This article was downloaded by: [University Of Maryland]

On: 29 November 2012, At: 07:33

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

The Journal of Economic

Education
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vece20

The Impact of the Internet on

Economic Education
Rajshree Agarwal & A. Edward Day
Version of record first published: 25 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Rajshree Agarwal & A. Edward Day (1998): The Impact of the
Internet on Economic Education, The Journal of Economic Education, 29:2, 99-110

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220489809597943

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
 In mi. section. the Jou,.nal of Economic Education publishes original theo-
retical aDd empirical studies of economic education dealing with the analy-
sis and evaluation of teaching met bods, learning, attitudes and ioterests,
materials, or processes.
PETER KENNEDY. Section Editor

The Impact of the Internet

Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

on Economic
on Economic Education
Education
Rajshree Agarwal and
Rajshree and A. Edward
Edward Day

economic pedagogy is growing.

Use of the Internet in economic growing, but it has not received
economic education
much attention in the economic education literature.
literature. Almost no studies
studies have
measured the impact of using Internet technology on studentstudent learning
learning and reten-
perceptions of instructor
tion, perceptions instructor effectiveness,
effectiveness, and changes
changes in attitudes
attitudes toward
toward eco-
nomics. We report the results
nomics. from classroom
results from classroom experiments
experiments that tested the influ-
ence of Internet
ence Internet use on economic
economic education.
education.
Using Internet
Internet resources
resources to enhance
enhance economic courses has two principal
economic courses
advantages for students.
advantages students. First, these resources
resources offer a new medium of interaction
interaction
that complements
complements classroom
classroom instruction
instruction and facilitates
facilitates learning.
learning. Second,
Second, they
students the opportunity
offer students opportunity to learn and use Internet technology
technology and yield posi-
externalities for future
tive externalities future academic
academic and career paths.

INTERNET USE IN EDUCATION

technology has made possible

Recent technology several new methods
possible several methods of transmitting
information. Internet
information. Internet methods can be classified
classified into two broad categories:
categories: (1)
communication and cQnferencing
computer communication conferencing and (2) information
information access,
access, retrieval,
retrieval,
use. Computer communication
and use. communication and conferencing
conferencing methods
methods include
include e-mail,
e-mail,
mailing lists.
mailing lists, newsgroups, interactive messaging or "chat"
newsgroups, interactive “chat” sessions,
sessions, and video
video
conferencing. Information
conferencing. Information available
available on the Internet can take a number of different
forms, including
forms, including text,
text, data,
data, graphs,
graphs, and pictures. The tools of the Internet
Internet provide

Rajshrec
Rajshree Aganval
Agarwal is an assistant professor (e-mail: aganval@bus.uc$edu)and A. E
(e-mail:agarwal@bus.ucfedu) d w d Day
Edward h y is an
of economics
associate professor of economics at the University
University of
of Central Florida. The authors wouM
Florida. The would like to
thank Peter Kennedy and two anonymous referees
refereesfor their suggestions.
suggestions.

Spring
Spring 1998
1998 99
 efficient methods of accessing
accessing information,
information, including
including File Transfer Protocol
(FTP), Telnet,
(FTP), Telnet, Gopher,
Gopher, and the World Wide Web. Web.’I
A number of studies
studies in education and communication
communication technology
technology have
2 The overwhelming conclusion of these
focused on the use of these methods.
focused methods.* overwhelming conclusion
studies is that the effectiveness
studies effectiveness of Internet
Internet use comes
comes from
from the potential of greater
interaction between the instructor
interaction instructor and the students
students and in the hands-on
hands-on learning
learning
concepts. The Internet
of new concepts. Internet represents
represents an information revolution,
revolution, and its use in
pedagogy is beneficial whenever
whenever interaction,
interaction, discussion, research, or transmis-
discussion, research, transmis-
information are involved.
sion of information involved.
literature is primarily descriptive.
The literature descriptive. Few experiments
experiments have been carried out
to determine
determine if Internet-enhanced
Internet-enhancedcourses
courses affect
affect student
student learning
learning and understand-
ing.
ing. One exceptions is Gregor
of the exceptions Gregor and Cuskelly's (1994) experiment
Cuskelly’s (1994) experiment using a
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

bulletin board discussion

discussion method. observed high participation
method. They observed participation in the dis-
dis-
cussion. Their findings
cussion. findings support
support the hypothesis
hypothesis that students
students find
find value in elec-
elec-
tronic communication,
tronic communication, that is, better accessaccess to the instructor,
instructor, more interesting
interesting
assignments, and future
assignments, future use of e-mail in their academic
academic and professional
professional careers.
careers.
statistical evidence
We addressed the lack of statistical evidence in the literature
literature by attempting
attempting to
provide measures
measures of performance
performance and to test whether
whether these measures affected
measures are affected
by the use of the Internet.
Internet. Although the results
results pertain to Internet
Internet use in economic
economic
education, they are also relevant to Internet
education, Internet use in other fields
fields of education.
education.

HYPOTHESES
HYPOTHESES

(1996b), we discussed the significant costs to instruc-

In Agarwal and Day (1996b),
tors and students that result fromfrom incorporating the Internet into a course.
Objective
Objective evaluation and rational decisionmaking warrant some measure of the
decisionmaking
benefits of Internet use.
use. The literature suggests that Internet use has an impact
on economic education in three crucial areas:
areas: student learning and retention of
concepts, student perceptions of instructor effectiveness,
effectiveness, and attitudes toward
economics.
economics.
Internet, however,
Use of the Internet, however, implies
implies significant
significant learning
learning costs for some stu-
stu-
3
dents because they are being exposed to the technology for the first time.
dents time.3 The
beneficial results
results of the technology on learning
learning and retention could be offset by
learning the new technology.
the time costs of learning Increases in student
technology. Increases student workload
caused by Internet requirements resistance to learning
requirements and resistance learning and using the tech-
scores in instructors'
nology could result in lower scores instructors’evaluations
evaluations and in student
student atti-
atti-
tudes
tudes toward economics.
economics. The impact of the Internet
Internet in each of the three areas
areas
could be either positive or negative. following null hypotheses
negative. We tested the following hypotheses
against two-tailed
against two-tailed alternatives:
alternatives:
1. Internet
1. Internet implementation
implementation in economics
economics courses
courses has no impact on student
student learn-
learn-
ing and retention.
retention.
Internet implementation
2. Internet implementation in economics
economics courses
courses has no impact on student
student eval-
eval-
uations of instructor
uations instructor effectiveness.
effectiveness.
Internet implementation
3. Internet implementation in economics
economics courses has no impact on student
student atti-
tudes toward economics.
tudes economics.
100 ECONOMIC EDUCATION
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION
 Student Learning and Retention of of Economic Concepts. Internet
Concepts. The use of Internet
technology in economic
economic education
education should increase
increase student
student learning
learning and retention
because computer communication
communication and ease of information retrieval
retrieval through the
allow higher development
Internet allow development of critical
critical thinking and problem solving,
solving,
independence and autonomy,
foster independence autonomy, and permit greater interaction.
interaction. These
opportunities should be reflected in the measures
opportunities measures of learning
learning and retention.
retention.

Student Perception ofof Instructor Effectiveness. E-mail, mailing lists,

Effectiveness. E-mail.mailing lists, and chat
software promote instructor-student interaction,
software promote instructor-student interaction, and Web-page dissemination of
dissemination
information provides
information provides easy access class syllabi, schedules, lecture notes,
access to class syllabi, schedules, lecture notes, proj-
assignments.
ects, and assignments. The Internet should improve student perceptions of in-
improve student perceptions
effectiveness,
structor effectiveness, which would be reflected positively in the instructor's
reflected instructor’s
evaluations.
class evaluations.
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

conferencing can increase

Student Attitudes toward Economics. Computer conferencing increase
interaction and discussion
interaction discussion about economic
economic issues,
issues, and information
information retrieval and
increase students'
use can increase students’ ability
ability to apply economic
economic theory to the real world.
world.
discussion and assignment
The discussion assignment of projects demonstrate the relevance of
projects that demonstrate
economic concepts
economic concepts can effectively
effectively improve student
student perceptions attitudes
perceptions and attitudes
toward economics.
economics.

METHOD
METHOD
To test the hypotheses,
hypotheses, we conducted
conducted experiments
experiments with economics
economics classes
classes we
taught in the spring and summer terms of 1996.
1996.

Experiment Data Set

Construction of the Experiment
Construction

conducted our experiments

We conducted experiments in two sectionssections of graduate
graduate microeconomics
microeconomics
undergraduate macroeconomics
and two of undergraduate macroeconomics that we taught taught over two semesters.
semesters.
sections served
Two sections served as the control groupgroup and two as the Internet
Internet enhanced-group.
enhanced-group.
control sections
The test and control sections were roughly of equal equal size,
size, approximately
approximately 40 each
sections and 65
in the graduate sections 65 each in the macroeconomics sections! 4 We took
macroeconomics sections.
measures to minimize
measures minimize the differences
differences between the test and control
control group
group caused
by factors
factors other than Internet
Internet use.
use. Any differences
differences caused by the instructor's
instructor’s
teaching style were removed by having
teaching same instructor teach both the test
having the same
control groups
and control c o u r ~5eThe
groups of a course. . ~ sections
sections were assigned randomly
randomly as test and
control. To avoid selection bias, we did not inform
control. inform the students
students prior to registra-
registra-
tion that the sections
sections had different
different work requirements. same text, classroom
requirements. The same classroom
instruction style,
instruction style, tests, and similar
similar homework
homework were used in both groups.
groups.
We collected data on student characteristics that might affect performance.performance.
The mean age, GPA,GPA, and proportions for gender and race for each of the four
sections are provided in Table Table 1. 1. We conducted tests to check differences
differences
between the control and Internet groups groups for each of the two courses in the
6 Except for race in the undergraduate macroeconomics course,
experiment.6
experiment. undergraduate macroeconomics no
significant difference
significant difference existed between the control and Internet groups. groups. The stu-
dents in the two groups
groups seemed to be homogeneous characteristics.
homogeneous in their characteristics.
Spring
Spring 1998 101
101
 TABLE I1
TABLE
Demographic Characteristics
Demographic Characteristics of Control and
and Internet
Internet Groups
Groups

Internet group Control group

Variable
Variable Mean SE
SE Mean SE
SE

Graduate
Graduate microeconomics
microeconomics

Gender"
Gende? 0.68
0.68 0.088
0.088 0.65
0.65 0.073
0.073
Race b
Raceb 0.65*
0.65* 0.037
0.037 0.63*
0.63" 0.078
0.078
Age
Age 29.65 6.921
6.921 28.05
28.05 5.323
5.323
GPA 3.238 0.709
0.709 3.344
3.344 0.410
0.410

macroeconomics
Undergraduate macroeconomics
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

Gender"
Gende? 0.57
0.57 0.062
0.062 0.50
0.50 0.062
0.062
Racebb
Race 0.73
0.73 0.048
0.048 0.76 0.053
0.053
Age
Age 22.65
22.65 5.130
5.130 21.72
21.72 4.971
4.971
GPA 2.81
2.81 0.948
0.948 2.80
2.80 0.705
0.705

'Proportion of males.
"Proportion males.
bProponionof whites.
bProportion whites.
.05 Type
'Significant at the .05
'Significant Qpe I error level.

Internet
Internet Elements
Elements Implemented
Implemented in the Internet
Internet Group
Group
elements of the Internet
Many elements Internet can be used to supplement
supplement traditional
traditional teaching
teaching
techniques. In Agarwal
techniques. Agarwal and Day (l996a),
(1996a), we reported a cost-benefit
cost-benefit analysis
analysis of
tools and,
different Internet tools and, based on these considerations,
considerations,offered suggestions
suggestions on
preferred tools.
tools. We chose
chose Internet
Internet elements
elements for the test group that minimized stu- stu-
costs in terms of both learning
dent costs learning time and expense.
expense. Internet
Internet tools that required
specialized software
software or state-of-the-art
state-of-the-art computers
computers were avoided
avoided in favor
favor of uni-
versal tools that were user friendly
friendly and relatively cheap to access.
access.
chose a subset of Internet
We chose Internet tools
tools that formed,
formed, in our opinion,
opinion, the core set of
elements:
elements: e-mail
e-mail and a class discussion
discussion list for computer
computer communication
communication and
conferencing and the World Wide Web for information access,
conferencing access, retrieval, use.
retrieval, and use.
Each of these tools allowed us to exploit
exploit the benefits of the Internet without sub-sub-
stantially adding
stantially adding to student
student and instructor
instructor costs.
costs. As research in this area continues
continues
incorporating the other Internet
and the costs of incorporating Internet elements
elements (such as streaming
streaming
audio and video)
audio decline, more of the Internet can be included
video) decline, included in teaching.
teaching.
E-mail accounts
accounts are available
available to all students
students at our university.
university. We generated
class mailing lists for each test section.
section. To ensure that each class list addressed
addressed
problems and concerns
problems concerns relevant
relevant to the individual
individual class section,
section, we kept the class
closed discussion
mailing list as a closed discussion list. This close-knit
close-knit environment
environment enabled
enabled stu-
dents
dents to feel
feel free
free to express
express opinions
opinions and helped establish
establish personal contact dur-
ing class time. Students received handouts regarding use of e-mail
time. Students e-mail and the mail-
mail-
formal training
ing list but no formal training on learning
learning the Internet
Internet tools.
tools. We encouraged
encouraged
students
students to address
address their problems using the Internet
Internet to us and provided a list of
help facilities
facilities available
available throughout the campus.
E-mail
E-mail and the class mailing list were used successfully
successfully to address
address student
student
questions regarding course material. Answers
questions regarding course material. Answers were posted on the mailing list,

102
102 EDUCATION
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION
 which benefited the questioning
questioning student
student as well as others
others who had the same same ques-
ques-
tion, thus reducing the number of times the same same question had to be answered.
answered.
Some students
Some students began to participate actively
actively almost immediately,
immediately, typically those
who had had prior experience
experience with the technology.
technology. Other students
students increased
increased their
participation
participation over the course
course of the semester.
semester. By the third or fourth week of the
fourth
semester, students
semester, students were interacting
interacting among themselves, asking and answering
among themselves, asking answering
each other's
other’s questions.
questions. Students
Students asked for help on using the Internet, Internet, concepts
concepts
class, application
taught in class, application of the economic
economic concepts
concepts to news articles
articles from
from local
local
national newspapers,
and national classroom housekeeping
newspapers, and general classroom housekeeping issues
issues (such as
due dates
dates and topics
topics covered).
covered).
The World WideWide Web was used for disseminating
disseminating class-related
class-related information
information
completing Web projects that required students
and for completing students to access
access and download
download
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

information through
information Internet.’7 Information
through the Internet. Information such as as syllabi,
syllabi, class
class schedule,
schedule,
projects, and assignments
projects, assignments were made available
available to the students
students through instructor
instructor
Web pages.
pages. Projects related to microeconomics
microeconomics ranged from from using demand-sup-
demand-sup-
ply analysis
analysis for critically
critically evaluating
evaluating economic
economic activity to analyzing
analyzing market
market struc-
struc-
information on Web pages of firms
ture based on information firms in different product markets.
markets.
Macroeconomics-related
Macroeconomics-related projects included downloadingdownloading information on the con-
sumer price index,
index, federal
federal budget data,
data, and international
international comparisons
comparisons of eco-
nomies. Each project had two major emphases-the
nomies. emphases-the use of .economic
.economic data and
information and their relevance
information relevance to the economic
economic theories taught in class. class. An
Internet project for calculating
Internet calculating cost of living
living of different S. cities,
different U. S. cities, for instance,
instance,
allowed the students
allowed students to observe
observe the differences
differences in nominal
nominal and real income and
8
the effect
effect of inflation on economic
economic activity.
activity.8
students’ familiarity
As students' familiarity with the technology increased, so did their interest.
technology increased, interest.
They began using the Internet for reasons reasons other than the course course requirements.
requirements.
Enterprising students
students surfed the Web on their own initiative and shared tidbits tidbits of
economic information on the class class mailing
mailing list. Students
Students often expressed
expressed amaze-
amaze-
ment regarding the wealth of economic
economic information
information "out
“out there"
there” and the varied
ways in which they could begin using their economic economic knowledge
knowledge and Internet
future classes.
skills for future

MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE

Learning and Retention

Student Learning Economic Concepts
Retention of Economic Concepts
Differences in student
Differences student learning
learning and retention resulting from
from Internet
Internet imple-
imple-
mentation were measured using the Test of Understanding College
College Economics
Economics III
111
(TUCE), developed
(TUCE), developed by the National Economic Education,
National Council on Economic Education, and the
student's
student’s final
final course
course grade (Saunders
(Saunders 1991). TUCE, administered as part of
1991).The TUCE,
final exam,
the final exam, counted for 5 percent of the student's
student’s grade in the graduate
graduate course
course
and as extra credit in the undergraduate course. The standardized
undergraduate course. standardizedTUCE has been
extensively
extensively normalized,
normalized, and the questions
questions cover micro and macroeconomics
macroeconomics
thoroughly. graduate and undergraduate
thoroughly. The test can be given to graduate students and is,
undergraduate students
perhaps, one of the best measures student performance
measures of student performance available.
available. A major
drawback of the TUCE is that it often
often tests
tests knowledge
knowledge of material
material that may have
Spring 1998
1998 103
103
 been peripheral to that covered in a course.
course. There is no good way for students
students to
test. In any case, it would have been inappropriate
prepare for this test. inappropriate for the instruc-
instruc-
tors to have taught the course with the TUCE questions
questions in mind. students’
mind. The students'
grades were used as an additional
grades additional measure
measure of their performance.
Clearly,
Clearly, retention and learning
learning of economic
economic concepts
concepts are a function
function of more
than the instruction
instruction method used. Several
Several individual
individual characteristics
characteristics are important
important
explanatory
explanatory variables for student performance.
performance. To control for differences
differences in
learning caused by these factors,
learning factors, we included demographic
demographic characteristics
characteristics such
age, gender,
as age, gender, and race to account differences in learning.
account for differences learning. Student
Student GPA was
also included as a measure
also measure of academic
academic quality.
quality.

Perceptions of Instructor Effectiveness

Student Perceptions
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

We used the standard

standard instructor evaluation form required for every course.
course. The
form, developed by the State University SystemSystem of Florida,
Florida, was modified to
include
include more questions
questions by faculty,
faculty, students,
students, and the administration
administration for our study.
study.
The evaluations
evaluations were administered during the final week of the course. Student
responses
responses were anonymous,
anonymous, and the integrity of the evaluations
evaluations was maintained
by ensuring
ensuring that the instructors
instructors did not have access
access to the evaluations
evaluations prior to
scoring or to the submission
their scoring submission of student grades.
grades. The form consists of 16
questions
questions that require the rating of the instructor on a five-point
five-point Likert-type
Likert-type scale
and 4 questions
questions that allow students
students to write responses
responses to specific
specific concerns.
concerns. Thir-
teen of the 16 rating questions
questions deal with student
student perceptions
perceptions of instructor effec-
tiveness, and 3 address
address administration
administration and routine task issues such as timeliness
timeliness
of return of
of of exams, relevance of of textbooks, and so forth. We focused
focused on the 13
questions
questions that deal with student perceptions of of instructor effectiveness.
effectiveness.

Student Attitudes toward Economics

To test the attitudes
attitudes of the student toward economics,
economics, we administered
administered pre- and
postsurveys ofof Attitudes toward Economics,
Economics, developed by the National Council
Economic Education (Soper and Walstad 1983).
on Economic 1983). This survey instrument con-
sists of
of 14 questions evenly divided between those that test positive and negative
attitudes toward economics.
economics. Students
Students respond on a five-point
five-point Likert scale.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

We used regression analysis to test the hypothesis
hypothesis that the Internet has no
impact on student learning
learning and retention of
of economic
economic concepts and compared the
mean responses
responses to analyze the other two hypotheses.
hypotheses.

Student Learning and Retention of Economic Concepts

r~ten­
The following regression models were used to test student learning and reten-
tion as measured by one of
of the two dependent variables: scores received on the
standardized
standardized TUCE and final grade in course.
104 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION
EDUCATION
 TUCE = a, +
= (XI + (X2
a21+ a, G ++ (X4
I + (X3 + (X5
a4R + + (X6
a,A + + a..,
asGPA + a,L ++ E (1)
(1)
= p,
Grade =
Grade + ~2
~I + p, G ++ p4
p2I ++ ~3 + p,~5 A ++ ~6
~4 R + p6GPA ++ ~7
p, L ++ '\)2) (2)
(2)
where
TUCE = student score
= student score on TUCE examination
examination
Grade =
Grade = final
final student grade in course
course
II = internet variable
variable ( 0 =
= control group, I1 = Internet group)
control group,
G =
= gender (0(0 = female, I1 = male)
= female, male)
R = race (0
(0 = nonwhite,
nonwhite, I1 = white)
white)
A =
= age of student
student at last registration
GPA = = student GPA at last registration
L = student level (0 = undergraduate,
level (0 undergraduate, I1 = graduate)
graduate)
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

a, ~p == the coefficients
(X, coefficients to be estimated
estimated
E, '\)
2) =
= the error term
The results
results of these regressions
regressions are given in Table
Table 2.9
2.9The data in the first
first two
columns represent results from
columns from the TUCE regression and in the last two columns,
columns,
from regressing grade on the independent
the results from independent variables.
variables. Race and age
were insignificant
insignificant for both measures
measures of performance. columns under
performance. The second columns
contain the regression estimates
TUCE and Grade contain estimates for the final
final specification
specification of

TABLE 2
TABLE
RegressionAnalysis
Regression for Performance on
Analysis for TUCE and
on TUCE and Grade
Grade

Independent
Independent TUCE
TUCE Grade
Grade
variable (I)
(1) (2)
(2) (I)
(1) (2)
(2)

Constant I .98
1.98 2.03
2.03 58.48
58.48 62.06
62.06
(.3709)
(.3709) (.1028)
(.1028) (.0001)
(.OOO1) (.0001)
(.OOOl)
Internet 1.14
1.14 1.15 1.91
1.91 2.03
2.03
(.0294)
(.0294) LO28 1 )
(.0281) (.0104)
(.0104) (.0070)
(.0070)
Gender 1.21
1.21 1.20
1.20 2.06
2.06 2.33
2.33
(.0275)
(.0275) (.0281)
(.0281) (.0104)
(.0104) (.0034)
(.0034)
Race 0.99
0.99 -0.46
-D.46
(.0702)
(.0702) (.3411)
(.3411)
Age 0.1 1
0.11 0.09
0.09
(.0715)
(.0715) (. 1899)
(.1899)
GPA 3.08
3.08 2.95 7.42
7.42 6.74
(.0001)
(.W1) (.0001) (.0001)
(.OOO1) (.0001)
Level 1.71
1.71 1.79 18.00 4.25
(.0001)
(.OOoI) (.0066) (.oow
(.0004) (.0001)

statistics
Regression statistics
Observations
Observations 206 206 206 206
Adjusted R2
R2 .40
.40 .40
.40 .56
.56 .55
SE 4.25
4.25 4.24
4.24 5.81
5.81 5.87
5.87
F
F 18.00
18.00 28.15
28.15 33.82
33.82 64.37
64.37

Mores: ( I ) = Regression
Notes: (I) Regression coefficients
coefficients for all variables in the model. (2) =
model. (2) = Regression
Regmsion coefficients
coefficients for specifica-
for final specifica·
tions, excluding insignificant variables.
tions, excluding variables. Parentheses
Parentheses contain values.
contain p values.

Spring
Spring 1998
1998 105
 the model,
model, where insignificant
insignificant variables
variables were dropped from from the analysis.
analysis. Stu-
Stu-
dents in the Internet
dents Internet group performed better on the TUCE exam and had higher
final grades
final grades in the course. The coefficient of the Internet
Internet element
element was significant
significant
for both measures of performance
performance at the 95 95 percent level of confidence.
confidence. Thus,
Thus, the
hypothesis that Internet use in economics
hypothesis economics courses
courses has no effect
effect on student
student per-
formance can be rejected in favor
formance favor of a positive influence.
influence. Prior GPA was a strong
strong
determinant of performance, as was gender.
determinant gender. As expected,
expected, graduate
graduate students
students tend-
ed to do significantly
significantly better than the undergraduate students.
undergraduate students.
interesting side
An interesting side issue
issue was whether Internet enhancements
enhancements worked better for
good versus students. We ran separate
versus poor students. separate regressions
regressions for the graduate
graduate and
undergraduate sections
undergraduate sections that included
included an interaction
interaction variable
variable between prior GPA
and the Internet
Internet group.
group. The results
results showed
showed a positive value for the interaction
interaction
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

(0.92
term (0.92 and 4.75 for Grade and 1.75 and 1.78
1.78 for TUCE in the undergraduate
undergraduate
graduate sections,
and graduate sections, respectively),
respectively), although none of the coefficients
coefficients was sig-
sig-
.10 Type
nificant at the .10 Type I error level. The results interpreted as show-
results cannot be interpreted show-
Internet enhancements
ing a weak indication that the Internet enhancements worked better for good
rather than poor students,
students, because other relevant factors
factors might not have been
consideration, such as prior knowledge
taken into consideration, knowledge and familiarity
familiarity with the tech-
nology and different learning
nology learning styles.
styles. More research is needed before anythinganything
conclusive can be said about this hypothesis.
conclusive hypothesis.

Instructor Evaluations
Instructor Evaluations for Course
for the Course
differences across
The differences across test and control
control groups
groups between mean scores
scores for
instructor evaluations
instructor evaluations on a five-point
five-point Likert-type
Likert-type scale ( 1 = poor and 5 = excel-
scale (1 =
excel- =
lenr) for both courses
lent) courses are provided in Table 3. The positive
positive impact of the Internet
is clearly seen for the graduate group. For all questions,
graduate group. questions, the ratings
ratings were signifi-

TABLE 3
TABLE
Student Perception
Student Perception of Instructor
Instructor Effectiveness
Effectiveness
~ ~

Graduate micro
Graduate Undergraduate macro
macro
Instructor evaluation
Instructor evaluation Differencea
Difference" ph
pb Differencea
Difference" ph
pb

student for performance

Feedback to student coui*se
performance in course 0.62
0.62 ,0067
.0067 0.40
0.40 .0583
.0583
interested in your learning
Instructor interested 0.70
0.70 .oO03
.0003 0.74
0.74 .oO01
.0001
Use of class time 0.64
0.64 ,0025
.0025 0.60
0.60 ,0088
.0088
Instructor overall organization
Instructor organization of course 0.42
0.42 ,0177
.0177 0.52
0.52 .0142
.0142
Continuity between lectures
Continuity lectures 0.40
0.40 .O 169
.0169 0.62
0.62 ,0021
.0021
Pace of course 0.47
0.47 .O 198
.0198 0.56
0.56 .O 149
.0149
Communication of ideas and information
Communication information 0.63
0.63 ,0033
.0033 0.82
0.82 .o007
.0007
Express expectations for performance
Express 0.48
0.48 .0125
.0125 0.5 1
0.51 ,0070
.0070
Available to assist
Available assist students
students 0.60
0.60 .0086
.0086 0.31
0.31 . I 153
.1153
students
Respect and concern for students 0.60
0.60 .0019
.0019 0.30
0.30 .I097
.1097
Stimulation of interest
Stimulation 0.95
0.95 .oO01
.0001 0.62
0.62 .0129
.0129
Facilitation of learning
Facilitation 0.50
0.50 ,0111
.0111 0.93
0.93 .oO01
.0001
assessment of instructor
Overall assessment instructor 0.68
0.68 .0003
.0003 0.61
0.61 .0076
.0076

'Difference between
'Difference between Internet group mean and control
Internet group group mean
control group mean.
associated with If test for testing difference
bp value associated
hp 0.
difference = O.

106 EDUCATION
ECONOMIC EDUCATION
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC
 cantly higher in the Internet group than in the control group.
group. The Internet group
reported much higher stimulation of interest and better use of class time and
communication of ideas and gave a better overall assessment of the instructor and
communication
students. The undergraduate
her feedback and interest in the students. undergraduate Internet group also
had higher student perceptions effectiveness, and the students
perceptions of instructor effectiveness, students gave
significantly higher ratings
significantly ratings to the instructor for 10 13 questions.
10 of the 13 questions. The ques-
tions that reflected the greatest differences facil-
differences related to instructor interest and facil-
communication of ideas
itation of learning and to communication ideas and information.
information.

Attitudes toward Economics

Pre- and postquestionnaires administered to both the
postquestionnaires of the same survey were administered
Internet and the control groups to determine
determine any changes in attitudes
attitudes toward eco-
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

TABLE 4
TABLE
Difference in Change
Difference Attitude Toward
Change of Attitude Toward Economics
Economics

Graduate micro
Graduate Undergraduate macro
b
Question'
Questiona Difference b
Differenceb p
P Difference
Differenceb p
P

Positive questions economics'c

questions toward economics
I enjoy reading articles
articles about
about
economic topics. 0.83
0.83 ,0025
.0025 -D.l5
-0.15 .3019
Economics is easy for me to
understand. -D.12
-0.12 ,3412
.3412 4.09
-D.09 .3709
,3709
I enjoy economics.
economics. 0.48 ,0604
.0604 -D.18
-0.18 ,2848
.2848
On occasion I read an unassigned
book in economics.
economics. 0.46
0.46 ,0928
.0928 4.26
-D.26 ,2803
.2803
I would be willing to attend a
lecture by an economist.
economist. 1.28
1.28 .OOol
.0001 -0.272
-D.272 .1821
,1821
Economics is one of my favorite
favorite
subjects.
subjects. 0.92
0.92 ,0046
.0046 -0.17
-D. 17 ,2583
.2583
I use economic concepts
concepts to
situations.
analyze situations. 0.43
0.43 ,0437
.0437 0.01
0.01 .4841
,4841
Economics is practical. 0.17
0.17 ,2780
.2780 -0.20
-D.20 ,2648
.2648
d
Negative questions toward economics
Negative questions economicsd
economics.
I hate economics. -0.79
-D.79 ,0073
.0073 -0.06
-D.06 ,4092
.4092
Economics is dull.
dull. -D.64
-0.64 ,0253
.0253 0.12 .3412
.34 12
Economics is a very difficult
me.
subject for me. -0.38
-D.38 ,1066
.1066 0.20 .I595
.1595
Studying economics is a waste of
time. -0.71
-D.71 ,0196
.0196 -0.07
-D.07 ,3976
.3976
Economics is one of my most
subjects
dreaded subjects -0.03
-D.03 .4642
,4642 0.36 .1643
.I643
are dumb.
Economics ideas are dumb. -0.21
-D.21 ,2125
.2125 0.29 ,1668
.1668

scale with II =
'5-point scale
a5-point disagree, and 5 =
= strongly disagree. = strongly agree.
agree.
bpre_ and postquestionnaires
bPre- postquestionnairesof the same
same survey were administered in each class.
class. The difference
difference between the post-
and prescores represented the mean attitude changes. The numbers in the column
attitude changes. column represent the differences
differences between
the mean attitude
attitude changes
changes across
across the Internet and the control groups. [postmean
[postmean (Internet)
(Internet) -- premean (Internet)]
(Internet)] --
[postmean
[postmean (control)
(control) -- premean (control)].
(control)].
CHigh
'High scores on positive questions
questions indicate high affinity
affinity toward economics;
economics;thus. positive differences
differencesreveal that the
Iinternet group
linternet group had a greater
greater change
change in attitude
attitude toward economics.
economics.
dHigh
dHigh scores
scores on negative
negative questions
questions indicate dislike
dislike of economics;
economics: thus. negaitve differences
thus, negaitve differences reveal that the linter-
linter-
net group greater change
group had a greater attitude toward economics.
change in attitude economics.

Spring
Spring 1998
1998 107
 subsequent to taking an economics
nomics subsequent economics course;
course; changes
changes were measured as a
difference between the post- and prescores
difference prescores on each question 4). If
question (see Table 4). If
enhancement creates
Internet enhancement creates a better attitude economics, there should be
attitude toward economics,
positive differences
differences on questions
questions that reflect an affinity
affinity toward
toward economics
economics and
negative differences
negative differences on questions
questions that reflect a dislike
dislike toward
toward economics.
economics.
For the graduate students, the positive change in attitude was consistently
higher for the Internet group than for the control group on all but I1 question,
10 of which were significant.
10 significant. The Internet-enhanced
Internet-enhanced graduate group expressed
a significantly higher likelihood of attending a lecture given by an economist,
were more likely to consider economics as their favorite favorite subject, used eco-
nomic concepts to analyze situations more frequently,
nomic frequently, and disagreed about
finding economics dull. This was not, however,
finding however, true for the undergraduate
undergraduate stu-
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

dents. Internet enhancement seemed to have no significant effect on attitude

dents.
changes, and the changes were not consistent in anyone any one direction. Thus, the
results were mixed about the effect of Internet enhancements
enhancements on attitudes
toward economics.
economics.1° 10

CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS

Internet enhancement
Internet enhancement of coursescourses facilitates
facilitates communication
communication between the in- in-
structor and students,
structor students, and easy access information using the medium
access of information medium promotes
economic data and real-world applications
use of economic applications to enhance
enhance the teaching
teaching of the-
the-
ory. Both aspects
ory. aspects of Internet
Internet use in economic
economic pedagogy
pedagogy provide a real real increase
increase
quality of education.
in the quality education. The results
results of this study
study suggest
suggest beneficial
beneficial effects
effects of
implementing Internet
implementing Internet enhancements.
enhancements. The The hypothesis
hypothesis that the Internet
Internet has no
impact on student
impact student learning
learning and retention is rejected in favor favor of a positive
positive influ-
influ-
ence when scores
ence scores on a standardized
standardized test and the final final grade
grade are
are considered
considered as as
dependent variables.
dependent variables. The hypothesis
hypothesis that the Internet
Internet has
has no impact on student
student
instructor effectiveness
perception of instructor effectiveness is rejected as as well. There
There were mixed re-
sults on the effect
sults effect of Internet
Internet enhancements
enhancements on studentstudent attitudes
attitudes toward
toward econom-
econom-
ics; graduate
ics; graduate students
students responded more favorably
favorably to economics
economics with the use of the
Internet, but no significant
Internet, significant difference
difference in mean attitude
attitude changes
changes was apparent
apparent for
undergraduate group.
the undergraduate group.
The point of using the Internet
The Internet is to add value to the classes
classes that we teach and
allow us to meet the challenges
to allow challenges of teaching. experience revealed
teaching. Our experience revealed that Inter-
Inter-
significantly enhances
net use significantly enhances economic
economic education
education forfor two reasons.
reasons. First,
First, contact
contact
time with
time with students
students substantially
substantially increases
increases through
through e-mail
e-mail and discussiop.
discussion lists.
lists.
The instructor
The instructor is is able
able to
to communicate
communicateeffectively
effectively with many students
students at the
the same
same
time through
time through thethe discussion
discussion list.
list. Being able
able to
to correspond
correspond among
among themselves
themselves
regarding the
regarding the relevant
relevant theory
theory and
and problems
problems gives
gives students
students anan additional
additional opportu-
opportu-
nity to
nity to focus
focus onon problem areas areas and seek
seek help
help from
from each
each other.
other. We believe
believe the
the
added communications
added communications element element goes
goes a long
long way in fostering
fostering both thought
thought andand
interest in the
interest the subject
subject matter.
matter. Second,
Second, the
the Internet
Internet assignments
assignments and and use
use of the
the
Web allow
Web allow students
students to observe
observe the
the real-life
real-life implications
implications of the the economic
economic theory
theory
they learn
they learn in class.
class. The
The hands-on
hands-on experience
experience provides
provides a better understanding
understanding of
the subject
the subject matter and and makes
makes the
the learning
learning process
process more
more active.
active.
108
108 JOURNAL OF
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC
ECONOMIC EDUCATION
EDUCATION
 With budgets coming under increasing pressure, finding new and innovativeinnovative
ways to increase our efficiency is obviously a growing need. We believe that the
evidence supports using Internet tools as part of of the education process.
The area is rich in future avenues for research. Similar studies need to be con-
ducted in other universities before one can say with certainty that the Internet has
a positive impact on economic education.
education. In addition,
addition, knowing how Internet use
affects students as they progress through the entire economics program, rather
than just one course, would be useful. Another interesting question is whether the
Internet is more effective for good versus poor students.students. Finally, Internet-
Internet-
enhanced “distributed
"distributed learning”
learning" and “distance
"distance learning”
learning" courses represent inno-
vative ways of
of reducing the costs of
of education,
education, but the quality differences
differences between
of courses and traditional
these types of traditional courses needs to be addressed.
addressed.
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

NOTES
Agarwal and Day ((1996a)
I. See Aganval
1. I 996a) for the relative strengths and weaknesses of of these methods.
2. The studies include Berge (1994).(1994), Bailey and Cotlar
Collar (1994).
(1994), Boldt, Gustafson, and Johnson
(1994), Monahan and Dharm (1995).
(1994). (1995), Kearsley, Lynch, and Wizer (1995).(1995), Kuehn (1994).
(1994), Man-
(1996), Santoro (1994).
ning (1996). (1994), and Zack (1995).
(1995).
3. The picture will
wilI change dramatically
dramaticalIy in a few years given the emphasis on educational techno-
logy in high school today (Agarwal and Day I1996b). 996b).
4. We conducted the experiment for an undergraduate principles of of microeconomics course. The
results are not reported because of of lack ofof adequate control for class size;
size; the Internet group had
61 students and the control group, 13.
61 13. This inequality posed problems in differentiating the
effects of Internet enhancement.
Agarwal taught two sections of a graduate (MBA)
5. Aganval (MBA) course in microeconomics, and Day taught
two sections of a principles of of macroeconomics course.
continuous scale (0-4.0); gender and race were categorical variables
6. GPA was measured on a continuous
whose values are defined in equation 1. I.
7. More information on our use of of the World Wide Web can be found on our individual web pages
<http://www.bus.ucf.edulecolhomepage/agarwal> and <http://e-day.bus.ucf.edu>.
at <http://www.bus.ucf.edu/eco/homepage/aganval>
8. Similar projects were assigned in the control group, but they were not actively encouraged to use
the Internet. Although a few students in the control group inquired about using information from
the Internet, the majority of the students in the groupgroup used traditional methods of research involv-
involv-
ing print media and library resources.
9. To determine if pooling data was appropriate, we performed an F F test for a change in regression
slopes coefficients between the graduate and undergraduate sections. The restricted model (no
change in regression slope coefficients) could not be rejected, indicating no significant differ-
ences
ences at the .05 Type I error levellevel of significance between the two groupsgroups in both TUCE (F ( F 5,
194 =
194 = 1.24)
I .24) and final
final grade (F 194 =
( F statistic 5, 194 = 2.20) results. Thus,
Thus, pooling the data was deemed
appropriate.
10. For the undergraduate microeconomics course with unequal class sizes, the differences in
10.
instructor evaluations across test and control did not reveal reveal any significant impact of the Internet
enhancements, although the mean attitude changes changes were significantly higher for the Internet
for 5 of the 14
group for 14 questions. The Internet group gave a better evaluation of the instructor's
instructor’s
feedback of performance than the control group did and reflected a better change in attitude in
spite
spite of the disadvantage of a larger class
class size. The advantages of smaller class sizesize for
for the under-
graduate microeconomics control group group may have been somewhat offset by the Internet enhance-
Clearly, more data are
ment of the Internet group. Clearly, are needed to test the proposition that Internet use
may be an effective way of circumventing negative negative features of larger class
class sizes.

REFERENCES
REFERENCES
E. Day 1996a.
R., and A. E.
Agarwal, R., 1996a. Implementation of Internet enhancements in economic education.
Working
Working paper. University
University of Central Florida.
-. - - . 1996b.
- 1996b. Cost-benefit considerations of incorporating the Internet in higher education. Work-
ing paper. University
University of Central Florida.

Spring 1998
Spring 1998 109
109
 1994. Teaching via the Internet. Communication
Bailey, E. K., and M. Cotlar. 1994. Communication Education
Education 43 (April):
18k93.
184-93.
Berge, Z. L. 1994.
1994. Electronic discussion groups. Communication 102-1 I .
Education 43 (April): 102-11.
Communication Educarion
Boldt D. 1., V. Gustafson, and J. E. Johnson. 1994.
J., L. V. 1994. A resource in the teaching of economics
economics and
beyond: The Internet. Business
Business Education 23-26.
Education Forum 48 (October): 23-26.
S. D., and E. F.
Gregor, S. 1994. Computer mediated communication in distance
F. Cuskelly. 1994. distance education.
Journal of CompurerAssisted Learning 10
of Computer 168-81.
10 (September): 168-81.
Kearsley, G, W. Lynch, and D. Wizer. 1995.
Kearsley, 1995. The effectiveness and impact of online learning in grad-
uate education. Educarional Technology 35 (November-December):
Educational Technology 3742.
(November-December): 37-42.
S.A. 1994. Computer mediated communication in instructional settings: A research agenda.
Kuehn, S.
Communication Education 43 (April): 171-83.
Communication Education 171-83.
1996. Economics
Manning, L. 1996. Economics on the Internet: Electronic mail in the classroom. Joumul ofEconom-
Journal of Econom-
ic Education 201-04.
Education 27 (Summer): 201-{)4.
Monahan, B. D., and M. Dharm. 1995.1995. The Internet for educators: A user’s
user's guide. Educational Tech-
Educational Tech-
(January-February): 44-48.
nology 35 (January-February): 44-48.
Santoro, G. 1994. The Internet: An overview.
G . M. 1994. overview. Communication
Communicarion Educarion 73-86.
Education 43 (April): 73-86.
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 07:33 29 November 2012

Saunders, P. 1991.
Saunders, 1991. The third edition of the Test of Understanding in College Economics. Joumul
Journal of
of
Economic Education 255-72.
Education 22 (Summer): 255-72.
Soper, J. C., and W. B. Walstad,
Soper, Walstad, 1983. On measuring economic
economic attitudes. Journal ofofEconomic
Economic Edu-
Edu-
carion 14 (Fall): 4-17.
cation 4-17.
Zack, M. 1995. Using electronic messaging to improve the quality of instruction. Journal of ofEduca-
Educa-
rionfor Business
tionfor (MarcWApril): 202-6.
Business (March/April):

Conference Announcement
With the support of the National Science Foundation and the National Council
on Economic Education and the endorsement of the American Economic Associa-
tion Committee on Economic Education, the Journal of of Economic Education and
the University of Pittsburgh are cosponsoring a conference on integrating new
technologies in the undergraduate teaching of economics. The eight presenters
were selected from an international call for proposals. For more details and appli-
of Economic Education
cations to attend, please see the Journal of Education Web site at
html
http://www.indiana.edul-econedlindex.html
http://www.indiana.edu/-econedindex.

110
110 JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION