Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:29:43.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Online versus Face-to-Face: Students' Preferences for College Course Attributes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

John T. Mann  and
Shida R. Henneberry
John T. Mann
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Industrial Sciences, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas
Shida R. Henneberry
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Get access

Abstract

The objectives of this article were to determine: 1) students' preferences for college course attributes; and 2) how the amount of course attribute information impacts enrollment. Results indicate students had the highest preferences for face-to-face (F2F) courses offered late morning and early afternoon and two to three days per week. Students selected online over F2F courses depending on course makeup; for example, course topic, online course design technology, and when the F2F version was offered. Additionally, students selected online courses more frequently when additional online course attribute information was available during course selection.

Keywords

college course attributesconditional logit modeldistance learningonline course designstudents' preferencesundergraduate studentsweb 2.0 technologywillingness to payA22123129
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, I.E., and Seaman, F.. Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium Inc., 2011.Google Scholar
Allen, I.E., and Seaman, F.. Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium Inc., 2013.Google Scholar
Anderson, T.Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Alberta, Canada: Athabasca University, 200.Google Scholar
Anstine, J., and Skidmore, M.. “A Small Sample Study of Traditional and Online Courses with Sample Selection Adjustment.” The Journal of Economic Education 36,2(2005): 107–127.Google Scholar
Arunachalam, B., Henneberry, S.R., Lusk, J.L., and Norwood, F.B.. “An Empirical Investigation into the Excessive-Choice Effect.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91,3(2009):810–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausburn, L.J. “Course Design Elements Most Valued by Adult Learners in Blended Online Education Environments: An American Perspective.” Educational Media International 40,4(2004):327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bejerano, A.R. “The Genesis and Evolution of Online Degree Programs: Who Are They for and What Have We Lost Along the Way?” Communication Education 57,3(2008):408–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, R.M., Abrami, PC., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamim, R.M., Surkes, M.A., and Bethel, E.C.. “A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education.” Review of Educational Research 79,3(2009): 1243–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, T, Briggeman, B., and Norwood, F.. “Demand for Multimedia in the Classroom.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41,3(2009):791–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, B., and Liedholm, C.. “Teaching Microeconomic Principals—Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles of Microeconomics?” The American Economic Review 92,2(2002):444–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, M., Gibson, W., Hall, A., Richards, D., and Callery, P.. “Online vs. Face-to-Face Discussion in a Web-based Research Methods Course for Postgraduate Nursing Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study.” International Journal of Nursing Studies 45(2008):750–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, D., Humphreys, B., Kane, J., and Vachris, M.. “No Significant Distance between Face-to-Face and Online Instruction: Evidence from Principles of Economics.” Economics of Education Review 23,5(2004):533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores, N., and Savage, S.. “Student Demand for Streaming Lecture Video: Empirical Evidence from Undergraduate Economics Classes.” International Review of Economics Education 6,2(2007):57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W.H.Economic Analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2008.Google Scholar
Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., and Adamowicz, V.. “Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment: Design Issues, Current Experience and Future Prospects.” Environmental and Resource Economics 11:3-4(1998):413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, C. Personal Communications. Institutional Research and Information Management. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University, April 2011.Google Scholar
Haythornthwaite, C, and Andrews, R.. E-Learning Theory and Practice. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd., 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, D.A., and Greene, W.H.. “The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.” Transportation 30,2(2003): 133–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hole, A.R.“A Comparison of Approaches to Estimating Confidence Intervals for Willingness to Pay Measures.” Health Economics 16,8(2007):827–840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Institutional Research and Information Management. Fall 2010 Student Profile. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University, 2010.Google Scholar
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., and Robinson, A.J.. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., and Peruski, L.. “With a Little Help from Your Students: A New Model for Faculty Development and Online Course Design.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 12,1(2004):25–55.Google Scholar
Kuhfeld, W.F., Tobias, R.D., and Garratt, M.. “Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications.” JMR, Journal of Marketing Research 31,4(1994):545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, I.P., and Gaeth, G.J.. “How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product.” The Journal of Consumer Research 15,3(1988): 374–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lou, Y., Bernard, R., and Abrami, P.. “Media and Pedagogy in Undergraduate Distance Education: A Theory-Based Meta-Analysis of Empirical Literature.” Educational Technology Research and Development 54,2(2006): 141–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, J.J., and Woodworth, G.. “Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data.” JMR, Journal of Marketing Research 20,4(1983):350–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Roosen, J., and Fox, J.A.. “Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones of Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85,1(2003):16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C.. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86,2(2004): 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, J.T., and Henneberry, S.R.. “What Characteristics of College Students Influence Their Decisions to Select Online Courses?” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 15,4(2012): 1–14.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” Frontiers in Econometrics P. Zarembka, ed. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Marianne, B., and Jones, K.. Evaluation of Evidence Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2009.Google Scholar
Moore, M. “Three Types of Interaction.” American Journal of Distance Education 3,2(1989): 1–6.Google Scholar
Picciano, A.G. “Beyond Student Perceptions: Issues of Interaction, Presence, and Performance in an Online Course.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 6,1(2002):21–40.Google Scholar
Russell, T.L. No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1999.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. SAS/ETS® User's Guide, version. 9. 2nd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2008.Google Scholar
Summers, J.J., Waigandt, A., and Whittaker, T.A.. “A Comparison of Student Achievement and Satisfaction in an Online versus a Traditional Face-to-Face Statistics Class.” Innovative Higher Education 29,3(2005):233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, K.“Virtual Interaction: Design Factors Affecting Student Satisfaction and Perceived Learning in Asynchronous Online Courses.” Distance Education 22,2(2001):306–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar