Cited by 34Online and Blended LearningDigital Transformation of Higher EducationManagement and Marketing Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Differences in Characteristics of Online versus Traditional Students: Implications for Target Marketing

Pentina, Iryna, Neeley, Concha·2007·Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

Abstract

This study provides insight for educators and administrators into differences between students enrolled in Web-based and traditional classes as online learning enters the growth stage of its product life cycle. We identify characteristics that differentiate online students from those who prefer traditional education methods in order to offer more effective marketing techniques for attracting and retaining online students. Results of the study suggest that students in traditional classes have higher perceptions of performance and financial risk than their online counterparts. Social character was another important factor determining the choice of traditional over online learning. Recommendations to assist administrators in increasing enrollment in their online programs are presented.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1300/j050v17n01_05

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The sample drawn from a single group of undergraduate students in Italy and an online university limits the generalizability of the findings to other student populations.

    “our sample was drawn from a single group of undergraduate students within one cultural context (Italy) and the specific setting of an online university, with students that may differ from those in traditional university environment (Pentina and Neeley, 2007). This unique composition may limit the generalizability of our findings to other student populations.”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Bauer R. A., 1960, Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World
  2. Bearden W. O., 1993, Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-item Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research
  3. 10.2307/1252221 · DOI
  4. 10.3200/JOEB.79.4.245-253 · DOI
  5. 10.1300/J050v14n01_06 · DOI
  6. Clark M., 2000, The Guardian On-line, 9, 2
  7. Clayton, M. A. Who's Online? A Look at Demographics of Online Student Populations. Proceedings of the 5th Congress of the Americas. Mexico.: Pueblo.
  8. 10.2307/1251915 · DOI
  9. 10.1080/08832329809601663 · DOI
  10. Gibson C. C., 1992, Journal of Distance Education, 7, 39
  11. 10.1108/EUM0000000005657 · DOI
  12. Hazel R., 1991, Research in Distance Education, 3, 2
  13. 10.1086/209073 · DOI
  14. 10.2307/1252069 · DOI
  15. 10.2307/2786125 · DOI
  16. Kriger T. J., 2001, Report for American Federation of Teachers.
  17. 10.1300/J050v11n03_01 · DOI
  18. Leavitt C., 1975, Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 545
  19. 10.2307/1980645 · DOI
  20. Liviertos B., 1996, Alternative Learning Modes: Spring '92 Tele-Course and Weekend College Enrollees
  21. Lumpkin J. R., 1982, Journal of Advertising, 11, 56, 10.1080/00913367.1982.10672822 · DOI
  22. 2001, “Projections of Education Statistics to 2011. Chapter 2: Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions.”
  23. Nunnally J. C., 1978, Psychometric Theory
  24. O'Donoghue J., 2002, ALN Magazine, 4, 10
  25. Prahalad C. K., 1990, Harvard Business Review, 68, 79
  26. Riesman D., 1950, The Lonely Crowd
  27. Robbins S. P., 2001, Organizational Behavior
  28. Robinson R., 1992, Research in Distance Education, 4, 10
  29. Rogers E. M., 1995, Diffusion of Innovations,
  30. Schiffman L. G., 2000, Consumer Behavior,
  31. 10.1086/208894 · DOI
  32. Singh P., 2004, Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8, 1
  33. Slaughter S., 1997, Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University
  34. Sloan Survey of Online Learning. Entering the Mainstream: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Sloan-C International Conference.
  35. 10.1300/J050v13n01_07 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pentina, I., & Neeley, C.
Affiliations
  • University of North Texas (US)
  • Central Michigan University (US)
Venue
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education
Published
2007-08-22
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
49-65
ISSN
  • 0884-1241 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-7144
OpenAlex
W2069178047
Cited by
34
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Marketing for HIGHER EDUCATION (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Digital Transformation of Higher Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Management and Marketing Education
Keywords
online learning, student characteristics, targeted marketing, higher education marketing, student retention, perceived performance, financial risk perception, social character

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