IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nddaae/6890.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Final Exam Scores in Introductory Economics Courses: Effect of Course Delivery Method and Proctoring

Author

Listed:
  • Wachenheim, Cheryl J.

Abstract

There is a small but growing body of research exploring student learning in online courses. The current study compares student performance on the final exam in introductory economics courses taught online and in the classroom and considers the effect of proctoring the final exam. Students who took a course in the classroom did better on a proctored final exam than those taking the course online.

Suggested Citation

  • Wachenheim, Cheryl J., 2007. "Final Exam Scores in Introductory Economics Courses: Effect of Course Delivery Method and Proctoring," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 6890, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nddaae:6890
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.6890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/6890/files/aer623.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.6890?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oskar R. Harmon & James Lambrinos, 2008. "Are Online Exams an Invitation to Cheat?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(2), pages 116-125, April.
    2. Kurt Stephenson & Anya McGuirk & Tricia Zeh & Dixie Watts Reaves, 2005. "Comparisons of the Educational Value of Distance Delivered versus Traditional Classroom Instruction in Introductory Agricultural Economics," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(4), pages 605-620.
    3. Byron W. Brown & Carl E. Liedholm, 2002. "Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles of Microeconomics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 444-448, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gerardo P. Sicat & Kristine Joy S. Briones, 2009. "Determinants of Student Performance in the Introductory Economics Course in UP," UP School of Economics Discussion Papers 200906, University of the Philippines School of Economics.
    2. 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).

    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. Oskar R. Harmon & James Lambrinos, 2006. "Online Format vs. Live Mode of Instruction: Do Human Capital Differences or Differences in Returns to Human Capital Explain the Differences in Outcomes?," Working papers 2006-07, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    2. 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).
    3. Galkiewicz, Agata & Marcus, Jan & Siedler, Thomas, 2024. "E-Learning at Universities: Does Starting with Difficult Questions Affect Student Performance?," IZA Discussion Papers 17479, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Mary Mathewes Kassis, 2011. "Distance Education: Course Development and Strategies for Success," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Hoque, Nazmul & Basher, Syed Abul & A.K. Enamul, Haque, 2022. "Do Students Perform Better in Online Delivery of Education? Evidence from Bangladesh," MPRA Paper 112981, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Mann, John T. & Henneberry, Shida R., 2014. "Online versus Face-to-Face: Students’ Preferences for College Course Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(01), pages 1-19, February.
    7. Dench, Daniel & Joyce, Theodore, 2022. "Information and credible sanctions in curbing online cheating among undergraduates: A field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 408-427.
    8. Charles Ballard & Marianne Johnson, 2005. "Gender, Expectations, And Grades In Introductory Microeconomics At A Us University," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 95-122.
    9. Hardt, David & Nagler, Markus & Rincke, Johannes, 2022. "Can peer mentoring improve online teaching effectiveness? An RCT during the COVID-19 pandemic," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    10. Jacques Raynauld, 2005. "New Evidence on the Determinants of Absenteeism Using Linked Employer-Employee Data," Cahiers de recherche 05-06, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée.
    11. Fisher, Elizabeth & McLeod, Alexander J. & Savage, Arline & Simkin, Mark G., 2016. "Ghostwriters in the cloud," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 59-71.
    12. Vazquez, Jose J. & Chiang, Eric P. & Sarmiento-Barbieri, Ignacio, 2021. "Can we stay one step ahead of cheaters? A field experiment in proctoring online open book exams," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Vasiliki Brinia & Panagiotis Kavaliarakis, 2016. "Educational results from blended learning: Using an educational platform in teaching Economics," International Journal of Learning and Development, Macrothink Institute, vol. 6(1), pages 136-148, March.
    14. Jennjou Chen & Tsui-Fang Lin, 2016. "microeconomics courses: Evidence from a regression discontinuity design experiment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(4), pages 2094-2116.
    15. Cassandra DiRienzo & Gregory Lilly, 2014. "Online Versus Face-To-Face: Does Delivery Method Matter For Undergraduate Business School Learning?," Business Education and Accreditation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11.
    16. Hill, Andrew J. & LoPalo, Melissa, 2024. "The effects of online vs in-class testing in moderate-stakes college environments," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    17. Lisa Barrow & Wesley T. Morris & Lauren Sartain, 2024. "The Expanding Landscape of Online Education: Who Engages and How They Fare," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(S1), pages 417-443.
    18. Do Won Kwak & Flavio M. Menezes & Carl Sherwood, 2015. "Assessing the Impact of Blended Learning on Student Performance," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 91(292), pages 91-106, March.
    19. Carolyn Chisadza & Matthew Clance & Thulani Mthembu & Nicky Nicholls & Eleni Yitbarek, 2021. "Online and face‐to‐face learning: Evidence from students’ performance during the Covid‐19 pandemic," African Development Review, African Development Bank, vol. 33(S1), pages 114-125, April.
    20. M Paula Cacault & Christian Hildebrand & Jérémy Laurent-Lucchetti & Michele Pellizzari, 2021. "Distance Learning in Higher Education: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment [A Randomized Assessment of Online Learning]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 2322-2372.

    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:ags:nddaae:6890. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dandsus.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.