The impact of pre-conference advice on academic talk effectiveness

IF 1.8 3区经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS

Economics of Education Review Pub Date : 2024-11-24 DOI:10.1016/j.econedurev.2024.102607

Nikolas Breitkopf , Matti Keloharju

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Utilizing a randomized controlled trial, we explore the effect of advice on presentation quality at a prestigious academic finance conference. Employing a panel of MTurk workers to evaluate presentations for effectiveness, our findings show that treated speakers are 0.22 standard deviations more likely to win a comparison for effectiveness against non-treated counterparts. We further corroborate these results by examining the treatment effects on presentation slides, overall presentation quality, Zoom talk attendance duration, and YouTube viewings. This evidence suggests that informing speakers about good presentation practices can substantially improve the effectiveness of conference talks.

查看原文本刊更多论文

会前建议对学术讲座效果的影响

通过随机对照试验，我们探讨了建议对著名学术金融会议演讲质量的影响。通过使用 MTurk 工作者小组对演讲效果进行评估，我们的研究结果表明，与未接受治疗的演讲者相比，接受治疗的演讲者在效果比较中获胜的可能性要高出 0.22 个标准差。我们通过研究处理对演讲幻灯片、整体演讲质量、Zoom 演讲出席时长和 YouTube 观看次数的影响，进一步证实了这些结果。这些证据表明，让演讲者了解良好的演讲方法可以大大提高会议演讲的效果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Economics of Education Review Multiple-

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

4.50%

发文量

审稿时长

61 days

期刊介绍： Economics of Education Review publishes research on education policy and finance, human capital production and acquisition, and the returns to human capital. We accept empirical, methodological and theoretical contributions, but the main focus of Economics of Education Review is on applied studies that employ micro data and clear identification strategies. Our goal is to publish innovative, cutting-edge research on the economics of education that is of interest to academics, policymakers and the public. Starting with papers submitted March 1, 2014, the review process for articles submitted to the Economics of Education Review will no longer be double blind. Authors are requested to include a title page with authors'' names and affiliation. Reviewers will continue to be anonymous.