No abstract

We evaluate feedback methods for oral presentations used in training nonquantitative research skills (literature review and various associated tasks).Training is provided through a credit-bearing module taught to MSc students of banking, economics and finance in the UK. Monitoring oral presentations and providing 'best practice' feedback is very resource-intensive. Do we withdraw oral presentations from the module, because best feedback practice is prohibitively expensive in a world of limited resources, or choose a second-best alternative? To what extent might the latter compromise intended learning outcomes? We used the same provision of video feedback for all students but used two verbal feedback regimes. For one regime we decreased the amount of verbal feedback and increased the number of presentations. The impact was measured by academic outcome, rating scales and questionnaire. Overall satisfaction with the module was very high for both feedback regimes, and there were no statistically significant differences between regimes, suggesting that less resource-intensive methods need not compromise learning outcomes. It seems unlikely that a single 'best practice' form of feedback could ever be identified, since this would inevitably vary across different learning situations, but there do seem to be some recognised conditions for effective feedback (Gibbs and Simpson, 2004). For non-assessed oral presentations in particular, we start from the premise that effective feedback should involve peer-and tutor-feedback, with opportunities for extensive in-class discussion and self-reflection. It should be face-to-face (one-to-one where appropriate), clearly targeted, engaging for students and student-centred but authoritative where necessary (from highly-experienced tutors).Providing such feedback is very resource-intensive, so we compared learning outcomes for two 'second best' formative feedback regimes of different resourceintensity -video plus summary verbal feedback vs. video plus extended verbal feedback. The summary and extended feedback took about one minute and five minutes respectively. We asked students to evaluate their feedback regimes via a questionnaire, because we were concerned that brief feedback might reduce students' motivation for learning in the context of our module.Our results suggest that learning outcomes need not be compromised by more efficient use of resources and they raise interesting issues about students' perceptions of feedback and how it might be delivered. The paper also adds to the literature on the active learning of skills in oral presentation and literature review.In the remaining sections we outline the essential features of feedback in the module and justify the particular comparison under review. We describe the nature and purpose of the oral presentations, the feedback methods and students' evaluations, and we provide an analysis of outcomes. Issues in FeedbackThe module (Leger and Sirichand, 2015) providing the context for this paper has been designed with reference to theor...

This paper develops a comprehensive modified cost‐of‐carry model to study the mispricing of Nikkei 225 index futures contracts traded in Osaka, Singapore, and Chicago based on a new 19‐year data set. Using this improved model, we find that dividend clustering, currency risk, and transaction costs all play an essential role in the estimation of Nikkei mispricing. An exponential smooth transition autoregressive‐GARCH model is used to describe the international dynamics of Nikkei mispricing. The results indicate that generally mean reversion in mispricing and limits to arbitrage are driven more by transaction costs than by heterogeneous investors.

No abstract

No abstract