IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gue/guelph/2017-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing the Effectiveness of Online Assignments in Theory of Finance

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Batu

    (Department of Economics, University of Windsor, Windsor ON Canada)

  • Esmond Lun

    (Lazaridis Scholl of Business and Economics, Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo ON Canada)

  • Nancy Bower

    (Department of Economics and Finance, University of Guelph, Guelph ON Canada)

  • Asha Sadanand

    (Department of Economics and Finance, University of Guelph, Guelph ON Canada)

Abstract

We investigate the effectiveness of online versus paper assignments using final examination scores in three cohorts of Theory of Finance. In particular, two cohorts were exposed to online assignments while another cohort was exposed to traditional assignments. Our central result is that exposure to online assignments robustly leads to higher final exam scores, all else being equal. We also find a lower level of engagement as shown by low assignment completion rates for students exposed to online assignments.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Batu & Esmond Lun & Nancy Bower & Asha Sadanand, 2017. "Testing the Effectiveness of Online Assignments in Theory of Finance," Working Papers 1707, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
    • Handle: RePEc:gue:guelph:2017-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.uoguelph.ca/economics/repec/workingpapers/2017/2017-07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Lass & Bernard Morzuch & Richard Rogers, 2007. "Teaching with Technology to Engage Students and Enhance Learning," Working Papers 2007-1, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    2. Flannery, Darragh & Kennelly, Brendan & Considine, John, 2013. "Paper and online assignments in economics: A comparison with panel data," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 31-43.
    3. Brendan Kennelly & John Considine & Darragh Flannery, 2011. "Online Assignments in Economics: A Test of Their Effectiveness," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 136-146, June.
    4. Self, Sharmistha, 2013. "Utilizing online tools to measure effort: Does it really improve student outcome?," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 36-45.
    5. Rajshree Agarwal & A. Edward Day, 1998. "The Impact of the Internet on Economic Education," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 99-110, June.
    6. Lass, Daniel A. & Morzuch, Bernard J. & Rogers, Richard T., 2007. "Teaching with Technology to Engage Students and Enhance Learning," Working Paper Series 14509, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steve Trost & Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, 2012. "The Effect of Homework on Exam Performance: Experimental Results from Principles of Economics," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(1), pages 224-242, July.
    2. Agasisti, Tommaso & Barucci, Emilio & Cannistrà, Marta & Marazzina, Daniele & Soncin, Mara, 2023. "Online or on-campus? Analysing the effects of financial education on student knowledge gain," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. Carlos Cortinhas, 2017. "Does formative feedback help or hinder students? An empirical investigation," Discussion Papers 1701, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    4. Dahlgran, Roger A., 2002. "A Template For Online Homework: Frankenstein'S Monster Or Robo Ta?," 2002 Annual Meeting, July 28-31, 2002, Long Beach, California 36583, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Stephen B. Deloach & Steven A. Greenlaw, 2005. "Do Electronic Discussions Create Critical Thinking Spillovers?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(1), pages 149-163, January.
    6. Woo, JongRoul & Choi, Jae Young & Shin, Jungwoo & Lee, Jongsu, 2014. "The effect of new media on consumer media usage: An empirical study in South Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 3-11.
    7. Christopher N. Annala & Shuo Chen & Daniel R. Strang, . "The Use of PRS in Introductory Microeconomics: Some Evidence on Performance and Attendance," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center.
    8. Dahlgran, Roger A., 2001. "Technology In The Agricultural Economics Classroom: Are We On The Right Path?," 2001 Annual Meeting, July 8-11, 2001, Logan, Utah 36175, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Cynthia L. Harter & John F.R. Harter, 2004. "Teaching with Technology: Does Access to Computer Technology Increase Student Achievement?," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 30(4), pages 507-514, Fall.
    10. M. Taylor Rhodes & Jeffrey K. Sarbaum, 2015. "Online Homework Management Systems: Should we Allow Multiple Attempts?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 60(2), pages 120-131, September.
    11. Andrés Ramírez-Hassan, 2020. "Dynamic variable selection in dynamic logistic regression: an application to Internet subscription," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 909-932, August.
    12. Coates, Dennis & Humphreys, Brad R. & Kane, John & Vachris, Michelle A., 2004. ""No significant distance" between face-to-face and online instruction: evidence from principles of economics," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 533-546, October.
    13. Rey Hernández-Julián & Christina Peters, 2012. "Targeting Teaching: Does the Medium Matter? Online versus Paper Coursework," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(4), pages 1333-1345, April.
    14. Kader, Ahmad A., 2016. "Debilitating and facilitating test anxiety and student motivation and achievement in principles of microeconomics," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 40-46.
    15. Wuthisatian, Rattaphon, 2020. "Student exam performance in different proctored environments: Evidence from an online economics course," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    16. Dahlgran, Roger A., 2008. "Online Homework for Agricultural Economics Instruction: Frankenstein’s Monster or Robo TA?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-12, April.
    17. A. Arrighetti & A. Lasagni, 2018. "Insegnare Economia Industriale ‘in a digital age’," Economics Department Working Papers 2018-EP06, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    18. Joshua D. Miller & Robert P. Rebelein, 2011. "Research on the Effectiveness of Non-Traditional Pedagogies," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 30, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. John Kane & Larry Spizman, 1999. "Determinants of Student Retention of Microeconomic Concepts," Departmental Working Papers 199901, Department of Economics, SUNY-Oswego, revised 18 Mar 1999.
    20. Kader,, Ahmad A, 2022. "Locus of control, self-efficacy, and student performance in an introductory economics course," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    online assignments; paper assignments; learning;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
    • A22 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - Undergraduate

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gue:guelph:2017-07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Stephen Kosempel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/degueca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.