Effect of Crisis-Induced Online Shift on Student Academic Preferences: Insights for Education Institutions to Develop Equitable and Sustainable Learning Models

Abstract

It has been five years since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2019, forcing universities to hastily adopt online teaching. This study focuses on two under-researched topics: whether the shift online may change universities’ model to not require physical attendance and how students’ socioeconomic status impacts their preferences around online versus in-person learning. The research hypotheses suggest that undergoing an online teaching experience positively influences preferences for online teaching, which in turn impacts the desire for institutional changes toward an online environment. Based on 1854 questionnaires completed at several academic institutions, we employed a mixed methods design. We performed Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) followed by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to test the models’ goodness of fit and presented the Online Teaching Preference and Socioeconomic Effect (OTPSE) model. The findings show that students who felt their teaching improved through online classes preferred this format and chose universities without mandatory on-campus classes. Additionally, students from higher/middle socioeconomic backgrounds exhibited a greater preference for online learning than those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Overall, the results suggest that higher education leaders need thorough discussions on the topic. These findings may be valuable for education managers and policymakers when considering the implementation of sustainable education strategies, including the integration of online teaching methods. By understanding students’ preferences and the factors that influence their choices, education managers can develop effective strategies to promote sustainable development in education systems.

1. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the higher education system in Israel. By mid-March 2020, all educational facilities, including schools and academic institutions, shut down, forcing them to adapt to an unprecedented mode of teaching without any previous training for the staff.

The teaching methods were changed temporarily, reverting to online teaching. With no time to adapt and no adequate planning, faculty and students were forced to adjust to the new technologies and to the new teaching, learning, and evaluation methods [1].

Even though online teaching has been a longstanding educational approach across various fields, there remains, four years following the pandemic’s onset, a noticeable shortfall in the effective utilization of online learning platforms within schools and academic institutions [2]. Indeed, it was quite evident that in the long run, online learning would result in change and would compel all those involved to adjust on some level, but it was impossible to estimate the full consequences of online learning. Whether the effect would be merely social and would only affect students’ “campus experience” or would create a distinction between the learning experience of students with different socioeconomic statuses, whether physical or online, was unclear.

We examined only synchronous online teaching, which was the typical teaching method used in the COVID period. While many studies focused on the effectiveness of online teaching compared to traditional teaching, in the current study, we seek to explore the effect of perceived improvements in teaching. This is because of the transition to the online medium on preferences for the online teaching channel, as well as the impact of this channel on the desire to change the character of the institution to one that does not require physical attendance, all as a function of learners’ socioeconomic status. Israel is a country with a diverse socioeconomic fabric, and its higher education systems serve a varied range of students. The current research findings might have practical implications resulting from the insights produced by the findings.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Examining Shifts in Perspectives toward Learning Modes

As we know, the COVID-19 pandemic led to an abrupt transition from face-to-face to online delivery of lessons, forming an opportunity for a potential change in paradigm in the use of technology for teaching [3]. Expanding distance learning could have the power to break down barriers to equal opportunities and quality education for students from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Moreover, online learning allows learners to work in a time and place that is compatible with their learning needs. Students testified that they were able to focus their attention more on the course content and less on issues. Students reported being able to concentrate more on the material of the course and less on concerns like parking, traffic, and other potential difficulties associated with attending a conventional classroom setting [4,5].

Research indicates that the digital learning environment has been beneficial in fostering students’ time management skills and self-belief. In particular, engaging in online group activities has been shown to enhance abilities like self-awareness, self-regulation concerning effectiveness, and higher-order thinking, as well as participation in courses [6]. However, a study also highlighted several significant obstacles that could hinder online learning. These obstacles span various areas, including challenges with verifying students’ academic honesty, internet connectivity, the inferior quality of online instruction, managing costs, individualization in learning, the need for professional technological training, access to necessary tools, and technical glitches. Additional difficulties involve instructors’ need to adapt their teaching methods for the digital format, overseeing student collaboration, and creating genuine online assessment methods to smoothly transition from in-person to virtual settings [2].

Consequently, effective online teaching demands a diverse set of abilities, encompassing educational techniques, design prowess, technical know-how, and communicative skills [2]. Although there are inherent differences in the learning outcomes of various modes of course delivery, research comparing traditional in-person classes to online classes has demonstrated that online learning can achieve the same level of effectiveness as conventional classroom settings [7]. However, another study suggests that students typically do not perform as well in online courses as they do in face-to-face settings. This discrepancy is attributed not just to the physical distance between students and instructors in an online setting but also to the resultant psychological and communicational barriers [8].

Online education may slow down students’ academic progress due to a lack of educational focus. Almusharraf and Khahro [2] emphasized that the selection of online activities, texts, study materials, and assignments should be carefully scrutinized to ensure they align with students’ expectations and capabilities prior to their inclusion in the curriculum. Their research showed [2] that student grade averages improved in relation to their contentment with learning objectives, assessment schemes, digital platforms, webinars, and advisory sessions. It seems that the learners viewed the online platforms as engaging and effective for learning. The high satisfaction levels among participants could be attributed to several factors, including the level of support from instructors (tailored learning approaches, personal engagement, and teacher availability outside of class hours), the method of course delivery online, and the recording of sessions. This satisfaction was further enhanced by various communication tools available for group interaction, such as email, WhatsApp, phone calls, and online meetings, along with a variety of teaching strategies (like active learning exercises, demonstrations, both group and individual discussions, and additional lecturer office hours beyond the regular schedule) [2].

2.2. Student Preferences for Active Learning: Learner Engagement in Teaching Processes

Research indicates that for Israeli students, the convenience of their study arrangements takes precedence over other factors [4]. They do not make their decisions based on educational or socio-academic values and are fully conscious of the drawbacks of digital learning. A significant advantage of the learning process is the level of student involvement, which refers to the degree to which students actively participate through thinking, discussing, and interacting with the course materials, fellow students, and the instructor-guide. Active learning employs strategies that engage students in a proactive, self-directed process of learning and assimilation [9]. Consequently, the capability to accurately evaluate student engagement is vital for online educators and researchers [7]. Student engagement is developed through active learning approaches, targeting complex cognitive activities like analysis, synthesis, and evaluation [9].

Research has shown a notable correlation between student engagement and their cognitive, social, and overall experiences. Additionally, it was observed that the more empathetic teachers are toward their students during classes, the higher the students’ participation in class [10]. In a virtual learning setting, the engagement of students is crucial for fostering academic autonomy. Student activities encompass self-directed exploration, adaptation to technological advancements, skill development, and the pursuit and critical assessment of information. The digital learning environment aids in time management and the development of self-confidence for learners, as well as enhancing their engagement with both coursework and classroom interactions [2]. Within the realm of online education, students demonstrated medium to high levels of engagement, primarily characterized by attendance in virtual classes, passive listening, and participation in tasks and exercises initiated by instructors [10].

Students’ interaction significantly enhances their performance across various evaluation criteria in online courses. Forum discussions enable students to participate actively in their learning process. These discussions are integral for creating connections and hands-on learning experiences; they further assist in cultivating critical thinking, introspection, and advanced cognitive abilities among students [11]. The accomplishments of students in online environments can see considerable improvement with effectively organized interpersonal communication, facilitated by email and scheduled weekly office hours to resolve students’ queries. Additionally, a distinct correlation was observed between the extent of active engagement in online forums and academic success; students who regularly posted new insights on course material and contributed to material-related discussions tended to achieve higher grades [12]. Another research paper focused on student involvement in online courses revealed the importance of active participation in forum discussions for educational attainment. In classes with no more than 15 students, faculty engagement in forums led to greater student activity. Yet, in medium-sized classes of 15–30 students, faculty engagement did not influence students’ activity to the same extent, highlighting the significance of fostering a personal connection to encourage active learning among students [12].

Apart from discussions and interactions with course content, another aspect of active learning is reflected in class attendance. Within the online learning context, some students have mentioned that they only occasionally activate their cameras and often multitask during lessons, suggesting that while they may be physically present, their mental engagement in the class is lacking [10].

Exploring the aspects of intrinsic motivation is crucial for the success of online courses that offer hands-on learning experiences. Self-regulation and motivation are pivotal in determining the effectiveness of online learning. Self-regulation refers to the ability of learners to organize and assess their own behavioral, cognitive, and educational strategies. Highly self-regulated learners frequently employ time management strategies, consistently review course materials, seek assistance from instructors or peers, adhere to their study schedule, and possess the meta-cognitive abilities required for reflecting on their learning process. Conversely, learners lacking in self-regulation often exhibit academic procrastination, disorganization, and a reduced use of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies to fulfill their learning objectives [5]. Gilbert [5] notes that keeping motivated in an online setting poses a significant challenge for many students.

2.3. Motivation Effect on Achievements

Research indicates that student motivation is influenced by social–academic interactions, which are often limited in online educational environments [4]. Motivation encompasses the various factors that drive an individual to act. Traditionally, motivation is categorized into two main types. Intrinsic motivation is associated with activities undertaken for the enjoyment or interest they inherently provide, essentially “for the sake of the action” itself. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation pertains to actions carried out for reasons other than the inherent satisfaction derived from performing them [13].

Research broadly agrees that motivation is a key determinant of academic success [14]. Academic success is multifaceted, encompassing up to six dimensions: academic achievements (reflected in grades), satisfaction with the educational experience, the acquisition of skills and competencies, persistence in educational pursuits, attainment of learning objectives, and eventual career success. Intrinsic motivation is closely linked to superior academic performance and lays a stronger groundwork for future accomplishments. This topic is intricate and varies significantly from one individual to another [13].

Motivation is recognized as a crucial aspect influencing academic achievements. It is suggested that increased motivation results in greater dedication to studies and is linked to students’ strategies for engaging with and addressing complex tasks [15,16].

Key factors influencing student motivation include their interest in the course material and its perceived relevance to their future careers. In other words, if students find the content engaging and see it as meaningful for their professional lives, their motivation to learn is likely to increase [14].

Lepone et al. [17] outlined a cycle of positive motivation initiated by individual and social needs. The initial drive to study and attain high grades is anticipated to foster social learning, subsequently motivating socialization (the creation of social connections). This socialization, in turn, fuels the motivation to study further, creating a supportive loop where each element reinforces the other.

A significant factor in fostering motivation during one’s academic journey is the personal interest and connection demonstrated by the lecturer. Active engagement in coursework, interaction, collaboration, and meaningful interpersonal communication are recognized as crucial elements for academic success. Their presence can inspire motivation to study, even in subjects that are deemed especially challenging. Academic collaboration creates a motivational boost that not only contributes to improved grades but also enhances motivation through the process of interaction itself [15,16].

2.4. Promoting Engagement and Equity: Examining Strategies to Foster Participation and Address Barriers in Online Learning

Students’ involvement in their learning significantly impacts their academic achievements and the overall study experience. The responsibility for this engagement is shared between the students and the teaching staff. While students are expected to show initiative and commitment to active participation, it is up to the educators to create an environment conducive to learning and to foster situations that stimulate engagement [18,19]. The inherent separation in online learning environments between students and their instructors, as well as among the students themselves, necessitates extra effort to facilitate interactions both from the lecturer to the students and within the student body. Martin and Bolliger [20] explored how students value different methods of promoting engagement in online classes. They discovered that students greatly value efforts by lecturers to keep open lines of communication and provide prompt feedback and support for engagement in online settings. However, students show less enthusiasm for methods that require their active and collaborative participation both in and out of the classroom. These observations align with prior research on student preferences toward active and collaborative learning, indicating a tendency among students who shift to online education to favor the conventional lecture-based model of in-person education, where information is primarily delivered by the lecturer, over new pedagogical approaches [21,22,23].

Studies indicate [24] that with the conclusion of COVID-19, students are reluctant to return to face-to-face classrooms on campus. This exceptional situation allowed students a unique opportunity to examine the effectiveness of online learning and how it is perceived by its most important target population: the students. As stated, most students were found reluctant to return to face-to-face teaching on campus and would probably be willing to sacrifice the social interactions of student life for the benefits of online studies from home [25].

Other findings [26] indicate a certain preference for online studies on most parameters: focus in class, grasp of the material, participation in classes, and preparation for exams. Of these, the differences in the grasp of the material and preparation for exams are statistically significant. There were also slightly higher scores for courses and exams performed on the internet. Only the attendance parameter received a statistically significantly higher ranking in face-to-face classrooms—probably because online lessons are recorded and can be viewed at any time. In summary, the findings indicate a trend among students who experienced online studies during the pandemic. A slight majority prefer the online format to traditional face-to-face classes [11].

However, is there a difference between the preferences of learners who come from different socioeconomic backgrounds? The issue of the impact of learners’ socioeconomic background on their preference for online or traditional teaching has an impact on equality and inequality in education in general and in higher education in particular, and it is a source of concern for leaders of the educational system with its different orientations [27]. Price Banks and Vergez [28] argue that income uncertainty may be a confounding variable affecting the positive acceptance of online teaching. Gaba et al. [29] explained that access to computers and the internet depends on household income, and many households still do not have internet access. Learners with low socioeconomic ability to afford a broadband connection are most prone to fall behind or encounter new challenges in online education [30].

In the post-COVID era, when the education system in general and the academic system in particular have transitioned to online studies, the issue of the implications of this teaching for students who lack the necessary technological resources arises. Studies show that the socioeconomic issue has been found to affect the implementation of online teaching among disadvantaged populations, as well as in developing countries that are dealing with technological difficulties [31].

Hence, while studies [32] have focused on the effectiveness and preference for online teaching versus traditional teaching, the current study will examine the impact of the online teaching channel on the desire to change the character of the academic institution to one that does not require physical attendance. In addition, this study will also explore the association between the preference for online learning and the learner’s socioeconomic status.

At present, there is a wide consensus that beyond the issue of access to end resources and the internet, it is also necessary to examine disparities in ICT use, digital literacy and skills, and access to technical and social support while using ICT, the ability to utilize online information critically, and types of use [33]. DiMaggio and Hargittai [34] suggest five dimensions of digital inequality: (A) Inequality in access to end devices. (B) Inequality in autonomous use. (C) Inequality in the skills (literacy) needed in order to use digital means, which are linked to other types of literacy. (D) Inequality in social support. (E) Differences in the use of technology (for instance, the extent of use for purposes of studies, consumerism, and entertainment).

Research indicates that demographic characteristics such as age, education, income, and ethnicity not only predict access to end devices and to the internet (the digital divide regarding access) but are also translated into gaps in technological skills and in the use of ICT, as well as of the internet [33,35]. There is one phenomenon that led to the need to hone the distinction between access to digital technologies and their use and the understanding that, to reduce the digital divide, it is not enough to provide access to end devices and an internet connection. This phenomenon is despite the sharp rise in the percentage of people connected to the internet in developed countries [36,37,38]. Particularly with the smartphone revolution, the reduced cost of internet connections, and the reduced disparity with regard to connectivity, researchers still find an association between income, education, and ethnicity and how digital technologies are utilized [36,37,38]. It may be concluded that the impact of the lockdown and of distance learning, in general, might be less beneficial for groups that have fewer computers and less internet access.

Research hypotheses:

H1. 

Undergoing an online teaching experience positively affects one’s preference for the online teaching channel.

H2. 

A preference for the online teaching channel positively affects the desire to change the characteristics of one’s institution to an online environment.

H3a. 

Students with a high or medium socioeconomic status prefer online teaching more than students with a low socioeconomic status.

H3b. 

Students with a high or medium socioeconomic status hold the opinion that teaching improved due to the change to the online environment more than students with a low socioeconomic status.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Initial Sample

A survey was distributed using Google Forms to eleven academic institutions where teaching follows a face-to-face format. The survey included closed-ended questions to which replies were given on a Likert scale (completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5)) and one open-ended question regarding the academic experience so far during the COVID-19 pandemic: “Considering your experience, would you recommend studying at a campus that requires physical attendance?” (Q0 represents the answer “No”).

Questionnaires were distributed and collected, where 1854 respondents fully completed the closed-ended question. Most were students at Ariel University (884 respondents) and at Sami Shamoon College (388), and the rest were from nine other institutions. The age range was 18–28 (74.1%), 29–52 (24.5%), and 53–67 (1.4%). The gender ratio was 53.2% females and 46.8% males.

Among participants from Ariel University, the age distribution was 18–28 (81.7%), 29–52 (17.4%), and 53–67 (0.9%). Of all participants, 49.8% were female, and 50.2% were male. Among participants from the Sami Shamoon College, the age distribution was 18–28 (88.7%) and 29–52 (11.3%), where 32.6% were female and 67.4% were male.

Socioeconomic status [39] had a similar range in the two main institutions: in Ariel University, the range was 8.6% high, 67.1% medium, and 24.3% low, and in Sami Shamoon College, the range was 5.5% high, 63.3% medium, and 31.3% low.

The research participants came from various institutions and diverse departments and were geographically dispersed across the country. Therefore, the sample can certainly be considered representative. This distribution also has implications for the socioeconomic and gender cross-section due to the diversity it represents. Regarding age, in Israel, studies are typically initiated after completing compulsory military service, i.e., from age 21 onwards, such that the age of the respondents represents the student population.

Subjective socioeconomic status defines status based on one’s perception of one’s own socioeconomic position or rank within a society and is directly linked to objective socioeconomic status [36]. We measured subjective socioeconomic status using a 3-level categorical variable: high (152 students), medium (1254), and low (432).

3.2. Analysis

Although we employed an empirical approach, we included an open-ended question to enable exploration of students’ preferences, thus employing a mixed methods design. We therefore manually overviewed the open-ended question and identified major themes, which were then tagged [40].

Table 1. The major open-ended question themes.

Theme	# Respondents
Yes	1017
No	423
Undecided	215
Personal attention by the lecturer is missing	26
In online learning, there is a lack of a study atmosphere	34
Not to return until the end of the pandemic	88
Online learning is desirable due to the recorded lessons	44
Depends on the type of course	167
The social aspect (seeing other people) is missing	56

presents the main themes from the respondents’ responses to the open-ended question, “Considering your experience, would you recommend studying at a campus that requires physical attendance?”.

In Table 1, it is evident that most respondents still prefer offline teaching.

Next, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed for the closed-ended questions, followed by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to test the model’s goodness-of- fit [41]. Model fit was estimated using CFI, TLI, NFI, and SRMR. Values of CFI, NFI and TLI above 0.9 are considered a good fit [42].

3.3. EFA

The descriptives for the 17 items are presented in

Table 2. Item descriptions.

Q	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
Q1	1.00	5.00	2.71	1.50
Q2	1.00	5.00	2.89	1.55
Q3	1.00	5.00	3.34	1.61
Q4	1.00	5.00	4.30	1.14
Q5	1.00	5.00	2.43	1.50
Q6	1.00	5.00	2.96	1.57
Q7	1.00	5.00	2.56	1.53
Q8	1.00	5.00	2.74	1.57
Q9	1.00	5.00	2.35	1.41
Q10	1.00	5.00	2.87	1.45
Q11	1.00	5.00	2.76	1.47
Q12	1.00	5.00	2.62	1.42
Q13	1.00	5.00	2.76	1.51
Q14	1.00	5.00	2.80	1.43
Q15	1.00	5.00	2.59	1.43
Q16	1.00	5.00	2.57	1.44
Q17	1.00	5.00	2.58	1.43

. A principle-components factor analysis using varimax rotations was conducted. After removing items that did not load well [43], an extremely high Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy of 0.97 was found. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ² (153) = 35,740.56, p < 0.001). The loadings were all ≥0.35 (Table 2). Given these indicators, factor analysis was deemed to be suitable for the 17 items. Eigen values showed that items were loaded onto two factors, explaining 72.9% of the variance. The factor-loading matrix is presented in

Table 3. Factor loadings for 17 items.

Item #		Teaching_Improved	Online_Preference
Q14	The lecturer gives the lesson in a more organized manner	0.835	0.35
Q12	I wish that the online lecturers would teach in such an organized manner when teaching face-to-face in class	0.827
Q11	Online teaching is more organized than face-to-face teaching	0.824	0.351
Q15	Online teaching is sharper than face-to-face teaching	0.796	0.48
Q16	Online teaching is clearer than face-to-face teaching	0.789	0.51
Q17	The lecturer is clearer in online teaching	0.782	0.483
Q13	It is much simpler to follow the course of the lesson	0.73	0.494
Q10	Online teaching is more focused than face-to-face teaching	0.719	0.391
Q9	Online teaching is performed in a more interesting way than face-to-face teaching	0.675	0.525
Q8	In online teaching, I am surrounded by many distractions that make it hard for me to study online (for instance, children at home)	0.373	0.797
Q7	Online teaching does not allow me to study as I would have liked to		0.789
Q1	In my opinion, the transition to online teaching improves my studying ability	0.5	0.753
Q2	Online teaching allows me to perform the course assignments in a more efficient manner	0.464	0.736
Q5	I am more concentrated on the lesson in online teaching	0.52	0.717
Q6	A course where the online lesson is recorded is preferable over a face-to-face lesson	0.507	0.673
Q3	There are no distractions by latecomers in online teaching		0.621
Q4	In online teaching, it is possible to make up material, so recorded lectures are a huge benefit		0.491

.

Cronbach’s alpha examined internal consistency for the scales, showing high alphas of 0.97 for teaching improved and 0.84 for online preference.

4. Results

Figure 1 illustrates the model and standardized estimates. All relationships were significant at p < 0.001.

The hypothesized model showed a good fit: CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, NFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.03. As hypothesized, students’ online teaching experience positively affected their preference for the online teaching channel (H1). This was indicated by a significantly high association between Teaching_improved and Online_preference (β = 0.89, p < 0.001). Preference for the online teaching channel positively affected the desire to change the characteristics of the institution to an online environment (H2) (β = 0.54, p < 0.001).

Age and gender had no statistically significant effect on the desire to change the characteristics of the institution to an online environment (Q0). Next, we tested whether there is a statistically significant difference regarding the Teaching_improved and Online_preference scales according to the respondents’ socioeconomic status (high, medium, or low). The socioeconomic status data are presented in

Table 4. Socioeconomic status data.

	N	Online Preference Mean (SD)	Teaching Improved Mean (SD)
High	152	2.74 (1.33)	3.11 (1.22)
Medium	1254	2.74 (1.26)	3.08 (1.2)
Low	432	2.4 (1.28)	2.69 (1.21)

.

A one-way analysis of variance showed a statistically significant difference for both online preference (F (2,1826) = 12.47, p < 0.001) and teaching improved (F (2,1826) = 17.38, p < 0.001). Scheffe post hoc analysis showed a statistically significant difference between students with a high and low socioeconomic status in the teaching improved (p < 0.01) (H3b), as well as in the online preference (p < 0.05) (H3a) scales, and between students with a medium and low socioeconomic status for teaching improved (p < 0.001) (H3b) as well as for online preference (p < 0.001) (H3a).

Scheffe homogeneous subsets also indicated that students with a medium and high status, when combined as one group, differ from students with a low status for both the teaching improved and online preference scales. In accordance, Figure 2 illustrates the means of the three groups of students according to socioeconomic status.

In Figure 2, it is evident that there is no significant difference between students with a high and medium status, but there is a difference between those with a high and medium status and those with a low status. Therefore, we generated a dichotomous variable (subjective socioeconomic status (SSES)) which encompasses two categories—(a) high and medium socioeconomic status (value = 1) and (b) low socioeconomic status (value = 0). In order to examine the differences between high and medium socioeconomic status versus low socioeconomic status on the teaching improved and online preference scales, we added the variable to the Online Teaching Preference and Socioeconomic Effect (OTPSE) model (Figure 3).

The model showed a good fit: CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, NFI = 0.94. The effect of SSES on Teaching_improved was significant and positive (β = 0.12, p < 0.001) (H3a), and the effect of SSES on Online_preference was significant and positive (β = 0.04, p < 0.01) (H3b). This result indicates that students with a high or medium socioeconomic status have a positive online teaching experience and prefer online teaching more than students with a low socioeconomic status.

Finally, in order to examine whether there were differences in response patterns between the main institutions, we constructed another variable holding only these two organizations, main organizations, where Ariel had the value of 1, and Sami Shamoon had the value of 2 (Figure 4). The results show a significant relationship between both teaching improved and online preference, which means that Ariel University respondents had a higher score on both variables than Sami Shamoon College respondents. The model showed a good fit: CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, NFI = 0.94.

5. Discussion

The current study examines the effect of online teaching on changing students’ preferences regarding the character of the academic institution, as well as the impact of socioeconomic status on their preference for online teaching. We focused on two topics essential for the continued planning of online teaching in academia: the first topic is whether the transition to online teaching raises a need to change the character of the academic institution to one that does not demand physical attendance from the students’ perspective. The second topic relates to the impact of students’ socioeconomic status on their preference for online teaching.

All hypotheses were confirmed. The research findings show that students who report an improvement in teaching following online teaching significantly prefer this manner of teaching and a campus that does not demand physical presence. Moreover, students with a medium or high socioeconomic status were found to prefer online teaching more than students with a low socioeconomic status. The former also reports that the teaching improved due to the change in the online environment more than students with a low socioeconomic status. These findings corroborate previous studies, which indicate that students with low socioeconomic status are more challenged by online learning due to the lack of resources [28,29,30].

This study sheds light on students’ perception of the role of the academic institution in the digital era, of the teaching, and of the learning process that they experience as a function of their socioeconomic status.

This study has several implications regarding education management strategies for sustainable development, as follows.

• It examines the impact of online teaching strategies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic on student academic preferences and outcomes. This points to the need for education institutions to manage the transition to online/blended learning models in a sustainable way going forward.
• It assesses whether online teaching raised the need to change the character of academic institutions to ones that do not require physical attendance. This has implications for sustainable education management and planning by institutions.
• This study analyzes the effect of students’ socioeconomic status on their preference for online teaching. This highlights the need for education management strategies that promote equitable and inclusive access to educational opportunities, which is important for sustainable development.
• This study’s findings about student experiences and preferences regarding online vs. offline teaching provide insights that academic institutions can use to strategically manage their education delivery models in a way that sustains learner outcomes and satisfaction.

6. Research Limitations and Future Research

This study raises a concerning question regarding equal opportunities in education and the digital divide. Will the online teaching method, which has the potential to remove barriers of time and place, become a means of fortifying the socioeconomic barrier between population groups? Will we regress to an era of social gaps in the name of technology, innovation, and progress?

This study was conducted in Israel. Future research can continue this study in an international context in order to examine the effects in other cultures. In addition, to allow generalization, we did not focus on a certain gender or age group. Further research could expand this study and examine different demographic characteristics and their effect on the socioeconomic barrier regarding online teaching.