schools and HE institutions committed to enhancing students’ transition from secondary school to HE.

1.1. Students’ Educational Decision-Making

Upon concluding their secondary education, students are faced with a critical decision: continue their academic journey by pursuing a degree in tertiary education or enter the job market. In the Netherlands, almost all students enrol in tertiary education, with a marginal number of students opting to enter the workforce immediately after their completion of secondary education [12]. The selection of which degree to pursue is a complex task and can be seen as a process of developing and implementing an individual’s self-concept according to career development theory [13,14,15]. This self-concept, which becomes more stable in late adolescence, not only serves as a guide for educational and career choices, but also undergoes continuous refinement throughout one’s life span, shaped by social interactions and experiential learning [16].

Super’s [14] ‘Life span, life space framework to career development’ conceptualises vocational growth as including five stages that occur chronologically as an individual matures. It recognises the significance of various life roles beyond that of being a worker. In secondary education, students progress through the stages of growth and exploration. During the growth stage (birth to mid-teens), they develop a self-concept and move away from play to work orientation. During the exploration stage (mid-teens to early twenties), tasks include developing a realistic self-concept and implementing a vocational preference through trial and exploration. Following this period, they enter stages that involve the consolidation and ongoing management of their chosen careers. This progression continues until they reach the decline stage around retirement age, marking a period of disengagement from their established professional roles.

Despite some critiques of career development models as being less relevant for 21st century careers [2], Super’s [14] framework, which integrates self-concept, constructivism, and social roles, continues to hold significance. This is particularly evident in the developmental tasks Super identified for adolescents, such as the construction of self-concept and exploration, which are echoed in later studies on career construction and identity formation, e.g., [17,18]. Theorists building upon Super’s [14] approach emphasise the significance of the social context and the dynamic interplay between individual and their environment as critical components in developmental processes [19,20]. Concurring with these ideas, we argue that CE plays a pivotal role in supporting students at the conclusion of secondary education as they choose their future academic paths. CE offers essential opportunities for students to engage in exploration and to construct their self-concept, thereby facilitating informed and personal educational choices.

1.2. Supporting Students through Career Education

There is a broad terminology to describe career-related activities to support educational and career decision-making: career advice, career counselling, career guidance, vocational guidance, vocational counselling, career education, career development, and career learning. Most of these terms overlap and are used synonymously [4]. This terminology includes advice, counselling, and guidance, and is historically used for one-on-one interactions between a career professional and an individual [3]. Career education, on the other hand, is typically used to describe a curriculum of activities which help individuals to learn about possibilities in education and employment [6]. Career development and learning is commonly used to refer to the ongoing process of managing life, learning, and work across the lifespan [4]. In this study, the aim is to understand the range of career-related activities in secondary schools; we therefore adopt the term career education. Here, we define CE as an integral part of the school curriculum, focusing on career-related learning activities. These activities are pivotal in enhancing students’ abilities and knowledge base, equipping them to plan and make informed decisions about further education and careers that resonate with their personal attributes and aspirations. The nature of CE is inherently multifaceted and idiosyncratic [7], reflecting the unique combination of each students’ skills, values, interests, and experiences. Moreover, it is shaped by contextual factors including family, societal pressure, and cultural values.

Recent reviews of CE concluded that the literature base is limited, predominantly centred around American and British viewpoints, and characterised by a lack of cohesion in both theory and methodology [5,6,7,8,9]. Furthermore, similar terms denote different concepts, while various terms may refer to similar concepts (i.e., jingle-jangle fallacy; [21]). To date, there is a scarcity of scientific, peer-reviewed publications, with most of the literature comprising non-peer reviewed grey literature [6].

The currently limited and fragmented body of literature presents a challenge for identifying the mechanisms underlying effective CE. Nonetheless, insight into these mechanisms is imperative for strategic delivery of personalised support in the context of school-based CE initiatives. Systematic reviews conducted by Hughes and colleagues [6], Keele and colleagues [7], and Korpershoek and colleagues [8] offered preliminary lists of such mechanisms. However, the mechanisms, including their names and definitions, exhibited discrepancies across the reviews, which probably reflects the limited and fragmented knowledge base that was used. These studies refrained from categorising the mechanisms as mediators, moderators, or contextual factors, consequently inhibiting understanding of the fundamental relationships between CE activities, mechanisms, and outcomes. Thus, a systematic investigation of the best practices of CE and stakeholders’ views of the underlying mechanisms is needed.

A straightforward approach to identifying mechanisms in any intervention is to directly contrast elements of these interventions in large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCT). Yet, in CE, such an approach is not only logistically demanding and expensive but also simplistic in its assumption that programs are merely the sum of their individual components, ignoring the potential added value of their combined elements [22]. Another methodology, adopted in recent reviews of CE, involves dissecting the extant literature base, which is contingent on the availability of a large number of relevant and high-quality studies. Such a prerequisite, unfortunately, does not hold in the field of CE within secondary education, leading to discrepancies in the identified mechanisms. Given the limitations of these methods in investigating the mechanisms of CE within secondary schools, this study takes an alternative qualitative approach, focusing on stakeholders’ assessment of the mechanisms of CE to theorise about mechanisms, examine their interrelationships, and understand their contextual functionality [10,11]. This approach allows for a nuanced exploration of the theoretical constructs underpinning CE and their underlying dynamics within varying educational environments.

In sum, while CE has the potential to support students in their educational decision-making by fostering opportunities for self-exploration and identity development, the extant literature falls short in clarifying how CE facilitates student support. Insight into the underlying mechanisms categorised as mediators, moderators, and contextual factors is crucial for the enhancement of CE initiatives. Such initiatives would enable targeted improvements, ensuring that efforts are concentrated on the facets of CE that yield the greatest benefit to students.

1.3. Career Education in The Netherlands

In secondary education in the Netherlands, students are tracked into three levels at age 12: prevocational education (lasting four years), senior general secondary education (five years), and pre-university education (six years). Pre-vocational education is geared towards vocational education, while senior general secondary education and pre-university education prepare students for HE, specifically for universities of applied sciences and research universities. At age 15, students select one of four combinations of exam subjects, which significantly impacts their tertiary education options. For example, a combination of subjects that includes mathematics and science is often a mandatory requirement for admission into disciplines such as mechanical engineering. Thus, students are faced with making educational decisions at an early age that have profound implications for their future professional opportunities.

Within the Dutch educational research context, there is a tendency to concentrate studies on pre-vocational tracks in secondary education, e.g., [5,8]. This focus has resulted in a dearth of insights into the experiences of students in tracks that prepare for HE. This study aims to fill this gap by concentrating on senior general secondary education and pre-university education, which have been relatively under-researched in the Dutch context. Accordingly, we have discussed CE within these particular tracks.

Although CE is a compulsory component of the secondary school curriculum, schools have autonomy in its implementation. International literature delineates three CE curriculum models: a standalone course, integration with another subject, or a diffuse approach throughout the entire curriculum [23]. In Dutch secondary schools, CE is commonly integrated within the mentorship program, although variations exist. Typically, curriculum development falls under a school counsellor, who is responsible for the coordination of expansive CE activities, while mentors—who double as subject instructors and student advisors—conduct CE activities at the class level. Many schools structure their CE content around the five career competencies outlined by Kuijpers and Scheerens [24]: capacity reflection, motive reflection, work exploration, career action, and networking. Despite overarching themes, the content and extent of CE curriculum development in schools are subject to variations among schools.

1.4. The Present Study

CE plays a crucial role in supporting students during the complex decision-making process before they transition from secondary school to a HE study program. Nevertheless, the current body of research on CE is limited and fragmented, offering minimal insight into underlying mechanisms and their fundamental relationships with CE activities and educational outcomes [5,6,7,8,9]. Addressing these gaps, this study is guided by following three research questions:

(1)

What type of best practices are recognised by stakeholders within Dutch secondary education?

(2)

What mechanisms are perceived by these stakeholders to influence these best practices and how might they be systematically classified as mediators, moderators, and contextual factors?

(3)

How do different stakeholder groups’ perceptions of CE best practices and mechanisms vary within the context of secondary education?

By integrating the perspectives of various stakeholder groups and focusing on tracks preparing for HE, this study offers a unique contribution to the understanding of CE mechanisms in the Netherlands. Considering the commonalities of CE frameworks internationally, the findings of this research may also hold relevance beyond national borders [9,25].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

Qualitative research offers a meaningful way to examine the components, mechanisms, and context of complex interventions [10,11,26]. Such interventions are characterised by various components and possible outcomes, vary by population, and are influenced by the behaviours of both providers and recipients [27]. For instance, within the educational context, a CE program in schools demonstrates such complexity, comprising multiple activities with diverse learning objectives that may be contingent upon students’ prior knowledge and teachers’ expertise.

In this study, we employed a hermeneutic approach to probe the mechanisms underlying CE. Thirsk and Clark [11] identified four key aspects of this approach that are particularly important for investigating mechanisms in complex interventions. First, this approach prioritises interpretative accounts from stakeholders, focusing on their experience with the intervention, rather than their subjective experience. Second, a diverse sample is integral to this paradigm, as apparent contradictions among stakeholder perspectives reveal the intricate nature of the intervention. Contradictory findings do not necessarily signify that one account was correct and the other incorrect, but rather illuminate when and for whom the intervention is effective. Third, the researcher’s prior knowledge is not seen as a prejudice or bias that opposes the thorough analysis of participants’ accounts but is rather viewed as a necessary condition for understanding. Researchers enrich their analysis and interpretation with prior knowledge, enhancing the depth of understanding regarding the intervention’s mechanisms and outcomes. Our research is informed by our expertise in CE, students’ individual differences and development, and general didactics. Fourth, the rigor of a hermeneutic study is judged based on the ability to move beyond the typical understanding of an intervention to a more detailed account of the underlying mechanisms, fundamental relationships, and interrelationships.

2.2. Participants

Consistent with the hermeneutic research approach for examining mechanisms as proposed by Thirsk and Clark [11], our goal was to engage participants from a wide range of stakeholder groups actively involved in CE in the upper years of secondary schools in the Netherlands. This approach ensures that our study captures a comprehensive spectrum of CE experiences. Our study does not focus on individual subjective interpretations but rather emphasises collective experiences within stakeholder groups [11]. Thus, descriptions of participants’ experiences are aggregated at a group level throughout this study.

Participants were recruited from a collaborative network of secondary schools and HE institutions within the greater Amsterdam region in the Netherlands. Invitations were sent via email to school leaders, counsellors, and HE policy advisors. School leaders and counsellors, in turn, extended invitations to mentors and students at the respective participating schools.

A total of twenty-five participants consented to participate in focus group interviews for the study. This group consisted of six policy advisors with several years of experience in facilitating the transition from secondary school to HE by coordinating informational events; they were affiliated with two research universities and two universities of applied sciences. Eight school counsellors, averaging 12 years of counselling experience and representing eight schools, including a special educational needs school, also participated. Additionally, three school leaders with over five years of management experience within secondary schools contributed to the study. Three mentors, teaching biology, mathematics, and English, who served as guides to students in the final years of secondary school, were involved. Finally, five students from two different schools participated, spanning different educational tracks and grades in upper secondary education. In sum, the participants hailed from eleven secondary schools in the greater Amsterdam area.

This study adhered to a protocol for descriptive research with secondary school students and/or teachers, approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Behavioural and Movement sciences of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (#VCWE 2019-151). An amendment to this protocol was submitted to include policy advisors from HE institutions, to obtain informed consent digitally, and to conduct online interviews, which was also approved by the ethics committee (#VCWE2021-096). This study followed the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.3. Procedure and Instruments

Participants received additional information and an informed consent letter. They returned the signed consent form via email prior to their scheduled focus group interview. Participants were divided into seven focus group interviews, with each group comprising two to six participants exclusively from the same stakeholder category, such as counsellors or students. Two participants were interviewed individually due to scheduling conflicts.

All interviews were conducted online via Microsoft Teams, with all sessions being audio-recorded. The duration of the interviews varied from 45 to 90 min, depending upon group size. Following each session, a brief conversation report was written and shared with the participants. The recorded interviews were then transcribed verbatim.

The semi-structured focus group interviews were moderated by the first author or by specially trained research assistants. Their role included initiating the session by inviting the participants to introduce themselves, asking initial questions, and guiding the discussion to ensure a productive dialogue. Participants were engaged in four tasks during the discussion: (1) identifying and discussing three CE activities they deemed highly effective in supporting students’ informed study choices; (2) collectively selecting activities or types of activities to discuss in more depth; (3) providing detailed descriptions of selected activities; and (4) articulating why they believed these activities were effective. These tasks formed the core of the group discussions, with the collective selection process (task 2) being excluded from the individual interviews.

The interview sessions were conducted between the springs of 2021 and 2022, a period characterised by the implementation of COVID-19 lockdowns and associated safety measures within the Netherlands. School leaders, counsellors, mentors, and policy advisors adeptly provided detailed accounts of CE activities both pre- and during COVID-19, including adaptations made to facilitate online activities. Conversely, students, having limited or no pre-lockdown CE exposure, shared insights primarily shaped by their CE experiences during COVID-19. In our data analysis, we focused on regular CE activities while also giving due consideration to the modifications prompted by the pandemic, especially those with the potential to be sustained post-pandemic.

2.4. Analyses

We used thematic analysis, following the method established by Braun and Clarke [28], enabling the integration of both inductive and deductive interpretations. The transcriptions form the focus group interviews were systematically reviewed and coded in three separate stages using ATLAS.ti 22 [29], a qualitative data analysis software.

In the first phase, segments relevant to “best practice activity”, “mechanism”, or “contextual factor” were identified and coded deductively, utilising memos to maintain a record of our interpretive reflections. In the second phase, themes were further refined inductively, generating content codes based on memo insights or the main idea of a piece of data, such as “experiencing” for activities and “diverse perspectives” for mechanisms. Throughout, we remained receptive to emergent codes. In the third phase, we categorised the mechanisms into mediators, moderators, and meta-moderators, and merged similar content codes. The resulting codebook comprised five codes under “best practice activities”, three codes including seventeen subcodes within “mechanisms”, and four codes for “contextual factors”. The coding process was conducted by the lead author and involved regular consultative discussions with the research team to ensure a robust analytical approach. To validate coding quality, the second and third authors independently coded 30 quotes from a randomly selected transcript, with inter-rater reliability (IRR) assessed using Krippendorff’s alpha in ATLAS.ti 22 [29]. The global Krippendorff’s alpha was 0.948, which is considered very good agreement [30].

Following the initial coding, ATLAS.ti 22’s analysis tools were employed to identify emerging patterns across the stakeholders’ narratives, moving beyond mere experiential accounts to a nuanced account of the perceived efficacy of CE [11]. We examined common code co-occurrences to understand the interrelationship between the various activities and mechanisms as perceived by stakeholders. Additionally, the code-document tool was used to meticulously examine differences in code application among different stakeholder groups. The interpretation of these identified patterns, enriched by our pre-existing knowledge, forms the basis of the presented findings [10].

3. Results

Our analysis of stakeholder perspectives on best practices in CE yielded five categories of activities, which we present in alphabetical order: fostering interaction, fostering self-understanding, involving parents, providing experiences, and providing information. These categories often converge in specific activities. For example, a school-organised job fair includes fostering interaction and providing information. If this event is coupled with a reflective activity, it also contributes to the development of self-understanding.

Additionally, our analysis revealed ten mediating factors that appear to underpin the effectiveness of CE activities in supporting students through the study selection process. We also identified eight moderators and one meta-moderator, which appear to elucidate the effectiveness of CE activities for different individuals and under various conditions. Additionally, we identified four contextual factors influencing CE and its mechanisms.

Table 1. Categorisation of perceived best practice activities including examples and mediators and moderators mentioned.

Category	Examples	Mediators and Moderators
Fostering interaction = activities that provide students with opportunities to exchange ideas, beliefs, reflections with students in higher education (HE), peers, teachers, and/or parents. → most often in school.	One-on-one conversations with mentor or counsellor Presentations from school alumni about their study program In-class exercises including peer discussions	Mediators Authenticity Balance between autonomy and obligation Career reflection Connection to experiences and perceptions Decision-making skills Diverse perspectives Tailored support and personal attention Moderators Career education (CE) awareness Safety Teacher skills and attitude
Fostering self-understanding = activities that encourage students to gain insight into own talents, interests, and motivations. → most often in school.	Questionnaires and tests (personality, interests, vocational choice, competences, etc.) The Feedback Game Creating a personal timeline with important moments	Mediators Career reflection Construction of self-concept Moderators Activation Identity development
Involving parents = activities that actively seek out students’ parents as partners in the CE process. → most often in school.	Three-way conversations between students, mentor, and parent Information evenings for parents	Mediators Diverse perspectives Moderators Parental influence
Providing experiences = activities that expose students to professional environments, study programs, institutions, or facets of student life. → mostly outside school.	Internships Taster days for a specific study program at HE institutions	Mediators Balance between autonomy and obligation Career reflection Career exploration Construction of self-concept Networking skills Sense of belonging Moderators Social and cultural capital
Providing information = activities that allow students to obtain information regarding enrolment, professions, study programs, institutions, or facets of student life. → mostly in school or online.	Job fair Counsellor’s Instagram to post about open days of HE institutions and other relevant information for students	Mediators Exploring professions and study programs Moderators Safety
		Meta-moderator Integrated curriculum Contextual factors Culture and embeddedness Societal pressure School population Time and budget

synthesises these findings, offering examples of the activity categories and delineating mediating and moderating mechanisms. Notably, the final row of the table denotes the meta-moderator and contextual factors, which do not correlate directly with any specific activity.

In the subsequent sections, we delve into the mediating and moderating mechanisms, followed by the meta-moderator and contextual factors, arranged alphabetically for clarity. Finally, we delineate the variations among stakeholder differences that emerged from our analysis.

3.1. Mediating Mechanisms

Mediating mechanisms are believed to explain the perceived effectiveness of CE activities to support students in their study choice process. These mediators are inherent characteristics of the CE activities considered best practices. We identified ten such mediators, with each contributing uniquely to the efficacy of CE practices.

Access to tailored support and personal attention underscores the importance of receiving support to meet each student’s unique needs. Stakeholders observed that students value the personalised interactions where they feel listened to and can express their individual experiences. Recognising that each student has different characteristics and progresses at their own pace, tailoring is crucial in CE [14]. While CE in schools tends to be group-based, the interactive activities provide an ideal opportunity to personalise support. For example, a counsellor explained the following:

“When you have conversation, sometimes you discover things that are not about study choices at all. Sometimes, students have a blockade somewhere, at home, in their mind. Sometimes you help students in a different way and sometimes they need this support first, before they can move on [to topics related to their study choice].”

This mechanism is in line with previous research emphasising the effectiveness of student-centred approaches in CE [7].

Authenticity underscores the value of genuine insights into study programs and professions, in contrast to potentially biased or idealised representations. Stakeholders emphasised the impact of authentic interactions, particularly those involving near-peers, in providing honest perspectives and shaping students’ perceptions—for example, at a study program fair at school or during an open day at an institution. Students often perceive information from institutions as idealised representations and regard near-peers’ descriptions as genuine.

Career exploration refers to discovering professions and study programs, as well as adjusting one’s own preconceived notions of them. This mechanism is specifically mentioned in relation to experiences:

“Many students have a romantic image of certain study programs and then in practice, when they go to a taster day, they really think: ‘This is terrible, this doesn’t suit me.’ And you only learn that when you experience it.”

(mentor)

Moreover, the impact of career exploration was proposed as being moderated by students’ social and cultural capital. Students who have had prior exposure to the working field, potentially through parental guidance, might find career exploration activities less advantageous. This points to the significant influence of social background in shaping students’ perspectives on careers.

Career reflection involves the process of analysing and evaluating one’s own experiences and thoughts by integrating knowledge about the self with knowledge about a study program or profession. This process, often merged with activities focused on interaction, self-understanding, and experiences, facilitates students organising and structuring their feelings and thoughts. Stakeholders emphasised the value of peer, teacher, and parental perspectives in guiding students through the reflective process. Additionally, career reflection was linked to the construction of students’ self-concepts. For example, a counsellor indicated that students completed a questionnaire about their personality and competencies and that they discussed the results of the questionnaire individually with students:

“I notice when discussing the results with students, even though it is time-consuming, that they learn a lot from it. […] I really focus on recognition and acknowledgement: You wrote this, can you tell me how you notice this at home or at your sports club?”

In this example, the counsellor highlights the value of interaction and an additional perspective to integrate insights from the questionnaire in students’ self-concepts.

Connection to students’ perception and experience represents aligning activities with students’ existing knowledge and interests. By doing so, educators can enhance students’ understanding of potential career paths. This may involve incorporating familiar content or interacting with relatable individuals. For example, a policy advisor emphasised the importance of trying to connect their activities to the daily lives of students (i.e., familiar content). Additionally, a counsellor highlighted that near-peers are more captivating and easier to connect with than a professional thirty years older than the students (i.e., relatable individuals). These relatable individuals can also represent role models that motivate and inspire [31].

Construction of self-concept refers to gaining insight into one’s own unique characteristics and integrating them into a coherent self-concept, particularly through activities that foster self-understanding and provide experiences. Stakeholders noted that many students struggle to articulate their strengths and preferences:

“They often find it very difficult to indicate what they are good at or what they like”

(counsellor).

However, the construction of a coherent self-concept may be necessary to identify the fields of study that align with students’ own characteristics [32], highlighting the importance of supporting students’ self-concept development.

Decision-making skills refer to learning how to make informed choices and navigate external expectations, particularly those of parents. Counsellors, school leaders and policy advisors emphasised attending to decision-making skills, specifically in the earlier years of secondary education, before students choose their exam subjects at age 15:

“Their success later is also dependent on how they choose [their exam subjects]. They can still make a wrong choice. That doesn’t matter, as long as they are aware of their choice and not dependent on others”

(policy advisor).

Diverse perspectives involve exposure to a variety of viewpoints through interactions with different individuals, broadening students’ understanding of career options. For example, interactions with HE students provide students with an authentic glimpse of student life, whereas interacting with their mentor or counsellor can be helpful to broaden their perspective into professions or study programs. Stakeholders also indicated that insight in parents’ perspectives could be a powerful tool:

“parents know their child better than we do, and they know better what fits their child’s characteristics”

(mentor).

Stakeholders highlighted the importance of diverse perspectives in expanding students’ career insight.

Networking skills refer to the ability to build and maintain professional connections, facilitating access to educational and career opportunities. Although networking is seen as an important competence in CE [33], this mechanism was mentioned by only one stakeholder. This school leader explained how networking was used by students to plan internships.

“And then those kids also learn networking, they can do that very well. You know, all fathers receive phone calls. If you start doing that in the first year, in the fourth year, they would all think it was really stupid, […] they would be too cool to call their fathers. Whereas in the first year, they are super open to that, to exchange their network: Who knows a judge, a lawyer, my mum has a pet shop.”

(school leader).

The absence of annual internships in the CE curriculum of most schools within our sample, offering pre-university and senior general secondary education tracks, could explain why stakeholders have limited awareness of this mechanism.

Sense of belonging encompasses feelings of connection with an educational or professional environment through social interactions and atmosphere, influencing students’ perceptions of fit with the environment. This mechanism is often intuitive, although students might need help in articulating those feelings:

“You feel a kind of recognition. Almost a kind of feeling at home. Whether it’s the people, or the building”

(policy advisor)

The importance of a sense of belonging for a range of outcomes in HE is already well-established in the scientific literature, where emphasis is placed on the development of a sense of belonging over a longer period of time, e.g., [34,35]. Our findings additionally showed that a sense of belonging during an experience is perceived as facilitating an informed study choice.

3.2. Moderating Mechanisms

Moderating mechanisms delineate factors believed to explain for whom and under which circumstances CE activities are perceived as effective. These moderators encompass both individual difference factors, pertaining to students’ characteristics, and general didactic factors, associated with the nature of CE activities themselves. In our analysis, we identified eight moderators, comprising three individual difference factors (i.e., identity development, parental influence, and social and cultural capital) and five general didactic factors (activation, balancing autonomy and obligation, CE awareness, safety, and teacher skills and attitude).

Activation refers to the degree to which CE activities stimulate students’ active engagement. Stakeholders emphasised the critical role of activating components in fostering effectiveness, noting that activities lacking in activation are perceived as less impactful. One counsellor indicated the following:

“And I’m very allergic to completing lists, for example. I think that is one of those fill-in-the-blanks exercises where you don’t do much else. Whereas if you really actively start working on something and you have to think about it together, I think that works much better.”

Additionally, students expressed dissatisfaction with CE lessons, citing them as often lacking activation, resulting in boredom and amotivation due to perceived insignificance.

Balancing between autonomy and obligation involves finding an optimal balance between student autonomy and mandatory aspects in CE activities. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of granting students autonomy in their study choice process to foster engagement, while also recognising the need for a degree of structure and guidance, as students described they sometimes need “a little push”. In mandatory activities, a level of autonomy can also be provided by having students choose from different options, for example in content, exercises, or timing.

CE awareness refers to students’ recognition of activities as part of CE, a factor observed as significantly influencing the perceived effectiveness of such activities. Stakeholders noted instances where students failed to identify certain activities as CE-related. Students only recognised the self-evident CE activities, such as having a conversation with a counsellor or completing a vocational interest questionnaire. Counsellors perceived a similar pattern, underscoring the necessity of ensuring clear delineation and communication of CE activities, for example through preparation for an activity or designated CE moments throughout the year.

Identity development refers to differences in students’ readiness and engagement in the study choice process. All stakeholders acknowledged that students have different rates of development and have different paths through the study choice process. A counsellor said the following:

“I notice that all students have a different attitude to [CE]. I think it’s important that they are working on it and maybe they pick some things up subconsciously. The point is that they talk about it with each other—and even those who don’t really want to deal with it yet, or have fears, or put it off—they still get something out of it, and maybe less than we hope, but that doesn’t matter so much. It is therefore very important that we continue to offer these activities, and other than that we have no influence on [their rate of development].”

Students’ identity development is thus believed to affect the perceived effectiveness of CE activities.

Parental influence refers to parental involvement in students’ process of selecting a study. Involving parents has several advantages, such as providing additional perspectives and knowing their child well. However, stakeholders noted significant variation in the extent of positive parental engagement among students. While some parents exhibit high levels of involvement and support, others may not actively participate in study choice discussions at home,

“because these take place at school […] or they think that don’t have influence”

(mentor).

Moreover, parents can impact students’ choice processes through expectations or pressure.

“Many students are ‘distressed’ by what their parents want for them, or what competencies [parents] attribute to them”

(counsellor).

Parental influence is thus a significant factor in students’ study choices [36].

Safety concerns the creation of a supportive environment that encourages student participation in CE activities. Small-group or one-on-one activities are perceived as safe, as are anonymous and online activities. In these settings, students feel comfortable asking questions and expressing themselves without fear of judgment. When students are familiar with the individuals, an activity is also perceived as safe. Situations perceived as less safe are avoided by students:

“[Our] counsellor is a stranger by whom students have not been taught, so they do not approach the counsellor.”

Thus, establishing safety through intimate or anonymous settings and/or familiarity serves as a mechanism that reduces barriers for student to engage in an activity.

Social and cultural capital refers to the network of contacts and relationships and accumulated knowledge in CE that students possess. This includes their understanding of the diverse range of professions and study programs, as well as the perceived status associated with certain pathways. While some students have romanticised ideas of professions or study programs influenced by television or the media, others may possess a more realistic understanding shaped by their parents or their environment. Although the stakeholders in this study did not specifically mention differences between students with varying levels of social and cultural capital, previous research has demonstrated a positive association between greater social and cultural capital and informed educational decision-making [37,38].

Teachers’ skills and attitudes encompass their ability to connect with students, to engage in discussions about their future aspirations, and the requisite skills and attitudes to provide CE. Stakeholders emphasised the crucial role of teachers as facilitators of CE activities (i.e., typically the counsellor or mentor in the Dutch context). For example, one student described how their mentor failed to encourage students to engage in CE activities during mentor class, resulting in non-participation. In contrast, another student described a mentor who displayed considerable involvement and effectively motivated students to engage in CE activities. Mentors often juggle multiple responsibilities, leading to variations in the priority afforded to CE. Furthermore, many mentors lack specialised professional development in CE, contributing to discrepancies in their ability to conduct guidance sessions or structure CE activities within mentor classes. Consequently, the quality of CE provision may fluctuate across different classes within a school. However, stakeholders also contended that mentors know their students well, and are thus well-positioned to provide tailored support, aligning with prior research findings [39].

3.3. Meta-Moderating Mechanism

Meta-moderators delineate factors believed to explain under which circumstances CE in general is perceived as effective. An integrated curriculum is such a meta-moderator and refers to the extent to which CE activities are integrated into a program spanning multiple years within the school, preferably starting in the early years of secondary education. Stakeholders agreed on the importance of an integrated curriculum. Schools that have already adopted this approach typically employ the first years of secondary education to support students’ self-concept development and choice of exam subjects. Subsequently, they pivot towards exploring study and career options and aligning these with students’ self-concepts. Some schools have fully integrated CE in their mentor program, which also includes academic skill development, group dynamics, and social–emotional development. An advantage of an integrated curriculum of CE—whether within or outside the mentor program—is the structure it offers to students. This structure fosters a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of various components and enhances students’ awareness of CE components [7].

3.4. Contextual Factors

Contextual factors are meso- and macro-level factors that affect CE and its mechanisms. We identified three meso-level factors (i.e., embeddedness within the school team, school population, and time and budget) and one macro-level factor (i.e., societal expectations and pressure) in our analysis.

Embeddedness within the school team refers to the distribution of responsibilities, autonomy, and collaboration among team members regarding CE. In many schools, the counsellor is responsible for the CE curriculum, and mentors are tasked with its implementation. However, mentors, who also serve as subject teachers, often face limited time for their mentor duties. Consequently, CE is

“quickly forgotten, or the last thing to receive attention in the day-to-day tasks”

(counsellor) or “neglected” (school leader).

Additionally, the level of autonomy afforded to mentors and the extent of collaboration among mentors and/or counsellors vary across school teams. Counsellors and school leaders concurred that ideally mentors, counsellors, and management embrace CE as a priority to prepare their students for the future. Achieving this requires ongoing professional development for all actors and dedicated time and budgeting [9,40].

“That requires an enormous effort, but it is possible”

(school leader).

The school population refers to the socio-economic and socio-cultural backgrounds of students within a school. While this factor was primarily emphasised by policy advisors in higher education, it underscores the diverse needs of student populations. Different populations may require varying levels of autonomy, attention, and support, although specific requirements were not delineated by the policy advisors.

Societal pressure and expectations refers to the pressures and expectations imposed by society on adolescents. Stakeholders highlighted two distinct pressures: the significance of the study choice and upward pressure. Regarding the former, students feel compelled to make the “right” choice, as a wrong decision could lead to dropout and financial consequences. According to school leaders and counsellors, there is a prevailing notion among students that their entire life trajectory depends on this choice. In students’ perception, they have to make

“a career choice as if the world is still like: if you become a baker, and then you will be a baker until you die”

(school leader).

This school leader recognised that an individual’s career path is not predetermined, but rather evolves throughout the life span. However, students typically do not perceive career paths in this manner.

The latter pressure is the expectation to pursue a HE degree. Parents and schools often assume that students will go to HE after their secondary school, ignoring vocational education as a viable option. Societal pressures and expectations thus exert significant influence on students, particularly in shaping their perceptions and decisions regarding their educational and career paths. The significance of this pressure in the study choice process was also recognised by a recent Australian study [41].

Time and budget constraints pertain to the limited resources allocated to CE within schools. Mentors indicated that they commonly perceive CE as a minor aspect of their duties, resulting in reduced priority amidst competing demands. However, stakeholders in our sample demonstrated resourcefulness by leveraging available resources. This included activities such as facilitating peer group reflections on experiences to alleviate mentor workload, as well as obtaining external expertise through additional funding to develop CE curricula.

3.5. Differences between Stakeholder Groups

While stakeholders generally agreed on the identified activities, mechanisms, and factors, variations in perspectives were also evident, largely influenced by their respective roles and contexts. For example, students rarely mentioned experiences as best-practice activities, possibly due to a lack of recognition of experiences as integral to career exploration or due to the constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which limited their opportunities for experiences. Conversely, students displayed a strong preference for information-gathering activities, a category less emphasised by school leaders, counsellors, and mentors. Moreover, students emphasised the need for a balance between autonomy and mandatory activities, as well as the significance of teachers’ skills and attitudes, highlighting their unique perspective as the recipients of career education.

Mentors and counsellors exhibited similar preferences for certain types of activities, particularly favouring those fostering interaction, providing experiences, and involving parents. However, counsellors placed greater emphasis on the importance of an integrated curriculum, reflecting their role in overseeing the overall CE program. Conversely, mentors focused more on the embeddedness of CE within the school context, aligning with their role as implementers rather than designers of career education programs. Mentors highlighted the significance of parents’ involvement more prominently, possibly reflecting their more frequent interactions with parents compared to other stakeholders.

The school leaders in our sample emphasised the importance of providing experiences, although they also noted the neglect of career education in their previous schools, acknowledging that their perspective might not apply universally to school leaders. Additionally, school leaders were more attuned to contextual factors, reflecting their management responsibilities.

Finally, policy advisors from HE institutions placed less emphasis on self-understanding activities, viewing them as primarily the domain of secondary schools. Instead, they stressed the importance of an integrated curriculum, particularly focusing on activities organised by HE institutions (i.e., open days, taster days). These activities are organised to enhance the authenticity of the student experience, yet their sequential arrangement may lead to later activities being less tailored to the specific needs of secondary school students. Consequently, if students choose to forgo earlier activities in the sequence, they risk missing out on developing a comprehensive understanding of the study program.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to identify the best practices of CE and to examine stakeholders’ perceptions of the mechanisms at play. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for optimising the delivery and customisation of school-based CE programs. While previous research provided some insight into these CE mechanisms through reviews of the limited and scattered literature, the identified mechanisms have often varied across studies and lacked insight into their underlying relationships. Therefore, we adopted a distinctive approach to identify perceived mechanisms. It is important to note that our study did not establish causal mechanisms of CE in secondary schools. Instead, it provides a comprehensive, albeit tentative, set of mediators, moderators, and contextual factors. These findings serve as a foundation for future research and can prove beneficial to stakeholders seeking to enhance their CE programs in an evidence-informed manner.

The first research question aimed to understand which types of CE activities stakeholders identified as best practices to support students in their study selection processes. We distinguished five categories: fostering interaction, fostering self-understanding, involving parents, providing experiences, and providing information. It is notable that stakeholders’ perspectives seem to be influenced by the Career Competencies model by Kuijpers and Scheerens [24], which is commonly used in CE activities in the Netherlands. Activities such as providing experiences supports students’ development of work exploration and networking competencies, while those focused on fostering self-understanding and interaction facilitate students’ reflection on their capacities and motivations. Interestingly, the promotion of career action competence seems to occupy a less prominent position among the best practice activities identified by the stakeholders in our sample. Although our study did not aim to delineate the CE curricula in Dutch schools, the fact that all categories of CE activities were endorsed by the stakeholders responsible for the CE curricula suggests the presence of a comprehensive range of CE activities in the schools in our sample.

The second research question aimed to identify the perceived mediating and moderating mechanisms and contextual factors purportedly influencing CE activities and outcomes. Based on stakeholders’ accounts, we identified a total of ten mediators, eight moderators, one meta-moderator, and four contextual factors (see

Table 2. Identified mechanisms compared to previous literature.

Current Study	Hughes et al. [6]	Keele et al. [7]	Korpershoek et al. [8]
Mediators
Authenticity
Career exploration	Career exploration	Experiential learning	Connecting to practice
Career reflection	Career reflection		Reflection
Connection to students’ perceptions and experiences
Construction of self-concept
Decision-making skills		Preparing for unpredictability and change
Diverse perspectives
Networking skills	Networking
Sense of belonging
Tailored support and personal attention	Career dialogue	Access to one-on-one counselling
Moderators
Activation			Students’ active role
Balance between autonomy and obligation
CE awareness
Identity development
Parental influence			Parental involvement
Safety
Social and cultural capital	Social and cultural capital a
Teacher skills and attitudes
Meta-moderator
Integrated curriculum		Embedded within curriculum	Integrated program
Contextual factors
Embeddedness within the school team		Whole-school approach	Active involvement from mentors and teachers
School population		Contextualising practice for the school population group
Societal pressure and expectations			Coping with expectations
Time and budget

Note. All mechanisms in a category are presented in alphabetical order. ^a This was not identified as a mechanism, but as a gap in the literature.

for all identified factors in comparison to previous literature). Mediating mechanisms represent inherent components of CE activities believed to elucidate their perceived effectiveness in supporting students’ study selection process. Moderating and meta-moderating mechanisms shed light on the circumstances under which CE activities and CE in general are perceived as effective. Contextual factors are meso- and macro-level factors that affect CE and its mechanisms. While previous reviews touched on a number of these factors, they did not categorise them as mediators, moderators, and contextual factors. This distinction is essential as contextual factors differ from mechanisms and hold a distinct position in the design of and research on CE activities.

The third research question sought to investigate whether stakeholder groups varied in their identification of perceived best practices and mechanisms of CE in secondary schools. While all stakeholder groups mentioned various activities and mechanisms, we observed discrepancies in emphasis. Notably, students predominantly focused on information-providing activities, whereas other stakeholders prioritised providing experiences. This discrepancy prompts questions regarding whether CE stakeholders adequately address students’ needs or if students are unaware of what is beneficial for them. Given the consistent evidence on the value of experiences for CE outcomes, e.g., [6], the latter seems more plausible.

Schools seeking to enhance their CE curriculum may utilise the categorised activities as building blocks, in line with prior research emphasising the importance of curriculum diversity in supporting students’ study selection processes [42]. Awareness of the mechanisms underlying these activities may support the development of an evidence-informed curriculum. Importantly, our research and prior evidence [7] highlights the need for an integrated CE curriculum starting in the early years of secondary education to tailor guidance to the specific developmental tasks during early and late adolescence [14]. To provide effective support, it is important that schools choose or tailor activities to match students’ developmental levels or their zone of proximal development. This approach ensures that CE activities are aligned with students’ current capacities and potential for growth, as suggested by career development theory. This theory posits that the decision-making process regarding selection of a HE study program is complex, involving the development and realization of one’s self-concept, gaining stability during late adolescence and early adulthood [14].

One limitation of our study concerns its generalisability, as participants were affiliated with secondary schools and HE institutions in one region and self-selected into the study. Consequently, our sample may not be fully representative of CE practices in Dutch secondary schools, and may consist of participants with a heightened interest in CE. Nonetheless, the primary aim of this study was to identify mechanisms of CE using stakeholders’ perspectives, focusing on capturing diverse perspectives from both those delivering and receiving CE [10,11]. Nevertheless, our findings align with both international and national literature, providing confidence in the broader recognition of the identified mediators, moderators, and contextual factors within the CE field. Further testing of the provided framework in both international and national contexts can address this limitation and contribute to validating and refining this framework.

Our study did not establish causal relationships between CE activities, mechanisms, contextual factors, and outcomes. Instead, it serves as an initial exploration into the range of mechanisms and the type of relationships associated with CE activities. Future research should aim to identify whether the mediators and moderators proposed in this study indeed represent causal mechanisms of CE, potentially through micro-experiments within the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) framework [43]. By collaborating with practitioners, small-scale experiments could be implemented across diverse CE settings, allowing for the accumulation of knowledge of mechanisms and contextual factors in a cost-effective manner.

5. Conclusions

This study employed a hermeneutic qualitative design to investigate which CE activities in Dutch secondary schools were perceived as effective, as well as why, under what circumstances, and for whom. While previous evidence had identified some mechanisms, studies often presented varying mechanisms and refrained from categorising the underlying mechanisms and relationships. By distinguishing between mediators, moderators, and contextual factors, this study contributes to an understanding of the fundamental relationships between CE activities, mechanisms, and outcomes. However, it is important to note that our study did not add to the body of evidence regarding causal mechanisms of CE in secondary schools. Instead, it provided a comprehensive yet provisional set of mediators, moderators, and contextual factors. This set may serve as a foundational framework for future research endeavours, aiding in the refinement and expansion of our understanding of tailored CE programs in an evidence-informed manner.