Online versus Face-to-Face: Students' Preferences for College Course Attributes
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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of agricultural and applied economics 2014-02, Vol.46 (1), p.1-19 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 19 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 1 |
| container_title | Journal of agricultural and applied economics |
| container_volume | 46 |
| creator | Mann, John T. Henneberry, Shida R. |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S1074070800000602 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1535076073</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S1074070800000602</cupid><sourcerecordid>3332119471</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3072-8295f849187f3f00602d47501c30ccb4e095a7cb0dc4aad867268208418d24423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UMFKw0AQXUTBWv0AbwEPnlZnN7vZjbdSbBVaqlTxuGySSUlNk7qbiP69iS0iiHN5MG_evDdDyDmDKwZMXS8ZKAEKNPQVAT8gAw4yol1XHpJBT9OePyYn3q8BBOdSD8hiUZVFhcE7Ot_6YGJTpE1Ne7wJlk2bYdX4y-DBYY4OqxR9kNcuGNdliSvssHUeg1HTuCJpG_Sn5Ci3pcezPQ7J8-T2aXxHZ4vp_Xg0o2kIilPNY5lrETOt8jD_DpwJJYF1dJomAiGWVqUJZKmwNtOR4pHmoAXTGReCh0Nysdu7dfVbi74x6y5K1VkaJkMJKgIVdlNsN5W62vvuBrN1xca6T8PA9H8zf_7WaehOU_gGP34E1r2aSIVKmmj6aOZzNlMvIja9R7j3sJvEFdkKf0X51-ULlW97Rw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1535076073</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Online versus Face-to-Face: Students' Preferences for College Course Attributes</title><source>AgEcon</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Mann, John T. ; Henneberry, Shida R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Mann, John T. ; Henneberry, Shida R.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1074-0708</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2056-7405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1074-0708</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S1074070800000602</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>A22 ; college course attributes ; College students ; Colleges & universities ; conditional logit model ; Design ; Distance learning ; Educational objectives ; Nontraditional students ; online course design ; Online instruction ; School environment ; Students ; students' preferences ; Studies ; undergraduate students ; Virtual offices ; Web 2.0 ; web 2.0 technology ; Willingness to pay</subject><ispartof>Journal of agricultural and applied economics, 2014-02, Vol.46 (1), p.1-19</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2014</rights><rights>Copyright Southern Agricultural Economics Association Feb 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3072-8295f849187f3f00602d47501c30ccb4e095a7cb0dc4aad867268208418d24423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3072-8295f849187f3f00602d47501c30ccb4e095a7cb0dc4aad867268208418d24423</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mann, John T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henneberry, Shida R.</creatorcontrib><title>Online versus Face-to-Face: Students' Preferences for College Course Attributes</title><title>Journal of agricultural and applied economics</title><addtitle>J. Agric. Appl. Econ</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>A22</subject><subject>college course attributes</subject><subject>College students</subject><subject>Colleges & universities</subject><subject>conditional logit model</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Distance learning</subject><subject>Educational objectives</subject><subject>Nontraditional students</subject><subject>online course design</subject><subject>Online instruction</subject><subject>School environment</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>students' preferences</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>undergraduate students</subject><subject>Virtual offices</subject><subject>Web 2.0</subject><subject>web 2.0 technology</subject><subject>Willingness to pay</subject><issn>1074-0708</issn><issn>2056-7405</issn><issn>1074-0708</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UMFKw0AQXUTBWv0AbwEPnlZnN7vZjbdSbBVaqlTxuGySSUlNk7qbiP69iS0iiHN5MG_evDdDyDmDKwZMXS8ZKAEKNPQVAT8gAw4yol1XHpJBT9OePyYn3q8BBOdSD8hiUZVFhcE7Ot_6YGJTpE1Ne7wJlk2bYdX4y-DBYY4OqxR9kNcuGNdliSvssHUeg1HTuCJpG_Sn5Ci3pcezPQ7J8-T2aXxHZ4vp_Xg0o2kIilPNY5lrETOt8jD_DpwJJYF1dJomAiGWVqUJZKmwNtOR4pHmoAXTGReCh0Nysdu7dfVbi74x6y5K1VkaJkMJKgIVdlNsN5W62vvuBrN1xca6T8PA9H8zf_7WaehOU_gGP34E1r2aSIVKmmj6aOZzNlMvIja9R7j3sJvEFdkKf0X51-ULlW97Rw</recordid><startdate>20140201</startdate><enddate>20140201</enddate><creator>Mann, John T.</creator><creator>Henneberry, Shida R.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140201</creationdate><title>Online versus Face-to-Face: Students' Preferences for College Course Attributes</title><author>Mann, John T. ; Henneberry, Shida R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3072-8295f849187f3f00602d47501c30ccb4e095a7cb0dc4aad867268208418d24423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>A22</topic><topic>college course attributes</topic><topic>College students</topic><topic>Colleges & universities</topic><topic>conditional logit model</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Distance learning</topic><topic>Educational objectives</topic><topic>Nontraditional students</topic><topic>online course design</topic><topic>Online instruction</topic><topic>School environment</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>students' preferences</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>undergraduate students</topic><topic>Virtual offices</topic><topic>Web 2.0</topic><topic>web 2.0 technology</topic><topic>Willingness to pay</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mann, John T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henneberry, Shida R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of agricultural and applied economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mann, John T.</au><au>Henneberry, Shida R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Online versus Face-to-Face: Students' Preferences for College Course Attributes</atitle><jtitle>Journal of agricultural and applied economics</jtitle><addtitle>J. Agric. Appl. Econ</addtitle><date>2014-02-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>19</epage><pages>1-19</pages><issn>1074-0708</issn><eissn>2056-7405</eissn><eissn>1074-0708</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S1074070800000602</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1074-0708 |
| ispartof | Journal of agricultural and applied economics, 2014-02, Vol.46 (1), p.1-19 |
| issn | 1074-0708 2056-7405 1074-0708 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1535076073 |
| source | AgEcon; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
| subjects | A22 college course attributes College students Colleges & universities conditional logit model Design Distance learning Educational objectives Nontraditional students online course design Online instruction School environment Students students' preferences Studies undergraduate students Virtual offices Web 2.0 web 2.0 technology Willingness to pay |
| title | Online versus Face-to-Face: Students' Preferences for College Course Attributes |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T08%3A34%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Online%20versus%20Face-to-Face:%20Students'%20Preferences%20for%20College%20Course%20Attributes&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20agricultural%20and%20applied%20economics&rft.au=Mann,%20John%20T.&rft.date=2014-02-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=19&rft.pages=1-19&rft.issn=1074-0708&rft.eissn=2056-7405&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S1074070800000602&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3332119471%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1535076073&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S1074070800000602&rfr_iscdi=true |