Online versus Face-to-Face: Students' Preferences for College Course Attributes
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Students who take courses both online and face-to-face have been found to choose to take courses that are less 'interesting' or 'important' to them online; these courses are therefore already likely to have worse outcomes regardless of medium.
“Students who take courses both online and face-to-face have been found to choose to take courses that are less”
From Competing hypotheses about online versus face-to-face course outcomes: Analysis leveraging the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic (2025) · cites this paper as Mann & Henneberry, 2014
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209174 · Cited by 1,172 · see citing works
Lou, Y., Bernard, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2006) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-006-8252-x · Cited by 197 · see citing works
Bejerano, A. R. (2008) · Communication Education · doi:10.1080/03634520801993697 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Anstine, J., and M. Skidmore. ''A Small Sample Study of Traditional and Online Courses with Sample Selection Adjustment.'' The Journal of Economic Education 36,2(2005):107-27.
- Arunachalam, B., S.R. Henneberry, J.L. Lusk, and F.B. Norwood. ''An Empirical Investigation into the Excessive-Choice Effect.'' American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91,3(2009):810-25.
- Ausburn, L.J. ''Course Design Elements Most Valued by Adult Learners in Blended Online Education Environments: An American Per- spective.'' Educational Media International 40,4(2004):327-37.
- Bernard, R.M., P.C. Abrami, E. Borokhovski, C.A. Wade, R.M. Tamim, M.A. Surkes, and E.C. Bethel. ''A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education.'' Review of Educational Research 79,3(2009): 1243-89.
- Boyer, T., B. Briggeman, and F. Norwood. ''De- mand for Multimedia in the Classroom.'' Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41,3(2009):791-808.
- Brown, B., and C. Liedholm. ''Teaching Mi- croeconomic Principals-Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles of Mi- croeconomics?'' The American Economic Review 92,2(2002):444-48.
- Campbell, M., W. Gibson, A. Hall, D. Richards, and P. Callery. ''Online vs. Face-to-Face Dis- cussion in a Web-based Research Methods Course for Postgraduate Nursing Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study.'' International Jour- nal of Nursing Studies 45(2008):750-59.
- Coates, D., B. Humphreys, J. Kane, and M. Vachris. ''No Significant Distance between Face-to-Face and Online Instruction: Evidence from Principles of Economics.'' Economics of Education Review 23,5(2004):533-46.
- Flores, N., and S. Savage. ''Student Demand for Streaming Lecture Video: Empirical Evidence from Undergraduate Economics Classes.'' In- ternational Review of Economics Education 6,2(2007):57-78.
- Hanley, N., R.E. Wright, and V. Adamowicz. ''Using Choice Experiments to Value the En- vironment: Design Issues, Current Experience and Future Prospects.'' Environmental and Resource Economics 11:3-4(1998):413-28.
- Haythornthwaite, C., and R. Andrews. E-Learn- ing Theory and Practice. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd., 2011.
- Hensher, D.A., and W.H. Greene. ''The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.'' Trans- portation 30,2(2003):133-76.
- Hole, A.R. ''A Comparison of Approaches to Estimating Confidence Intervals for Willing- ness to Pay Measures.'' Health Economics 16,8(2007):827-40.
- Jenkins, H., R. Purushotma, M. Weigel, K. Clinton, and A.J. Robinson. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.
- Koehler, M., P. Mishra, K. Hershey, and L. Peruski. ''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.
- Kuhfeld, W.F., R.D. Tobias, and M. Garratt. ''Efficient Experimental Design with Market- ing Research Applications.'' JMR, Journal of Marketing Research 31,4(1994):545-57.
- Louviere, J.J., and G. Woodworth. ''Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data.'' JMR, Journal of Market- ing Research 20,4(1983):350-67.
- Lusk, J.L., J. Roosen, and J.A. Fox. ''Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hor- mones 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.
- Lusk, J.L., and T.C. Schroeder. ''Are Choice Ex- periments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.'' American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86,2(2004): 467-82.
- Mann, J.T., and S.R. Henneberry. ''What Char- acteristics of College Students Influence Their Decisions to Select Online Courses?'' Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 15,4(2012):1-14.
- McFadden, D. ''Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.'' Frontiers in Econometrics. P. Zarembka, ed. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1973.
- Means, B., Y. Toyama, R. Murphy, B. Marianne, and K. Jones. Evaluation of Evidence Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa- tion, 2009.
- Moore, M. ''Three Types of Interaction.'' American Journal of Distance Education 3,2(1989):1-6.
- Picciano, A.G. ''Beyond Student Perceptions: Is- sues of Interaction, Presence, and Performance in an Online Course.'' Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 6,1(2002):21-40.
- Summers, J.J., A. Waigandt, and T.A. Whittaker. ''A Comparison of Student Achievement and Satisfaction in an Online versus a Traditional Face-to-Face Statistics Class.'' Innovative Higher Education 29,3(2005):233-50.
- Swan, K. ''Virtual Interaction: Design Factors Affecting Student Satisfaction and Perceived Learning in Asynchronous Online Courses.'' Distance Education 22,2(2001):306-31.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Solomou, I., & Constantinidou, F. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17144924 · Cited by 591 · see citing works
“According to prior research, e-learning results in negative reactions by university students who, as a group, prefer face-to-face learning [28,29].”
BackgroundPaul, J., & Jefferson, F. (2019) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2019.00007 · Cited by 457 · see citing works
Wladis, C., Hachey, A. C., Conway, K., & Manly, C. (2025) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v29i3.5018
- Authors
- Mann, J. T., & Henneberry, S. R.
- Affiliations
- Sam Houston State University (US)
- Oklahoma State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2014-02
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-19
- ISSN
- 0081-3052 (ISSN-L)
- 1074-0708
- 2056-7405
- OpenAlex
- W2893134744
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 10.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- ageconsearch.umn.edu
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Innovations and Challenges
- Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
- Keywords
- online courses, face-to-face classes, student preferences, course attributes, course scheduling, course selection, course registration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
