Volume 5 2014 Editors: Robert T. Burrus, Economics J. Edward Graham, Finance University of North Carolina Wilmington University of North Carolina Wilmington Associate Editors: Doug Berg, Sam Houston State University Clay Moffett, UNC Wilmington Al DePrince, Middle Tennessee State University Robert Moreschi, Virginia Military Institute David Boldt, University of West Georgia Shahdad Naghshpour, Southern Mississippi University Kathleen Henebry, University of Nebraska, Omaha James Payne, Georgia College Lee Hoke, University of Tampa Shane Sanders, Western Illinois University Adam Jones, UNC Wilmington Robert Stretcher, Sam Houston State University Steve Jones, Samford University Mike Toma, Armstrong Atlantic State University David Lange, Auburn University Montgomery Richard Vogel, SUNY Farmington Rick McGrath, Armstrong Atlantic State University Bhavneet Walia, Western Illinois University Aims and Scope of the Academy of Economics and Finance Journal: The Academy of Economics and Finance Journal (AEFJ) is the refereed publication of selected research presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Economics and Finance. All economics and finance research presented at the meetings is automatically eligible for submission to and consideration by the journal. The journal and the AEF deal with the intersections between economics and finance, but special topics unique to each field are likewise suitable for presentation and later publication. The AEFJ is published annually. The submission of work to the journal will imply that it contains original work, unpublished elsewhere, that is not under review, nor a later candidate for review, at another journal. The submitted paper will become the property of the journal once accepted, and not until the paper has been rejected by the journal will it be available to the authors for submission to another journal. Volume 5: Volume 5 of the AEFJ is sponsored by the Academy of Economics and Finance and the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. The papers in this volume were presented at the Fifty-first Annual Meeting of the AEF in Chattanooga from February 12-15, 2014. The program was arranged by Dr. Doug Berg, Sam Houston State University. Volume 5 Table of Contents 2014 The Effect of Supplemental Instruction on Student Performance in Principles of 1 Economics Classes J. J. Arias and Jessie Folk Keynes and Friedman Prescriptions and Performance: A Look at Fiscal & Monetary 7 Policy Effects Since 1976 David P. Echevarria CEO Social Networks and Bank Performance 15 Fang Fang and Dave Jackson The Financial Crisis and the Wealth-Impact of Liquidity Infusions for Publicly-Traded 25 Banks J. Edward Graham, Clay Moffett, and Dietlinde Schumacher Short-Selling Constraints: The Asymmetric Role of Institutional Ownership, Relative 31 Short Interest, Options and Dividends Jose Gutierrez, Steve Johnson, and Robert Stretcher Valuation of Flex Bonus Certificates - Theory and Evidence 47 Rodrigo Hernández,Yingying Shao, and Pu Liu The U.S. State Personal Income Tax Simplifications with the LG Tax System 59 Robert Kao and John Lee Home Bias and Risk Differentials 69 Heeho Kim The Impact of Exchange Rate Variation on The Return Disparity for Dual-Listed 77 Securities David Lo, Max Maodush-Pitzer, and Glenn Pettengill i Does Parenting Style Matter for Labor Market Outcomes? Evidence from the USA 87 Md. Alauddin Majumder Linkages among Gross State Product, Investment Outlays and Business Climate 99 Variables: An Empirical Analysis Muhammad Mustafa and Haile Selassie The Landscape of Biofuels after the Ethanol Boom of 2006 and the Food Crisis of 2008: 107 The Case of Biodiesel Abbes Tangaoui and Michael Farmer Copyright 2014 by the Academy of Economics and Finance All Rights Reserved ii Academy of Economics and Finance Journal, Volume 5 The Effect of Supplemental Instruction on Student Performance in Principles of Economics Classes J. J. Arias and Jessie Folk, Georgia College Abstract We randomly assigned supplemental instructors to two out of four sections of principles of economics in the fall of 2012. We examine the effect of supplemental instruction (SI) on student exam scores controlling for instructor, major, credit hours earned, previous GPA, math SAT scores and demographic variables. We find that being in a section with SI leads to an increase in a student’s exam average of approximately 2.7 percentage points (p < .058). Our results suggest that the positive impact of SI would be greater if more students attended SI sessions offered to them. Introduction Supplemental instruction (SI) is a type of peer-assisted learning which began in the United States in the late 1970s. It was originally developed in the Division of Student Affairs at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. The use of SI grew so that by the mid-90s over 500 institutions had adopted an SI program (Blanc & Martin, 1994). The basic design of most SI programs is to designate and assign undergraduate students as supplemental instructors to high-risk courses—i.e. those with a higher than average percentage of students earning a D, F or W. These courses are usually freshman or sophomore level, and the supplemental instructors are usually juniors and senior who have previously taken and mastered the course. The supplemental instructor will hold two to five weekly study sessions outside of regular class times. According to the original design of SI, attendance at SI sessions is voluntary, and the sessions are meant to focus on learning strategies to master the material (Congos & Schoeps, 1993). In other words, SI sessions are for the purpose of clarifying concepts, and teaching problem-solving skills and learning strategies. They are not meant to serve as simply a recitation or a mini-lecture. Rather, as a type of collaborative and peer-led learning, SI sessions should involve group discussion and cooperative interaction (Blach, DeBuhr and Martin, 1983). Each supplemental instructor receives training at the beginning of the semester from the institution’s SI supervisor, attends class, takes notes and completes all the assignments (Hurley, Jacobs and Gilbert, 2006). There may also be additional training sessions during the course of the semester. A variety of studies have claimed to show a number of benefits from SI. The most obvious and direct benefit is a higher course grade (Blanc et al., 1983; Burmeister et al., 1994; Congos & Schoeps, 1993; Kenney & Kallison, 1994; Lockie & Van Lanen, 1994; Lundeberg, 1990; Martin & Blanc, 1981; Wolfe, 1987). Some claim additional benefits as well, such as higher overall semester grade point averages (Blanc et al., 1983) and learning skills that can be transferred to other classes (University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2005). However, much of the evidence in support of SI is anecdotal and fails to control for other variables which affect student performance (Kochenour et al., 1997). Many studies also fail to address the sample selection bias that arises from a voluntary program. Since attendance at SI sessions is voluntary, students may be self- selecting into groups based on characteristics which are closely related to academic performance. There are also studies which fail to find evidence that SI is effective (Schwartz, 1992; Visor, Johnson and Cole, 1992). Those studies which attempt to control for other factors use ANOVA or ANCOVA analysis (e.g. Kochenour et al., 1997). Drake (2013) conducts a simple regression without controlling for other relevant independent variables. Burnmeister et al. (1994) contrasted final course grades between SI and non-SI participants in algebra, calculus and statistics classes, using data from 45 separate institutions over 16 semesters. A simple comparison of means finds statistically significant higher course grades for SI participants in algebra and calculus, but not statistics. Kenney and Kallison (1994) employ a methodology that is most similar to ours. Their data comes from two lecture classes in calculus taught by the same instructor at the University of Texas in the fall of 1989. Each class was divided into two discussion sections, with one section from each class receiving the SI treatment. The other two sections were standard discussion sections and formed the control group. Using multiple regression analysis, they find three statistically significant variables: high school class rank, discussion section attendance and control/treatment group membership. Thus, SI had a significant effect beyond the effect of discussion section attendance. We also use multiple regression analysis to investigate the effectiveness of SI on student performance. We also avoid sample selection bias issues by randomly assigning which sections would have SI. However, like many other studies, they use final course letter grades. In contrast, we use exam averages which contain more granular information. 1 Arias and Folk: The Effect of Supplemental Instruction Data and Statistics The data come from four sections of principles of economics classes taught during the fall semester of 2012 at a public, liberal arts university with an enrollment of approximately 6,000 undergraduates. Roughly eighty percent of the students are business majors taking a required class. The rest are non-business majors taking the course to fulfill a social science requirement in the core curriculum. Two separate instructors each taught two sections: each instructor taught one section with a supplemental instructor and one section with no SI. Students were unaware of the