Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T21:38:12.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demand for Multimedia in the Classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Tracy A. Boyer ,
Brian C. Briggeman  and
F. Bailey Norwood
Tracy A. Boyer
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Brian C. Briggeman
Affiliation:
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Omaha Branch, Omaha, NE
F. Bailey Norwood
Affiliation:
Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study elicits preferences for multimedia in the classroom for students and faculty members in agricultural economics. Employing an Internet-based conjoint ranking survey, the results show that students prefer multimedia instructional tools over a traditional chalkboard/whiteboard lecture format while faculty members do not. Neither students nor faculty members are enthusiastic about electronic textbooks, and students will accept them only if they save $80. Finally, preferences for multimedia are shown to differ with students who self-report differing note-taking abilities, preferences for chalkboard lectures, and the need for an engaging class. Successful multimedia adoption requires appropriate use and lowering costs for students.

Keywords

conjoint rankinginstructionmicroeconomicsmultimedia instructionvaluationA22Q19
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , December 2009 , pp. 791 - 808
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnett, B.J., and Kriesel., W. “Agricultural Economists' Use of Classroom Economic Experiments.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 35(2003):321–35.Google Scholar
Becker, W.W., and Watts., M. “Teaching Economics at the Start of the 21st Century: Still Chalk and Talk.” New Research in Economic Education 91(2001):446–51.Google Scholar
Boyer, T., and Hickman., K.R. “Do High School Study Habits Matter for First-Semester College Performance? Predicting Success Using Various Measures of Academic Preparation.” Journal of North American College Teachers of Agriculture Journal 51(2007):50–55.Google Scholar
Carlson, S. “The Next Generation Goes to College.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 52(2005): A34.Google Scholar
Carnevale, D. “Run a Class Like a Game Show: “Clickers” Keep Students Involved.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 51(2005):1.Google Scholar
Dahlgran, R.A. “Teaching Innovations in Agricultural Economics: An Economic Approach.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(1990):873–82.Google Scholar
Dubas, K.M., and Mummalaneni., V. “Self-Explicated and Full-Profile Conjoint Methods for Designing Customer-Focused Courses.” Marketing Education Review 7(2007):35–48.Google Scholar
Engle, R.L. “Digital Multimedia and the Teaching of Cross-Cultural Business Practices.” International Business Research, Teaching and Practice 1(2007):87–96.Google Scholar
Fleming, J. “Who Will Succeed in College? When the SAT predicts Black Students' Performance.” Review of Higher Education 25(2002):281–96.Google Scholar
Fleming, J., and Garcia., N. “Are Standardized Tests Fair to African Americans? Predictive Validity of the SAT in Black and White Institutions.” The Journal of Higher Education 25(1998):281–96.Google Scholar
Fleming, R.A., Bazen, E.F., and Wetzstein., M.E. “Measuring the Impact of Externalities on College of Agriculture Teaching Evaluations.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 37,3(2005):635–45.Google Scholar
French, D.P. “I Pods: Informative or Invasive?” Journal of College Science Teaching 36(2006): 58–59.Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office “College Textbooks: Enhanced Offerings Appear to Drive Recent Price Increases.” Report to Congressional Requesters GAO; 05–906 (2005). Internet site: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05806.pdf (Accessed January 28, 2009).Google Scholar
Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Tauer, J.M., and Elliot., A.J. “Predicting Success in College: A Longitudinal Study of Achievement Goals and Ability Measures as Predictors of Interest and Performance from Freshman Year through Graduation.” Journal of Educational Psychology 94(2002):562–75.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P.E. “Using Monte Carlo Studies for Teaching Econometrics.” Teaching Undergraduate Economics: Alternatives to Chalk and Talk. Becker, W.E. and Watts, M., eds. Aldershot, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 1998.Google Scholar
Kozma, R.B., and Russell., J. “Multimedia and Understanding Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34(1997):949–68.Google Scholar
Lipka, S. “Experts Discuss Textbook Costs.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 53,41(2007): A39.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait., J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Norwood., F.B. “Effect of Experimental Design on Choice-based Conjoint Valuation Estimates.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2005):771–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, D.R., Lusk, J.L., and Daniel., M.S. “Recruiting Agricultural Economics Graduate Students: Student Demand for Program Attributes.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2004): 175–84.Google Scholar
Mayer, R.E. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Murray, M.P. “Econometrics Lectures in a Computer Classroom.” The Journal of Economic Education 30(1999):308–21.Google Scholar
Nelson, R.G., and Beil, R.O. Jr. “A Classroom Experiment on Oligopolies.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 27(1995): 263–75.Google Scholar
Nelson, R.G., and Beil, R.O. Jr. “When Self Interest is Self-Defeating: The Public Goods Experiment as a Teaching Tool.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 26(1994):580–90.Google Scholar
Nelson, R.G., and Wilson, N.L.W. ““It's for Teaching, not Believing”: Comments on Teaching, Learning and Problem Solving Through Economic Experiments.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 35(2003): 361–70.Google Scholar
Nowaczyk, R.H., Santos, L.T., and Patton., C. “Student Perception of Multimedia in the Classroom.” International Journal of Instructional Media 25(1998):367–82.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center “How Young People View Their Lives, Futures, and Politics: A Portrait of “Generation Next.” Pew Research Center Report (January 9, 2007). Internet site: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/300.pdf (Accessed February 6, 2009).Google Scholar
Reay, N.W., Li, P., and Bao., L. “Testing a New Voting Machine Question Methodology.” American Journal of Physics 76(2008): 171–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, L. “Multimedia Instruction Methods.” The Journal of Economic Education 30(1999):265–75.Google Scholar
Taylor, M.L. “Generation Next Comes to College: 2006 Updates and Emerging Issues.” A Collection of Papers on Self-Study and Institutional Improvement, Volume 2. Chicago, IL: The Higher Learning Commission, 2006.Google Scholar
Trees, A.R., and Jackson., M. “The Learning Environment in Clicker Classrooms: Student Processes of Learning and Involvement in Large University-Level Courses Using Student Response Systems.” Learning, Media and Technology 32(2007):21–40.Google Scholar