Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 169–184 | Cite as

The Changing Importance of Factors Influencing Students’ Choice of Study Mode

  • Matthew Bailey
  • Dirk Ifenthaler
  • Maree Gosper
  • Mandy Kretzschmar
  • Cheryl Ware
Online Learning
First Online:

Abstract

Despite the expansion of online and blended learning, as well as open education, until relatively recently little research has been undertaken on what motivates students to enrol in particular study modes at university level. This project contributes to recent scholarship in the field by exploring the reasons why humanities students choose to study through specific modes. The research was conducted between October 2013 and March 2014 administering three waves of data collection to over 700 students who were enrolled in humanities units being offered simultaneously through three different modes: on-campus, distance, and open and online. The findings suggest that students choose different enrolment modes based on factors such as personal, learning support, environment, advice and marketing, teaching and learning as well as logistics. However, the importance students ascribe to particular factors changes during their educational experience. This study found significant differences in the importance of factors between initial and subsequent choices of enrolment mode, suggesting that the ‘lived’ experience of students at university influences their perception of which factors are important.

Keywords

Educational pathways Study mode Higher education Australia Humanities students  Open education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was generously provided by Macquarie University under its Learning and Teaching grant scheme. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and helpful feedback.

References

  1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States. Needham: The Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning and Instruction, 4(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  3. Artino, A. R, Jr. (2010). Online or face-to-face learning? Exploring the personal factors that predict students’ choice of institutional format. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 272–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aspden, L., & Helm, P. (2004). Making the connection in a blended learning environment. Educational Media International, 41(3), 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee. (2007). Australian university student finances 2006.Google Scholar
  6. Bates, A. W. (2005). Technology, e-Learning and distance education. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booth, A. (1997). Listening to students: Experiences and expectations in the transition to a history degree. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornholt, L., Gientzotis, J., & Cooney, G. (2004). Understanding choice behaviours: Pathways from school to university with changing aspirations and opportunities. Social Psychology of Education, 7(2), 211–228. doi: 10.1023/B:SPOE.0000018560.99580.2a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradley, D. (2008). Review of Australian higher education: Final report.Google Scholar
  10. Braun, T. (2008). making a choice: The perceptions and attitudes of online graduate students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 63–92.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, J. L. M. (2012). Online learning: A comparison of web-based and land-based courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), 39–42.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cebula, R. J., & Lopes, J. (1982). Determinants of student choice of undergraduate major field. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student college choice. Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 490–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clayton, K., Blumberg, F., & Auld, D. P. (2010). The relationship between motivation, learning strategies and choice of environment whether traditional or including an online component. British Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3), 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, V. (2003). A model for assessing distance learning instruction. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14(2), 98–120. doi: 10.1007/bf02940940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Colorado, J., & Eberle, J. (2010). Student demographics and success in online learning environments. Emporia State Research Studies, 46(1), 4–10.Google Scholar
  18. Currie, J. (2003). Australian universities as enterprise universities: Transformed players on a global stage. In G. Breton & M. Lambert (Eds.), Universities and globalization: Private linkages, public trust (pp. 179–194). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  19. de Zilwa, D. (2010). Academic units in a complex, changing world. Adaptation and resistance. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Ding, H., & Boody, R. M. (2011). Reasons why students attend Open University in China. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 40–52.Google Scholar
  21. Dobozy, E., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Initial teacher education by open and distance modes a snapshot of e-competency experiences in Australia. eLearning Papers, 38, 43–54.Google Scholar
  22. Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competencies for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gosper, M., Malfroy, J., & McKenzie, J. (2013). Students’ experiences and expectations of technologies: An Australian study designed to inform planning and development decisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 268–282.Google Scholar
  24. Greenland, S. J., & Moore, C. (2014). Patterns of student enrolment and attrition in Australian open access online education: A preliminary case study. Open Praxis, 6(1), 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hagel, P., & Shaw, R. N. (2010). How important is study mode in student university choice? Higher Education Quarterly, 64(2), 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hannay, M., & Newvine, T. (2006). Perceptions of distance learning: A comparison of online and tradtional learning. Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  27. Harkera, D., Sladea, P., & Harkera, M. (2001). Exploring the decision process of school leavers’ and ‘mature students’ in university choice. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 11(2), 1–20. doi: 10.1300/J050v11n02_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online verse face-to-face instruction. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayes, T. J. (1989). How students choose a college. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 2(1), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. doi: 10.1007/bf02319856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hrastinski, S., & Jaldemark, J. (2012). How and why do students of higher education participate in online seminars? Education and Information Technologies, 17(3), 253–271. doi: 10.1007/s10639-011-9155-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community college student voices. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(1), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. James, R. (2000). How school-leavers choose a preferred university course and possible effects on the quality of the school-university transition. Journal of Institutional Research, 9(1), 78–88.Google Scholar
  34. James, R., Wyn, J., Baldwin, G., Hepworth, G., McInnes, C., & Stephanou, A. (1999). Rural and isolated students and their higher education choices: A re-examination of student location, socio-economic background, and educational advantage and disadvantage. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  35. Johnson, R., Stewart, C., & Bachman, C. (2013). What drives students to complete online courses? What drives faculty to teach online? Validating a measure of motivation orientation in university students and faculty. Interactive Learning Environments,. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.788037.Google Scholar
  36. Lefoe, G., & Albury, R. (2004). Editorial. Educational Media International, 41, 181–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lefoe, G., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Blending on and off campus: A tale of two cities. In C. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning environments: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 325–337). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  38. McInnis, C., & Hartley, R. (2002). Managing Study and Work: The impact of full-time study and paid work on the undergraduate experience in Australian universities. Department of Education, Science and Training, Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  39. Moore, M. G., & Kearskey, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  40. O’Neil, D. K., & Sai, T. H. (2014). Why not? Examining college students’ reasons for avoiding an online course. Higher Education, 68(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paechter, M. M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 292–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Price, L. (2006). Gender differences and similarities in online courses: Challenging stereotypical views of women. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 6(2), 367–379.Google Scholar
  44. Romero, M., & Usart, M. (2014). The temporal perspective in higher education learners: Comparisons between online and onsite learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 17(1), 190–209.Google Scholar
  45. Stacey, E., & Wiesenberg, F. (2007). A study of face-to-face and online teaching philosophies in Canada and Australia. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 19–40.Google Scholar
  46. Sugahara, S., Boland, G., & Cilloni, A. (2008). Factors Influencing students’ choice of an Accounting major in Australia. Accounting Education, 17(Sup1), 37–54. doi: 10.1080/09639280802009199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tsay, M. H., Morgan, G., & Quick, D. (2000). predicting students’ ratings of the importance of strategies to facilitate self-directed distance learning in Taiwan. Distance Education, 21(1), 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolming, S., & Mahieu, R. (2013). Motive for lifelong learners to choose web-based courses. Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 16(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  49. Woo, K., Gosper, M., McNeill, M., Preston, G., Green, D., & Phillips, R. (2008). Web-based lecture technologies: Blurring the boundaries between face-to-face and distance learning. Research in Learning Technology, 16(2), 81–93. doi: 10.1080/09687760802315895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses fron the students’ perspective. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ziguras, C., & McBurnie, G. (2011). Transnational higher education in the Asia-Pacific region: From distance education to the branch campus. In S. Marginson, S. Kaur, & E. Sawir (Eds.), Higher education in the Asia-Pacific (Vol. 36, pp. 105–122)., Higher education dynamics Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Bailey
    • 1
  • Dirk Ifenthaler
    • 2
  • Maree Gosper
    • 1
  • Mandy Kretzschmar
    • 1
  • Cheryl Ware
    • 1
  1. 1.Macquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options