Research On Teaching Economics

American Economic Association
Research on Teaching Economics to Undergraduates

Author(s): Sam Allgood, William B. Walstad and John J. Siegfried
Source: Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 53, No. 2 (JUNE 2015), pp. 285-325
Published by: American Economic Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24433983
Accessed: 13-04-2018 22:12 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
American Economic Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Economic Literature
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Fri, 13 Apr 2018 22:12:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Economic Literature 2015, 53(2), 285-^325
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1257/jel.53.2.285
Research on Teaching Economics

to Undergraduates1
Sam Allgood, William B. Walstad, and John J. Siegfried*
This survey summarizes the main research findings about teaching economics to
undergraduates. After briefly reviewing the history of research on undergraduate
economic education, it discusses the status of the economics major—numbers and
trends, goals, coursework, outcomes, and the principles courses. Some economic theory
is used to explain the likely effects of pedagogical decisions of faculty and the learning
choices that students make. Major results from empirical research are reviewed from the
professor perspective on such topics as teaching methods, online technology, class size,
and textbooks. Studies of student learning are discussed in relation to study time, grades,
attendance, math aptitude, and cheating. The last section discusses changes in the
composition of faculty who teach undergraduate economics and effects from changes in
instructional technology and then presents findings from the research about measuring
teaching effectiveness and the value of teacher training. ( JEL A22,123, J44)
1. Introduction more insight about the teaching and learn

ing of undergraduate economics than they
would otherwise have, based on classroom
Thisnomics
articlecurriculum
describesatresearch
Americanon the eco
colleges experiences or from anecdotes. This review
and universities and on undergraduate eco should help economists better understand
nomics instruction. Our goal is to synthesize what teaching methods and student behavior
findings from a range of studies and present affect economics learning. It also should be
them in a way that gives academic economists of value to department chairs or faculty com
mittees who are responsible for decisions
about how economics is taught, and who may
*Allgood: Professor of Economics, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln. Walstad: Professor of Economics, use the research to more effectively organize
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Siegfried: Visiting instruction and courses for students.
Research Fellow, University of Adelaide, South Australia,
For this review, we describe findings spe
Secretary-Treasurer Emeritus of the American Economic
Association, and Professor of Economics Emeritus at cific to economic education, but discuss them
Vanderbilt University. The Spencer Foundation and the in the larger context of changes in higher
Calvin K. Kazanjian Foundation helped support our work
on this review. We also thank the JEL editor and the four
education and how economics compares
anonymous referees for their valuable comments. with other related academic disciplines. As
* Go to http://dx.doi.Org/10.1257/jel.53.2.285 to visit the
would be expected, the review builds on past
article page and view author disclosure statement(s). surveys of research on economic education
285
286 Jou rnal of Economic Literature, Vol. LUI (Ju ne 2015)
and, although it covers similar topics, it only challenging than other disciplines and that
considers research studies published since justify a focused survey on economic edu
the last survey on this subject in the Journal cation. The findings we report should have
of Economic Literature (Becker 1997). Our more credibility for economists because they
approach highlights the main points we think are based mostly on studies using students
are of most value in the literature. Although taking economics courses or economics fac
we omit the details from many studies to ease ulty teaching economics courses,
the reading burden, and because in an elec- The article is divided into eight sections
tronic age research papers can be accessed that include this short introduction and a
easily, we do discuss some key studies in more conclusion. In the second section, we briefly
depth to indicate the quality of the analysis. review the history of research on teaching
In addition, to avoid turning the survey into college economics to acquaint instructors
an econometric critique, we do not evaluate with the major developments and sources of
the methodology of articles unless it is essen- information on the subject since its origins
tial for understanding the content. Instead, in the 1960s. In the third section, we survey
we target the major questions to explain what the landscape of undergraduate economics
has been learned, either tentatively because to describe enrollments, the typical curricu
the number of studies is sparse, or more con- lum of courses for undergraduate economics
vincingly because the research on a topic is students, and outcomes from the economics
extensive. Most importantly, we seek to près- major. In the fourth section, we use eco
ent findings that should stimulate thinking nomic theory to explain the likely effects
about future research. To encourage it, we of decisions that economics professors can
offer suggestions as they arise in the survey. make either in structuring or teaching their
We limit our survey to research on the courses, and also students' decisions about
teaching of undergraduate economics and enrolling and participating in economics
do not extend it to college teaching in gen- courses. The purpose of this theory section
eral because we contend that economics has is to increase the understanding of empiri
a unique place in the undergraduate curricu- cal findings about faculty teaching decisions
lum. Economics departments can be located and selected student behaviors and decisions
in different colleges (liberal arts, business) that are the subjects of the fifth and sixth sec
within an institution, which is not true of most tions. The seventh section briefly discusses
other disciplines. Economists who teach can how changes in the characteristics of faculty
be spread across a campus in interdisciplin- and changes in technology are likely to affect
ary units (e.g., policy or research institutes). undergraduate economics instruction in the
Teaching undergraduate economics differs future, before turning to the issue of teach
from instruction in other subjects because ing effectiveness and examining research on
it draws on content and techniques from the assessment of instruction from student
many disciplines, such as mathematics, sta- and faculty perspectives,
tistics, philosophy, psychology, and history,
but blends them in special ways. Economic „ . „ . , ,r.
, . , J Iii 2. A Brief Research History
analysis also requires extensive verbal and J J
quantitative reasoning that can be both prac- We date the firs
tical and abstract. Although teaching eco- ognition that the
nomics is certainly not completely different topic for serious
from teaching other disciplines, it does have to Rendigs Fe
some unique qualities that can make it more research that
Allgood et al: Research on Teaching Economies to Undergraduates 287
and, at times, economic theory, to address what students were learning nor behavioral
questions about the teaching and learning effects sparked a search for alternative out
of economics. He thought this research was come measures. These changes, and others
superior to the ad hoc thinking and casual that expanded the research questions asked
empiricism that many economists used when and increased the rigor of the analysis, sig
they discussed teaching with colleagues, nificantly contributed to this third JEL sur
even though they demanded more rigorous vey article on the teaching of economics at
scholarship in other areas of economics. the undergraduate level.
By the end of the 1970s, the quantity of
research on economic education was suf- „ „ ,, ,
c . . r , , , it 1 j 3. 1 he Economics Maior
hcient tor a survey article to be published J
in the Journal of Economic Literature The teaching of und
(Siegfried and Fels 1979). Two signifi- at most colleges and u
cant developments made that survey pos- around the econom
sible. First, the Committee on Economic ent data on the num
Education of the American Economic describe its goals and
Association began organizing annual sessions required coursewor
at the AEA meetings and, since the 1960s, long-term learning o
many of those sessions had been devoted to and highlight the im
presenting research findings that were pub- instruction to depa
lished in the Papers and Proceedings issue of „ . ... ?
. . L . „ . 5,, ,, 3.1 Numbers and trends
the American Economic Review, ihen, the
1969 founding of the Journal of Economic National data show that 27,995 undergrad
Education gave economists another outlet uate students graduated with a bachelor's
in the form of a specialty journal in which degree in economics in the 2011-12 aca
to publish research. Second, in 1968, the demie year, the latest year for which compre
Test of Understanding of College Economics hensive data were available (National Center
(TUCE) was prepared by a distinguished for Education Statistics [NCES] 2013, Table
committee of economists that included 325.92). To put this number in perspec
George Stigler, Paul Samuelson, and G. L. tive, it is fewer than majors in other social
Bach. Now in its fourth edition (Walstad and sciences, such as political science (39,800),
Rebeck 2008), this test gave researchers a history (35,121), and sociology (30,132), but
standardized measure that could be used to substantially greater than majors in tradi
assess student achievement in principles of tional scientific or quantitative disciplines
economics across classrooms and campuses. such as physics (5,531), chemistry (13,472),
In the 1980s and 1990s, a broader research or mathematics and statistics (18,842). At
agenda that emphasized better data analysis the same time, economics majors are only
and sounder econometric methods improved 26 percent of the number of psychology
the body of research sufficiently to warrant majors (108,986) and a miniscule 8 percent
another JEL review (Becker 1997). While of business majors (366,815). Interest in dif
the two publication outlets noted above ferent majors, of course varies from campus
remained the primary sources for research to campus depending on whether a college
on the teaching of economics, they were or university offers an undergraduate busi
augmented with research articles in general ness degree or how different undergradu
interest economics journals and books. ate majors are structured at an institution.
Criticisms that the TUCE did not fully assess The general point is that the number of
288 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LUI (June 2015)
economics majors is sizable on most cam- The number of undergraduate economics

puses, at least relative to the number of degrees awarded annually by U.S. colleges
majors in other social sciences, core physical and universities is subject to cyclical swings,
sciences, and mathematics, and accordingly as shown in Figure 1. Economics degrees
has a solid place in the curricula of the 800 or declined during the early 1970s and then
so American colleges and universities where reversed course and rose steadily through
it is offered.1 1990. From 1991 through 1997, the num
A problem with the NC ES data is that ber of economics degrees awarded fell
only one major is counted per student, which cipitously, declining by about 30 percen
means that economics majors are under- Starting in 1998, there was a recovery
counted if students also major in another reached a plateau in 2004 and held steady fo
subject that is reported first to the NCES. three years. In 2007, the number of degre
At least one comprehensive survey indi- awarded annually resumed an upward
çâtes that the number of economics majors jectory, rising by almost 20 percent f
who also major in another subject is sub- 2007 to 2011, before falling slightly in 2012
stantial. Of a sample of economics majors „ ^ z z^z. r.i +, ■
who graduated belween 2000 and 2010 ' 37 3 2 Goak ani °/«K
percent had a second major in another dis- There is broad consensus
cipline (National Center for Science and nomics faculty that enabling stu
Engineering Statistics [NCSES] 2010). understand how and when it is app
Although we do not know whether eco- to "think like an economist" is th
nomics is a more attractive double major ing goal of undergraduate econ
than other subjects, we suspect that it may tion (Siegfried et al. 1991; Siegfrie
be popular because of the broad content it This approach to economic educ
covers, compared with physical sciences cally involves using deductive re
such as physics or chemistry, or because of its conjunction with parsimonious
content overlap with business. What we do help understand economic phen
know is that for students who do not pursue a also involves identifying trade-
postgraduate degree, the double-major strat- context of constraints, recognizin
egy generally increases subsequent earnings opportunity costs, distinguishi
by about 2 percent (Del Rossi and Hersch from normative analysis, recogni
2008), and is even more valuable if the two tives, tracing the behavioral im
majors are in different divisions of a college of changes, exploring the consequ
such as the humanities, social sciences, and aggregation, and searching for
natural sciences. As is true for single majors, consequences.
incremental returns to a second major are Both the structure of the eco
greater when it is in a more quantitative or cipline and the undergraduate
technical field.
2 For further discussion of the role of time trends and

business cycles in affecting the number of economics
iPetkus, Perry, and Johnson (2014) reported that, awarded using various data sources, see Siegfried
degrees
as of 2010, a population total of 1,428 four-yearand colleges
Round (2001) and Siegfried (2014).
and universities in the United States taught undergradu2 There is ongoing debate about the appropriate empha
ate economics, but only 792 offered an economics sis on technical education and the role of liberal arts.
major.
Within the 55 percent of institutions offering an economics
Colander and McGoldrick (2009) qualify the goal from a
major, there were 1,601 versions of it (e.g., mathematical
liberal arts perspective and argue that it should be about
economics, business economics), suggesting that "thinking
there are like a liberally educated person who knows
two versions of it, on average, at each institution. economics."
5,000 -
>
. 1
1 ■
' 1
1 '
' 1
1 ■
' 1
1
1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01

2000-01 2010-11
2010-11
Figure 1. U.S. Undergraduate E
Source: NCES 2013, Table 325.92.
been likened to a tree. The ma

in the introductory course or co
of principles, analytical method
titative skills comprise the trunk
Its branches, protruding exten
directions, represent subdiscipl
ranging from labor economics
economics. The subfields gener
lems to which the principles an
tive approaches can be producti
These two characteristics—a co
retical and empirical knowledg
with opportunities to extend tha
to a wide variety of topics—di
nomics from other social scien
economics is much like a tree,
sciences seem more akin to a h
separate and largely independent
subfields, each with their own
methodology. ing from their list of the ten most important
Student learning outcomes, probably differentiation.4 The typical major require

because it is a stretch for most undergrad ments consist of ten courses. Students begin
uates. Also among the top ten, and, in fact, their economics major by taking two princi
ranked first, was the ability to use critical ples courses (or one course if principles is
thinking skills. Ranked third overall were taught in one semester). Virtually all majors
writing skills. Perhaps surprisingly, oral then take both intermediate micro and
communication skill was not ranked among macro and an introductory statistics course.
the ten most important learning outcomes, An introductory statistics course offered by
and, indeed, did not even garner majority the economics department is required by
support. about three-fourths of the programs, while
a statistics course taught by a department
3.3 Economics Courseworkfor the Major
outside economics is required by about one
A sample of 346 colleges and universities fourth. The five universally required courses
that responded to the 2012 annual Universal are followed by five electives to complete the
Academic Questionnaire (UAQ) survey by major.
the American Economic Association (Scott No single elective is required at more than
and Siegfried 2013; Siegfried and Walstad half of the institutions, although economet
2014) provided information about under rics is now required at 50 percent of pro
graduate economics programs. The sample grams in colleges of arts and sciences and
is representative of undergraduate econom 45 percent of those in business colleges.5
ics degrees institutions and accounts for 70 Money and banking is required in 27 per
percent of U.S. undergraduates who gradu cent of the programs at business schools,
ated with a bachelors degree in economics but in only 10 percent of those at colleges of
in 2012. The results show that the adminis arts and sciences. No other specific course
trative location of an economics department is required at more than 11 percent of pro
varies. Some 64 percent of departments are grams. Economic histoiy is almost defunct
located in colleges of arts and sciences, 15 as a required course. History of economic
percent are housed in colleges of business thought has been more resilient (about
only, and 21 percent are part of both types of 10 percent require it). The trend over the
colleges and offer degrees in both colleges. past three decades is clear: add economet
Economics is seldom housed in a business rics and drop other specific requirements,
college at selective private liberal arts colleaving room for four electives (Siegfried
leges (11 percent) or private PhD-grantingand Wilkinson 1982; Siegfried and Wal s tad
universities (10 percent) because few have2014).
an undergraduate business college. At public Programs differ most among institution
institutions, most of which have a business types in their graduation requirements for
college, economics is located there about
seniors seeking an economics degree. The
half the time (40 percent for PhD, 54 permost common requirement beyond general
cent for masters, and 55 percent for bachecoursework is for students to complete a
lor's institutions).
Coursework for U.S. economics majors
4Coursework requirements also have not changed
is similar everywhere and not heavily influ
much since the 1980s (see Siegfried and Wilkinson 1982).
enced by departmental administrative5Johnson, Perry, and Petkus (2012) reported that over
location. This uniformity is surprising for75apercent of the top-twenty-five-ranked economics PhD
granting universities and 80 percent of the top-ten-ranked
discipline that focuses on choices among
liberal arts colleges require econometrics in their under
alternatives and that explicitly studies product
graduate major.
Allgood et al.: Research on Teaching Economies to Undergraduates 291
seminar or capstone course (48 percent), but economics either via mathematical econom
the requirement is found more frequently at ics or advanced econometrics courses or a
selective private liberal arts colleges (66 per- graduate school preparation career path.
cent) and less frequently at PhD-granting _ . _ . rr , , r.
, J 1 1 3.4 Factors Affecting the Number of Maiors
public universities (25 percent) where large JJ ° J J
enrollments overwhelm any desires to tai- We do not have a clea
lor major requirements in ways that require what determines why an
low student-to-faculty ratios. A senior thesis dent chooses to major i
is second most popular among graduation research on the topic (S
requirements, but is mandatory at only 18 2001; Siegfried 2012).
percent of programs. It varies in use from 33 come, however, should
percent at private liberal arts colleges that because there simply are
do not offer a PhD in economics to about can affect the majorin
10 percent at other types of institutions. The it be in economics or a
third requirement in order of importance is Studies have suggest
a comprehensive exam, but it is used by only in the number of econo
9 percent of programs. Here again, as with demographic trends in hi
the senior thesis, selective liberal colleges job prospects for econom
are most likely (14 percent) and public uni- and Condon 2002), th
versities are least likely (3 to 4 percent) to are discouraged busine
require it. and Ohland 2011) and fluctuate on the basis
What the graduation requirements indi- of changing interest in business ed
cate is that the type of institution and adminis- or that economics majors have d
trative location of the economics department in response to poor teaching (Lo
affect the character of students' educational Ramrattan, and Szenberg 2004).
experience. Using an index of ten dimensions There also is the hypothesis perhaps
of the major, Dean and Dolan (2001) found obvious to economists, namely tha
that among departments in a homogeneous matters for allocation decisions. As co
sample of bachelor's degree-granting insti- and universities progressively imp
tutions, economics departments located in a differential tuition rates based o
liberal arts college, regardless of whether the (engineering, business, and nursing
institution contains a business college, offer command a premium), evidence is em
a "richer" educational experience to majors to confirm that students react to the
than do departments located in business col- price of majors in ways similar to th
leges. In their empirical estimates, the effect tions to the prices of beer, cars, and h
was about a 40 percent increase in an index ers (Stange 2013). Grades also can be v
of "richness" they developed. Some dimen- as a price for obtaining a degree, and
sions of the educational experience index tently higher grading standards in econ
included low enrollment gateway freshman and STEM fields, relative to othe
seminars in economics, depth as reflected in graduate majors, may deter students
the extent to which electives require inter- pursuing economics and STEM
mediate micro or macro as a prerequisite, (Rask 2010; Ost 2010; Butcher, M
breadth in terms of varied applied course and Weerapana 2014). Each hypot
offerings, senior experiences such as a cap- probably credible to some degree, and
stone seminar or an honors program, and together, they reveal the challenge of f
the option to prepare for graduate work in a consensus answer.
What too is a puzzle is the gender differ- economics as an influence on pursuing addi
ence in the number of economics majors. tional study in economics has been examined
The percentage of undergraduate econom- too, with conflicting results and questions
ics degrees awarded to women peaked at about causality (Rask and Tiefenthaler 2008;
35 percent in 2003 and has since hovered Owen 2010; Goldin 2013; Main and Ost
between 30 and 33 percent (Siegfried 2014). 2014). Institutional effects add to the puzzle.
Although the share of female college and Using a large data set from public universi
university students has surged over recent ties, Emerson, McGoldrick, and Mumford
decades, rising from 39 percent in 1960 to (2012) found a persistent gender gap at all
current levels around 57 percent (Goldin, levels of instruction (principles, intermedi
Katz, and Kuziemko 2006), the fraction of ate, and the major) even after controlling
females earning undergraduate degrees in for aptitude, course performance, and many
economics has been stagnant, which has student characteristics. They concluded that:
constrained the growth of undergraduate "Gender differences in factors that influence
economics degrees. the decision to persist in economics ... raise
A number of studies have investigated questions as to the extent to which such influ
reasons for this gender gap, but no expia- ences can be generalized across institutions"
nation solves the mystery. Not surprisingly, (361). At this point, it seems easier to say
research confirms that the variation in the what does not affect the proportion of eco
female proportion of economics majors nomics majors that is female—faculty role
closely tracks the overall female proportion models, mathematics aptitude, differences
of student enrollments at various institutions in mathematics training—than to identify
(Emerson, McGoldrick, and Siegfried 2014). what does, beyond the obvious proportion of
Women are less likely than men to enroll in the overall student body that is female.
introductory economics courses, suggesting „ _ , r ,, ,, .
, , , J, . . . 1 3.5 Outcomes from the Major
that the gender gap in economics starts early J J
and that the gateway courses can affect the Research indicates that un
number of women majors (Dynan and Rouse economics majors are satisfie
1997; Emerson, McGoldrick, and Mumford experience and think that it will
2012). for their careers. A 2010 survey of 1,072 eco
Several studies over time and from many nomics majors at both pu
institutions find no difference in the effect colleges and universities re
of female instructors on the proportion of percent of majors were ei
women who major in economics (Dynan and percent) or highly satisfied
Rouse 1997; Robb and Robb 1999; Fournier economics as a major, and
and Sass 2000; Rask and Railey 2002; Jensen were dissatisfied (Jones
and Owen 2001, Bettinger and Long 2005; likely reason for the high d
and Emerson, McGoldrick, and Siegfried tion is that most majors felt th
2014). Other factors such as mathematics knowledge they learned in
aptitude and quantitative course experience relevant to their prospective
have been studied, but once the analyses cent agreed). Also, when as
were conditioned on students enrolled in they learned from the majo
economics, none of the factors were found way of thinking came out on
to be all that important (Dynan and Rouse agreed), which is consisten
1997; Chizmar 2000). Difference in the sen- goal economists articulate fo
sitivity of males and females to grades in major (section 3.2).
What undergraduates who earn a bache and marketing, and 11 percent in insurance,
lors degree in economics do after they grad securities, real estate, and business services
(NCSES 2010).
uate is a mixture of pursuits. Although some
economics baccalaureates seek either an Research shows that majoring in eco
nomics affects earnings. Black, Sanders,
MBA or a law degree, about 3 percent enroll
in terminal masters programs in economicsand Taylor (2003) reported that economics
majors earn almost 20 percent more than
and about 1.5 percent or so matriculate into
an economics PhD program.6 The small per other majors in social sciences and about 10
centage of American economics majors who percent more than business majors. Allgood
et al. (2011) found that economics majors
continue their economics studies in graduate
school is a concern because it influences the compared with other majors were 14 per
future of the economics profession. More cent more likely to earn over $100,000 a year,
undergraduates who major in econom but they were also more likely to work more
ics might be induced to consider graduate than 50 hours a week. Carnevale and Cheah
work in economics if faculty undertook sys (2015) used a 2011-12 U.S. Census sample
tematically to involve them in real research and report that experienced workers 30 to
(Ehrenberg 2005). If this practice were 54 years of age who held only a social-sci
more common, more undergraduates would ence bachelors degree in economics earned
experience the thrill of answering a research a median salary of $83,000, which ranked
question, see the enjoyment faculty get from highest among all social science majors
conducting research, and observe what the (averaging $67,000) and was thirteenth high
life of an academic economist is like. The est among all majors. Similarly experienced
economics majors who enter the labor force workers with an undergraduate business
directly after graduation go into a variety economics degree earned a median salary
of occupations and industries. A survey of of $85,000, and it was the highest among
graduates with only a bachelors degree in 12 business majors (finance was next at
economics from 2000 to 2011 with vaiying $83,000). Carroll, Assane, and Busker (2014)
levels of work experience found 22 percent also used a 2009-10 U.S. Census sample and
in accounting, auditing, or bookkeeping, 14 reported that about two-thirds of the earn
percent in management, 11 percent in sales ings premium for economics majors is from
the type of job they perform and about one
third comes from what they earn over other
6 About 1,000 economics PhD degrees are awarded by
U.S. universities annually (NCES 2013, Table 325.92). employees in the same job. Lawyers who
Two-thirds of those who begin a PhD program even majored in economics as undergraduates
tually earn their degree (Stock, Siegfried, and Finegan tend to earn more than attorneys with other
2011), so about 1,500 new PhD students enter annually.
Roughly one-third of new PhD students are U.S. citizens
undergraduate majors (Craft and Baker
or permanent residents, who mostly attend U.S. colleges 2003).
or universities. A few international PhD students also earn
Majoring in economics or studying eco
their bachelors degree in the United States. Thus, about
500 graduates of U.S. colleges and universities enter U.S.
nomics at the undergraduate level affects
economics PhD programs annually. About 1,500 students behaviors and outcomes beyond just earn
enter masters programs each year. There is no tabulation of ings and work. Bauman and Rose (2011) con
the fraction of the masters students that is domestic, but we
suspect it is much higher than for PhD programs. If it is
firm the findings of Frey and Meier (2003)
two-thirds (double the PhD proportion), an additional 1,000 that economics majors are not as generous as
domestic bachelors graduates begin post-graduate study other majors. The reasons appear to be due
in economics annually, increasing the overall fraction who to selection rather than indoctrination from
study economics in graduate school to almost 5 percent of
the annual domestic crop of economics bachelors degrees. economics instruction. Allgood et al. (2011)
294 Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIII (June 2015)
show that college graduates with coursework and fewer than 30,000 graduating economics
in economics or who major in economics are majors per year, it is evident that only a
more willing to assume risk by investing in small fraction of principles students even
stocks, and at the same time are more pru tually become economics majors. About 42
dent in managing their use of credit cards. percent of all the students who matriculate
This outcome suggests that the study of at a college or university that offers a major
economics contributes to financial literacy, in economics take at least one economics
which can be an important advantage over a course (principles).7 Relatively more stu
lifetime, given the low level of financial liter dents take at least one economics course at
acy among most adults (Lusardi and Mitchell private economics PhD-granting universities
2014). (62 percent) and selective private liberal arts
colleges (46 percent) than at either public or
3.6 Principles Courses and the Major
other private institutions where a bachelors
Beyond offering a set of courses for is the highest degree offered (38 percent).
the economics major, the most significant The proportion of students taking econom
instructional contribution that economics ics at public masters and PhD institutions is
departments make to undergraduate educa between these extremes.
tion is to offer principles courses. They serve Principles courses are offered in different
several purposes. For economics depart combinations across institutions. In the 2012
ments, they are the gateway to the major UAQ survey, 84 percent offered a two-term
because they are the first economics courses principles of economics sequence and 37
students take beyond any high school eco percent taught a one-term combined micro
nomics instruction. The principles courses and macro principles course, implying that
are a recruiting ground for majors. About 21 percent of the institutions provided both
one-third of economics majors decide to options—a single principles course and
do so while taking a principles course and a two-semester sequence (Siegfried and
about two-thirds declare their major some Walstad 2014). The single-term course is
time after completing a principles course most common as the only option at private
(Mumford and Ohland 2011). Over half (52 selective liberal arts colleges, where 43 per
percent) of a sample of economics majors cent of the colleges report that they do not
reported selecting economics because "I did offer a two-semester alternative. Less than
well in early courses and found it interesting" 17 percent of other institutions rely solely
(Jones et al. 2009). Principles courses serve on a single-semester combined micro and
broad interests within a college or univer
sity. Other departments and programs such
7The estimate of 42 percent is from a sample of 43 per
as business administration, political science, cent of the approximately 792 colleges and universities that
environmental studies, and international offer a major in economics. The 792 institutions account
relations see value in economic education for 64 percent of full-time, first-time, degree-seeking
and thus require their students to take one undergraduates (NCES 2011). We do not have any data
on enrollments in introductory economics at the 636 four
or two courses in economics as part of their year institutions that do not offer a major in economics. If
requirements. This outside demand for eco no students at the remaining 36 percent of institutions take
nomics instruction rather than coursework an introductory economics course, the percentage of all
entering students who are exposed to a college economics
for an economics major, often justifies the course falls to 27 percent, but if everyone does, it rises to
resources allocated to economics within 63 percent. Our best guess is a slightly lower percentage
an institution. With over a million studentsapplies to this 36 percent of institutions, so that the overall
proportion of entering college students exposed to a col
enrolled annually in introductory economics, lege economics course is about 40 percent.
macro introductory course. Of the programs the student chooses the amount of effort to
offering a two-semester sequence, 30 per apply to the course given the decisions made
cent specify an order for the courses, with 86 by the instructor.8 The model provides a the
percent of them starting with micro. oretical context for understanding empirical
The value of undergraduates taking just findings that are sometimes inconclusive
a principles of economics course or a few or contradictory. The model of professorial
economics courses but not majoring in the behavior is based on work by Becker (1975),
subject, can have lasting effects for students while the model of student behavior is sim
because it develops their economic intuition. ilar to one in Krohn and O'Connor (2005).
Studies of college seniors, adults, and cor
4.1 Professorial Choice
porate employees who took an economics
course during their undergraduate studies Why do economics professors care how
show that everyone who took the course had students perform in their classes? Professors
significantly greater retention of economic may care about grades, student effort, and
knowledge compared with similar groups student learning because of a preference
who did not receive economics instruction for student well-being. Professors also may
while attending college (Walstad and Allgood care about these factors because of their
1999; Walstad and Rebeck 2002; Wood and impact on course evaluations (Love and
Doyle 2002). Undergraduates with some Kotchen 2010; Kanagaretnam, Mathieu, and
college economics coursework have higher Thevaranjan 2003) or they may wish not to
earnings and are more likely to engage be pestered by students (Franz 2010). We
in such civic behaviors as joining a politi are agnostic in this model about why profes
cal party and donating to one, but they are sors have preferences for particular student
not more likely to volunteer or vote, resultsoutcomes. We simply assume that professor
which are similar to those of undergraduate utility is a function of teaching output, i.e.,
students who majored in economics (Allgoodstudent learning, which is a function of some
et al. 2011; Allgood et al. 2012). measure of student grades, T(G). G is com
puted from the student's choice of grade and
is a function of the professor's chosen param
4. Faculty and Student Decisions:
eters of time spent on teaching, pedagogy,
Some Theory
and grading (t,ö, 7).
Research in economic education is largely Utility for an economics professor is
empirical and often focuses on the efficacy of u(T(G),R(r),C), where R(r) is research out
alternative pedagogies, class environments, put and C is consumption. Utility is increas
and the effects of grading schemes on stu ing in each argument. A professor's research
dent learning and behavior. Most studies, is a function of time spent on research r
however, do not provide a theoretical founda and consumption reflects income obtained
tion for why a change in a teaching practice from teaching and research and the value
or grading system affects student learning or of leisure to the professor. This structure
another outcome or how a student is likely is general enough to encompass professors
to respond to a change. Here we outline a who place an intrinsic value on teaching.
model of professorial and student choice that
incorporates the sequential nature of the
interaction between professor and student. 8 Love and Kotchen (2010) also model the professor
as explicitly accounting for student choice. Franz (2010)
A professor first decides on the course struc develops a model where student and professor engage in a
ture, such as the grading scheme, and then four-stage sequential game.
Similarly, research productivity can generate know with certainty whether it will improve
utility because researchers think their work student learning. This uncertainty can slow
is a contribution to their field. Given the adoption of a new pedagogy, especially for
constraints, the professor maximizes utility, faculty who are risk averse in their teaching.
and choices made by the professor incorpo Third, the teaching quality of instructors is
rate the expected response of students to the measured with error, which means that pro
faculty choices through the students' choices fessors who do not believe improved teach
ing will be valued or rewarded have less
of grades (G). The benefits of changes in
t, Ô, and 7 are the higher utility resultingincentive to adopt a new pedagogy. Such ele
from greater teaching output and higher ments, however, can be added to the basic
consumption from more income, assum model if they are important for understand
ing income is positively related to teachinging and interpreting empirical results.
output. Different choices of pedagogy and4.2 Student Choice
grading schemes require different amounts
of professor time, and more time spent on The student model assumes that the typ
ical undergraduate receives utility from
teaching has the cost of less time for research
and leisure. grades, learning, and how he or she spends
One implication from the model is thattime. Utility is u — w(G,K, S,l), where G,
faculty may adopt new pedagogy even if K, and S are vectors of grades, knowledge,
learning output is unaffected, or even if
and study time, and I is leisure, which in
learning decreases. A professor reallocatesthis case is time spent on other interests. A
time obtained from a cost-saving pedagogistudent maximizes utility by allocating avail
cal change (e.g., online instruction or autoable time to study in n classes and leisure,
graded homework) to research or leisure. Bu S; + l = T. The student converts study
In a setting where compensation is heav ing the subject matter of class i to knowl
ily weighted towards research, faculty willedge via an educational production function,
tend to choose a combination of (7,5) thatKi = /i(S{; th Si), where S{ is the time the stu
minimizes time spent teaching. Brickley dent spends studying for the class, tt is the
and Zimmerman (2001) show that when time a a professor devotes to teaching, and St
research institution increased the weight is the pedagogy, i.e., technology employed.
given to teaching relative to research for Grades are determined based on the level
making promotion and salary decisions, then of knowledge according to a grade function,
teaching evaluations increased and the num Gj = g (Ki; 7{), where 7 f reflects the profes
ber of working papers decreased. sors grading policy.9 This structure incorpo
This basic model, of course, abstracts from rates the fact that students may care about
a number of important elements of profes more than grades; they may care about how
sorial decision making and context. First, much they learn. It is possible that pref
the model only assumes variable costs, buterences over grades and knowledge may
in reality there are fixed "start-up" costs to
adopt a new pedagogy because the professor
would have to learn about the pedagogy and 9 7 in the educational production function and S in the
grade function could be treated as vectors to represent the
learn how best to use it. It is possible thatmany different choices instructors make. Furthermore, we
these fixed costs create a substantial barrier assume that how a student is evaluated does not directly
to adoption, although there is no empiri impact how much they know. That is, 7 does not enter the
educational production function. Changes to how a course
cal evidence to support this view. Second, is graded will impact knowledge by affecting how much a
professors adopting a new pedagogy do not student studies.
be course specific. Students in a required students react to the new graded homework
principles course may care only about their structure. If, however, homework grades are
grades, whereas economics majors in a field higher than exam grades, and homework
course may also care about how much they grades become a larger part of final grades
learn. The focus on grades, for both faculty relative to exams, then the student can earn
and students, reflects the common use of a higher final grade without learning more
grades as an outcome measure. or performing better on either homework
The students maximization problem can assignments or exams (g7 > 0).
be characterized as a time choice problem by A change in a parameter of the education
substituting all but the time constraint into production function is similarly analyzed and
the utility function. Maximizing utility sub- yields other insights about the use of study
ject to the time constraint yields the solution time. Equation (2) shows that a change in
for study time, St (tb 8b -)b T). The educational pedagogy can influence how much students
production function determines knowledge, study and how much students learn, holding
K* = /({Siit^Sf). The level of knowledge everything else constant (f$):
in turn determines the grade, Gt = g(fQ ; 7^.
If the student takes the professor's choices of dK* _ w dS* p 1 dG* _ t dK*
(t, 6,7) as given, the effects of changes in the dS, *s d5t an döt d5t
parameters 8 and 7 on study time and grades ■ ( dS* \
can be evaluated. Such comparative statics — gx(/s +7 <5
describe much of the research on student
outcomes and behavior conducted in eco- Even if fg > 0 and fls > 0, the effect of a
nomic education. change in pedagogy is ambiguous because
This student model has many implications students may choose to study more or l
for decisions made by the professor and on the course that introduces an impr
student reactions to them. Consider how a pedagogy.
change in a parameter of the grade function The basic model of student choi
affects grades and knowledge. extensions with the grade function that
explain why some pedagogical innovations do
q) dK* _ ridS* dG* _ i ridS* not yield better student outcomes. Stud
Ö7i s an 07; ~~&KJsd~/i ®7' may target earning a particular grade
course (say B or C) rather than trying to earn
If a professor changes how a class is graded, the highest grade possible. Allgood
this change does not directly change knowl- shows that if a student has a specific g
edge or learning. Instead, what changes is an target in a course with a pedagogical in
increase or decrease in the amount of study- vation (dGi/döi = 0), then dSjdôi
ing (effort), which in turn affects knowledge The grade reward for students also m
or grades. The change in grading scheme nonlinear and the grade incentives du
affects how a given level of knowledge is a course can change as students rea
converted to a grade (g7). If, for example, instructor feedback, two issues highli
a professor decides to change a course by in the work of Oettinger (2002). He hy
now grading homework assignments when esizes that letter grades create a non
in the past they were assigned but ungraded, relationship between studying and gra
it is not the act of grading homework that In this case the incentive to study is gr
increases student knowledge, but the for students near a grade cut-off, but di
increase in study time (if dS*/d7; > 0) as ent for students not close to the next high
grade because dGjdKi —> O.10 If students While it may seem logical that if student
behave strategically, his model predicts that attend class more they should earn higher
students should be clustered just above fixed grades, {dGjdA{ > 0), it is not necessaril
grade cut-offs. Using a sample of 1,200 prin the case. Students may substitute out-of-class
ciples of economics students, he found that study time for class attendance, which might
grades were clustered just above cut-offs, change the sign of OK^/dA{. Alternatively
especially As and D's. Oettinger also modi attendance time for class i may be take
fies his model to allow students to adjust their from some other class /. In addition, if grade
behavior in response to the grades they have are partially made a function of attendance
received. With this change, his model pre this is equivalent to a grade for input rathe
dicts that an increase in grade performance than output. The attendance portion of th
before the final exam will result in lower grade may lead to less time spent studyin
performance on the final exam, unless thereoutside of class and less learning because th
is a large random component to the grade. student can obtain the same final grade wit
Regression analysis showed that scores on lower performance on graded assignment
the final exam were higher the closer a stu and exams.
dent was to a grade cut-off, although the Further complications to the model t
effects were not large. In essence, a studentaccount for differences in student situations
within 1 percentage point of the nearestare topics for future studies. How much st
grade cut-off scored 1.4 percentage points dents learn from a course is a function of
higher on the final exam than a student who what students know on entering the class
was more than 4 percentage points from theand their innate aptitude for the subject. The
nearest grade cut-off. professor does not control this student input
Other aspects of student behavior related or preexisting condition, but it may affect
to course policy can be added to the studentthe relative effectiveness of different peda
model. For example, professors often aregogies. The problem is an intertemporal one
interested in increasing student attendancewhere a student chooses inputs in one period
in class because they think it will increase and the output is realized in a later period.
student learning. The education productionStudents may optimize multiple times while
function can be modified to include atten taking a course, as they receive new informa
dance as a separate argument from study tion about their performance in the course
time, Li = ft(S^A^t^ôi), where A{ is atten and handle pressures from other courses or
factors beyond school. Students also may
dance in class i and S, is then interpreted as
time spent studying outside of class. Studiesnot be fully informed about their personal
of attendance would be interested in the par educational production function and how it
tial derivative would work best for them. The grade func
tion also may contain errors because of inac
, dGi dgi dKi curate assessment or student responses to
y ' dAi dL, OA, grade incentives.
These additional factors suggest that time
preference and risk aversion may be import
ant in explaining student learning and may
be
10Oettinger (2002) assumes that students are grade worth including in learning models in
driven and that they do not receive any utility from learn
economic education. Of course, it is possible
ing independent of their grade. Utility from learning
that
would mitigate some of the role of these nonlinear grading students do not behave "optimally," as
incentives. this type of model would suggest. Grimes
Allgood et al. : Research on Teaching Economies to Undergraduates 299
(2002) finds that students in a principles of as discussion, classroom experiments, case

macroeconomics course are overconfident in studies, cooperative learning, assessment
their grade expectations, and he argues that techniques, writing-to-learn strategies,
"predictive miscalibration" may explain some context-rich problem solving, and experi
of the student dissatisfaction with introduc- ential learning (e.g., Walstad and Saunders
tory classes. As previously discussed, how- 1998; Becker and Watts 1998; Bergstrom
ever, the model and empirical results from and Miller 2000; Salemi and Hansen 2005;
Oettinger (2002) suggest that students are Becker, Watts, and Becker 2006; Salemi and
strategic in how they allocate their effort. Walstad 2010; Hoyt and McGoldrick 2012).
Student grades cluster just above grade Empirical research on the effectiveness
cut-offs, and they update in a rational way of different teaching methods is difficult to
in response to grades obtained during the conduct for a number of well-known reasons,
semester by studying more if grades on a First, the treatment has to require a sufficient
midterm are low and studying less if grades amount of instructional time and be well-ex
on a midterm are high. ecuted so there is a meaningful difference in
student experience using one method com
- .u ,. rji ,. ,. , pared with another. Second, investigations
5. Alternative teaching. Methods rr, rr , , , , 0 .
it, l. ° otten are anected by the nonrandom assign
andPractice, men( sludents ^ ^ ^
Economics courses are affected by the groups and there can be differential a
decisions that instructors make and other of students from groups. Third,
factors that influence the conditions under measures or their proxies, such as
which a course is taught. The instructor also grades, student evaluations, or en
has to select a textbook, if one is used, and subsequent economics courses, may
determine how to teach the class based on capture the effects of the treatmen
its size. A major decision is the selection of the implementation of a treatment
the primary teaching method, so it should by instructor within a college or uni
not be surprising that the use of alternative across institutions, causing proble
teaching methods, either to replace the tra- data are aggregated. Fifth, students
ditional lecture or in addition to it, is a topic to the treatment by deciding to tak
studied in economic education research. gains from a teaching innovation as
The usual reason for adopting alternative time spent on other courses or o
methods is to get students actively engaged Sixth, Institutional Beview Board (
in the learning process because a tradi- icies can restrict the collection of stude
tional lecture class is viewed as too passive and limit research control. Given th
a form of instruction. In addition to instruc- ties of designing a controlled com
tor decisions, departmental and institu- the challenging econometric issues
tional policies related to the weight given not be surprising that there has
to teaching in faculty evaluations, teaching ited amount of research on the eff
loads, teaching experience, and class sizes of different methods of teaching eco
may influence the use of different teach- despite the passionate advocacy for m
ing methods (Harter, Schaur, and Watts them.
2015). Over the past two decades, a num- _ „ ,
, ri i V ... , , , 5.1 Classroom Experiments
ber ot books and articles have been pub- r
fished that describe how faculty members The classroom use of e
can use interactive teaching methods such change in pedagogy that alter
production function (5), and as equation (2) reported that the achievement gains from
emphasizes, such a change may or may not using experiments varied across students
lead to measurable changes in outcomes or based on their learning styles, with learners
learning. Several careful studies that address who were multimodal or kinesthetic benefit
many of the empirical research complica ing the most and learners who prefer a read
tions listed above show positive results from write approach benefiting the least.
the use of experiments, but the effects can How course instruction is provided in
vary. Emerson and Taylor (2004) found that experiments or what students are asked to
the use of classroom experiments in micro do for the experiment also makes a differ
economics courses increased TUCE scores, ence. For example, using a wireless interac
but did not affect departmental exam scores, tive teaching system to conduct experiments
student evaluations, or student attrition. improves students' achievement in principles
Dickie (2006), too, concluded that the use classes, compared with students who only
of experiments increased TUCE test scores, discuss results from published experiments
but discovered, surprisingly, that adding a (Ball, Eckel, and Rojas 2006). Achievement
grading incentive to reward students for par gains are also greater when students have to
ticipation and success in the trading experi write a report on the experiment experience
ments moderated achievement gains. (Cartwright and Stepanova 2012). Equation
In an extensive study, Durham, McKinnon, (2) suggests that this pedagogical change can
and Schulman (2007) introduced experiments increase student learning by increasing stu
into both micro and macro introductory eco
nomics classes, and had control groups where dent effort (/syjy;j or by increasing learn
experiments were not used. Although assign ing given unchanged effort (flg). The result
ment to treatment and control groups was from Cartwright and Stepanova suggests that
not randomized, it was also not announced it is the additional effort from writing the
paper, and not the experiment, that matters.11
that the classes would be taught differently.
The analysis was conducted across semesters 5.2 Cooperative Learning and Peer Effects
to control for factors such as the time of day
for a course and class size. A total of sixteen There is widespread enthusiasm for coop
classes produced a sample of 750 students erative learning, in which students work in
in microeconomics and a sample of 830 stu small groups to achieve common objectives.
dents in macroeconomics. They analyzed the One reason instructors adopt this teach
effects of each experiment (eight in micro ing practice is to encourage collaboration
and five in macro) by including three specific and foster trust, which contributes to the
questions for each experiment on a test. The building of social capital (Algan, Cahuc, and
large sample sizes allowed them to measure Shleifer 2013). Cooperative learning and
overall treatment effects for the semester and peer effects imply that learning is a func
for each topic on which there was an experi tion of the effort and knowledge of other
ment. In addition, they were able to analyze students. In this strategic environment,
how those with different learning styles were students will choose how much effort to
affected by the experiments. In micro, they supply, given the effort and knowledge of
found that the treatment group performed their peers or those in their group who can
three percentage points higher overall, but
the treatment effects for separate topics
Hit may also be the case that students who know they
ranged from a high of thirty-nine percent have to write a paper on an experiment give more effort
age points to minus eleven points. They also during the experiment.
affect the outcomes. It is difficult to com- Some evidence is available that peer
pare studies of cooperative learning in eco- tutoring can be an effective way to increase
nomic education because there are many student achievement. Stock et al. (2013)
types of group activities, and how they are evaluated the effects of a recitation class for
conducted might affect the results and the an introductory economics course taught by
interpretation of peer effects. undergraduate peers who had experience
Strategic decision making by students and in upper-level microeconomics. They found
factors affecting research design or impie- that students enrolled in the treatment sec
mentation may explain why some of the tion earned higher grades and were less
empirical results from studies of coopéra- likely to drop the course, even though they
tive learning are only somewhat positive or were weaker students. Munley, Garvey, and
show no effect, depending on the outcome McConnell (2010) studied the effects of peer
measured. Johnston et al. (2000) measured tutoring across different subjects, including
the effects of collaborative problem solv- economics, and found that participation in
ing in learning economics in tutorials for such a tutoring program increased grades by
intermediate macroeconomics students a third of a letter grade if the student partici
and showed that although students liked pated for ten to twenty hours over the course
a collaborative activity, it did not increase of a semester,
either exam grades or interest in economics. _ „ „ ,. * ,
Yamarik (2007), too, investigated the effect
of cooperative learning in an intermediate The capacity to use technology to teach
macroeconomic course in a careful study and learn undergraduate economics has
that controlled for the endogeneity of atten- increased dramatically over the past few
dance. He found that students in the experi- decades, with one significant change since
mental group scored five to six points higher 2000: online instruction. Although in-class
out of a possible 200 points, but that there delivery of instruction still dominates at most
were no meaningful differences between institutions, online instruction is expanding,
the two groups on other outcomes such as as are hybrid or blended courses that use
attendance or student attitudes (interest, both in-class and online instruction. Unlike
preparation, participation). At the principles the decision to adopt interactive teaching
level, Marburger (2005) found that students methods, which is at the discretion of the
who worked in groups did a significantly bet- instructor, the decision to shift to online
ter job with a project on policy analysis than instruction is often made by administra
students in a lecture class, but there was no tors, with instructors then responding with a
difference between students in either type change in their pedagogy. Most studies focus
of class on a multiple-choice exam. Huynh, on how online instruction affects students,
Jacho-Chavez, and Self (2010) reported that but the use of different teaching methods for
the use of collaborative learning in a princi- online instruction has implications for fac
ples course with a grade incentive for vol- ulty too. The change in teaching time may
untary participation increased a students be large and one could not understand a pro
letter grade by a third. Moore (2011), ask- fessors choice without considering start-up
ing whether the way the professor formed costs, which may be substantial,
teams or the composition of small groups One important research topic is whether
influenced student achievement on exams students perform better in online courses or
in a principles course, concluded that peer in-class courses. Several studies that control
effects were weak. for student selection report that students
in online economics courses attained sig- in-class (Carter and Emerson 2012). A ran
nificantly lower test scores than students in domized study of a hybrid lecture course in
regular classes. Brown and Liedhold (2002) principles of microeconomics that used both
found that if principles students who chose a face-to-face and online instruction, corn
virtual class were placed in a live class they pared with a traditional lecture course using
would score 5.8 points higher (out of lOO). only face-to-face instruction, reported lower
Coates et al. (2004) reported that online achievement for hybrid students, but the dif
students in principles scored three to six ference was relatively minor (2.5 points on a
items lower on a thirty-three-item TUCE. 100-point scale) and there was no difference
After controlling for student selection into in attendance or withdrawal rates (Joyce
online and lecture courses Gratton-Lavoie et al. 2014). As for homework, Kennelly,
and Stanley (2009) also concluded that the Considine, and Flannery (2011), and also
effects of online instruction in principles are Hernandez-Julian and Peters (2012), found
either insignificant or negative. Taking intra- that the way a student completes a homework
ductory microeconomics online seems to assignment, either online or on paper, does
have a negative effect on achievement in a not affect their achievement on a particular
subsequent course (intermediate microeco- section of the exam related to that assign
nomics) (Pyne 2007).12 The negative results ment content.13 There also are no apparent
for online instruction in economics in terms differences on overall student achievement
of course grade and course persistence are based on whether homework was from an
consistent with those found in a more gen- online package and auto graded (Aplia)
eral comparison of online and face-to-face or was instructor assigned and instructor
teaching using a large sample of students graded (Lee, Courtney, and Balassi 2010).
across a variety of courses in thirty-four com- With respect to student evaluations of
munity colleges (Xu and Jaggars 2013). teaching, Avery et al. (2006) found that the
A related question is whether specific mean scores for online and in-class student
online or in-class teaching methods affect ratings were essentially the same, although
achievement or other outcomes. It is not the response rate was lower online. In their
clear from our model of student choice that investigation of in-class versus online experi
this pedagogical choice should matter. For ments, Carter and Emerson (2012) found no
example, experiments done in class rather effects on either course or instructor ratings,
than online should have the same impact on The use of new technology may or may not
student learning, unless there is some lost be beneficial to student learning depending
peer effect from conducting the experiments on how important of a change it is for students
online. Similarly, there is no reason to expect and how intensively they use it. Evidence
an online course to entice more or less effort from several studies shows that using
from students. Not surprisingly, the gen- technology to provide supplemental aids for
eral conclusion is that there is essentially student learning in traditional classrooms
no difference. There is no observed differ- does not have much effect on achievement in
ence in student achievement between stu- economics. Rankin and Hoass (2001) found
dents taught using experiments online and
l3Hemândez-Juliân and Peters (2012) also reported
that students who submitted homework online completed
12CaIafiore and Damianov (2011) found that the more assignments than students who completed them on
amount of time that a student spends online increases paper, but that students who submitted homework: online
student achievement, so they posit that we need a better had lower attendance, presumably because they did not
understanding of how the new technology is used. have to show up to class to turn in their homework.
Ällgood et al: Research on Teaching Economics to Undergraduates 303
that the use of PowerPoint slides in class did and also upper-division field courses. These
not alter student grades, student attitudes median estimates mask considerable variation
towards economics, nor teaching evaluations. in class size by type of institution and within
Harter and Harter (2004) reported that stu- institutions. The most variance is found
dents with access to optional online quizzes among principles courses. Some large public
perform no differently on a subset of final institutions often offer large lecture classes for
exam questions than students without access introductory economics, whereas more selec
to the quizzes. Savage (2009) showed that tive private colleges offer smaller classes,
students who use an information technol- Early studies of introductory-course class
ogy allowing them to record the lecture and size were almost unanimous in finding no
later download it do not perform better on influence on standardized examination test
the final exam than students without access scores as class size rises above a critical level
to this technology. These insignificant results of about twenty students (Kennedy and
may arise because the changes are not that Siegfried 1997), but more recent studies have
important and students could still learn the detected significant negative effects as classes
content in other traditional ways (note tak- become larger. Becker and Powers (2001),
ing, using study guides, or talking with other using TUCE data from many institutions,
students). In spite of the research results, the found that as class size increased, academi
use of PowerPoints and online homework cally weak students were more likely to drop
assignments are the more common changes the class. Arias and Walker (2004), in a study
adopted by instructors. These changes likely of student achievement at one institution
reflect the low startup costs, as well as the low with total exam points as the outcome mea
costs of use for these two technologies. sure, found a negative effect of large classes
. . „. (eighty-four to eighty-six students) com
as« ize pared with small classes (twenty-f
Whether class size is controlled by an ty-six students) on perf
instructor often depends on the nature of the of economics. Kokke
institution, faculty status, administrative deci- Christy (2008) used a
sions, and the role of the course in the cur- over twelve years in c
riculum. Instructors may have some influence within a highly selecti
over the size of the undergraduate class they They concluded that
teach through such factors as course difficulty, effect on student gr
the time of day a course is offered, and class- omies of scale, which
room location. Therefore, class size is a ped- rises from six to twent
agogical variable that can be as important as erate as class size incre
the selection of a teaching method in affecting forty students, and mino
student outcomes. Large class size is highly more than forty stude
correlated with certain pedagogy (lecture) and (2000) found that sm
grading schemes (multiple-choice exams), fewer students) taught b
and most studies do not account for these increased the likelihood
differences when evaluating the role of class subsequently take an
size on student outcomes. Watts and Schaur Finally, Bedard and
(2011) estimated that the median class size is that increasing class siz
forty-four students in introductory courses, on student evaluations
thirty students in intermediate courses, twen- Research indicates t
ty-five in statistics and econometric courses preferable to larger c
304 Jou rnal of Economic Literature, Vol. LUI (June 2015)
in smaller classes appear to learn more, impossible to reject the hypothesis that most
persist longer in a course, more frequently textbooks produce identical results in stu
enroll in subsequent courses or learn more dent learning" (p. 294).
in them, and give more positive instructor _ .. r. , „ , r
i .. r. h i i i 5.0 Benefits ana Costs of Alternative
and course ratings. Smaller classes also make v,j
it easier for instructors to use alternative ® °
pedagogical methods that actively engage Even if research studies sh
students. Whether a small class or large teaching methods are super
class takes more instructor time to teach is, the benefits are large, there
however, not obvious. Sometimes teaching a ulty member to adopt them
small class with time-intensive pedagogy and about the new innovation a
the grading of many written assignments can best to use it. There also
require more time and effort than teaching costs for students if the new
a large class that uses lecture and machine- them to spend more time on
graded multiple-choice tests. courses. Economists are traine
5 5 Textbooks during their graduate education,
most part, they receive little training in t
The selection of a textbook for an eco- ing or the use of different
nomics course is a choice variable for many niques (McCoy and Milkm
instructors. Past studies of achievement and Becker 2010). As class
in introductory economics found that the more effort is required to us
choice of textbook does not appear to mat- because there are more st
ter, probably because of the homogeneity (Svinicki and McKeach
in textbook features and content coverage How faculty perceive the
among the leading principles of economics teaching relative to time for
textbooks (Walstad, Watts, and Bosshardt rewards for teaching and
1998; Lopus and Paringer 2012). The same institution is likely to affect t
conclusion still holds true in light of more new teaching methods (Allgo
recent studies. For example, Tinkler and 2013).
Woods (2013) examined differences in the Because benefits of a teac
readability of principles of macroeconom- are usually uncertain and a
ics textbooks and concluded that "we were undoubtedly positive and o
not able to say which of the popular books adoption benefit-cost c
we studied is the most readable" (p. 188). the traditional lecture as t
This relative homogeneity also makes it dif- Adoption of an alternative
ficult to separate textbook differences from tion is likely to be more of
instructor effects. Some evidence to support supplement to traditional ins
this conclusion is found in a Canadian study evidence indicates that ther
by Pyne (2007), who investigated the effects tively minor adoption of int
of different introductory microeconomics methods in courses, in spite
textbooks on student achievement in subse- interest in them. The main
quent economics courses, and in particular from a replicated survey
in intermediate microeconomics and money assessment methods in econo
and banking. He concluded that while in ent types of institutions co
some cases the initial textbook had an effect 2000, 2005, and again in
in subsequent courses, "in most cases, it is Schaur2011).
6. Course Requirements and time mattered. Although the ordinary least

Student Behavior squares estimates indicated that one extra
hour of study time per day increased GPA by
Economics professors not only choose only 0.038 points, similar to the results from
course teaching methods, they also set most past research, the instrumental variable esti
of the course policies that students must mate showed that one extra hour of studying
follow to succeed. Grading and attendance each day increased GPA by a meaningful 0.36
polices have the potential to influence stu- points. They conclude that the difference
dent behavior such as study time. Course between the two estimates was the result of
expectations about the use of mathematics students altering effort during the semester
or quantitative reasoning can affect student in response to the grades they received, an
achievement. effect they call dynamic selection.
„ , In another study that addressed dynamic
6.1 Study lime and Crades , ,. ..in •
J selection m macro principles, Bonesrpnning
According to Babcock and Marks (2011), and Opstad (2012) foun
time devoted to academics by the average full- effort improves
time student has fallen from forty hours per time effect was
week in 1961 to twenty-seven hours in 2004. by Stinebrickner a
Our model of student behavior suggests that The authors hypot
the two routes by which this could happen is difference may be
if changes in teaching have greatly improved in samples and dif
the rate at which students convert study time studying for a gr
to knowledge or the rate at which study time studying in all co
is converted to a desired grade. The former all GPA. Swinton (2
presumes that studying increases knowledge from an institution
and grades and the latter implies grade infla- to report two grade
tion—or a change in the desired grade. effort and one for
Most early research found little significant effort grade was
relationship between study time and grades, tor based on their
but more recent evidence suggests a posi- students effort du
tive and significant link. Stinebrickner and factors as class atte
Stinebrickner (2008) estimated the causal The effort grade w
effect of studying on the GPA of freshmen tive and significan
using data obtained from a twenty-four- grade in all model
hour time diary kept by students at different Given that study
times during their first semester. Roommate to grades and that
assignments were random at the small liberal to higher grades,
arts college. Their strategy for identification grades, homework
was based on the notion that study differ- to improve stud
ences between otherwise similar students Babcock (2010) dev
would be due to roommate characteristics, ing that assumes tha
which they proxy with whether or not the function of study t
roommate brought a video game to college. tougher grading sta
They found no important differences in class students to increase
attendance or study efficiency between the standard where
two groups of students, but found that study deem the higher
give up, creating an ambiguous net effect on the effort induced by the graded homework
grades. He found that average student study assignment from the direct contribution
time is 50 percent lower in a class where the to learning that comes from the content of
average expected grade is an "A" compared the assignments (Trost and Salehi-Isfahani
to a class where the average expected grade is 2012). Are students doing better because
a "C." Because economics courses often have they are induced to study more, or do the
lower course grades than other disciplines, it assignments have incremental value even if
is possible that students are already allocat they displace an equivalent amount of study
ing a disproportionate amount of study time time in the same course?
to their economics classes.14 The effect of grades on behavior may result
Grade-motivated students with high dis from competition among students or con
count rates may need supplemental incen cerns about relative position in the grade dis
tives, such as graded homework, to study tribution. Bigoni et al. (2011) conducted an
when an exam is not imminent. To the extent experiment using 114 students in an under
that graded homework increases the quan graduate econometrics class in Italy in which
tity and quality of study time, it should lead students took an exam under three different
to more learning and higher grades. Students schemes. They found that the greatest stu
also may divert study time from other courses dent effort was generated in the most com
to complete a graded assignment, or divert petitive environment and the least amount of
time from other tasks in the same course, so effort was exerted in the cooperative scheme.
that total study time is unchanged. In this A model where student utility depends on
case, measured learning will not increase perceived own ability and competition can
unless the assigned homework has a higher provide feedback on ability relative to oth
marginal product of learning than what stu ers (Wang and Yang 2003). The theoretical
dents would otherwise do with that time. results suggest that low-ability students may
Grove and Wasserman (2006) found a pos supply less effort to avoid direct competition
itive relationship between graded homework and a negative assessment of their perceived
assignments and exam scores for students own ability. Tran and Zeckhauser (2009) told
in principles of microeconomics. Artés and students at a Vietnamese university how they
Rahona (2013) reported a similar result by ranked in a class based on their academic
randomly assigning students graded home achievement. This information created an
work assignments during an introductory incentive for them to do better in the class,
economics course and a public finance suggesting a relatively simple and low-cost
course. They found that students perform way to motivate students.
better on exam questions corresponding to Student risk aversion about grades might
the required graded problems and that the be harnessed to enhance academic achieve
effect was greatest for those in the bottom ment (Nalley and McKenzie 2011). A
third of the distribution, based on entrance risk-aversion strategy that an instructor might
exam scores. Grodner and Rupp (2013) use would be to assign homework problems
reported similar effects for graded home and grade only a randomly selected portion
work. It is difficult, however, to distinguish of them. The evidence about such a proce
dure indicates that students in a principles
course and a managerial economics course
14 In different circumstances, it could be the case that
do not alter their assignment behavior
low-ability students might put more study time into a hard
class to meet a minimum standard even if the marginal because of this change in grade risk (Miller
return to studying is low (Bonesrpnning and Opstad 2012). and Westmoreland 1998), perhaps because
the change is too small to be perceived Johnson (2006) found that grades and atten
as meaningful. When the risk incentive is dance in a principles course are positively
greater, student behavior may change. As related and part of the relationship stems
previously discussed, Oettinger (2002) pre- from the independent effects of effort and
diets that students decrease effort on their aptitude as reflected by GPA and SAT scores,
subsequent exam if their previous grade was They also discovered that missing many
high, unless the random component of the classes reduces student achievement on tests,
grade is large. Of course most instructors but poor test scores do not seem to create a
want to decrease the randomness in their feedback effect of discouraging future atten
grading rather than increase it. Increasing dance. Krohn and O'Connor (2005) ana
the random component is a high cost to pay lyzed aggregated data from teaching three
for mitigating the incentive to slack off after intermediate microeconomics courses and
a good performance on an exam. found that attendance was positively related
If students strategically respond to grade to the average points earned in the course
signals, it may be that they strategically for the semester, but it did not affect indi
respond to alternative grading schemes. A vidual exam scores, perhaps because there
common faculty practice is to allow students was less variability in attendance between
to retake exams or to drop low exam scores. exams than over the semester. Stanca (2006)
MacDermott (2013) compared the perfor- tackled the issue of unobservables by esti
mance of students in an intermediate mac- mating three different models to control for
roeconomics course using three classes with unobserved heterogeneity and reported that
different grading schemes: all three in-term attendance had a significant positive effect
exams given count towards the final grade, on achievement. Marburger (2001) showed
the lowest in-term exam score is dropped in that students who miss class on a day when
calculating the final grade, and students can particular content is taught were significantly
replace their lowest in-term exam score with more likely to get test items wrong about that
the score of a cumulative exam given the last content than students who attended that day.
day of class. He found that allowing students Lin and Chen (2006), however, found that
to drop their lowest in-term exam score the effect of day-of-attendance on corre
actually improved student achievement on sponding test scores diminishes when a con
the cumulative final exam by 4.4 percent- trol for the students overall, or cumulative,
age points, relative to counting all exams, attendance is included, but it is not obvi
but having students take an additional (i.e., ous why cumulative attendance attenuates
"make-up") exam to replace the lowest exam day-of-attendance effects. In yet another
score did not. One explanation he offers for study, Chen and Lin (2008) used a random
the dropping result is that the cumulative assignment experiment to estimate average
final exam in his class may have kept students attendance effects on students and found
from shirking. that attending class corresponded to a 9 to
„ _. . , 18 percent increase in scores.
6.2 Attendance 5,., , . . , . i ,i
Although empiri
There have been various attem
determine if either attendance or
dance policy itself affects studen
Most results indicate that those st
choose to attend class achieve m
after accounting for other facto
and study time may be substitutes, so that that for certain shapes of the learning curve
requiring greater attendance may lead to relating effort to grades, high-ability stu
less studying. Incorporating attendance into dents may have higher grades but lower
grades also alters how grades are computed marginal learning rates for a given level of
in a class, which may increase or decrease effort. In this case, high-ability students
overall student effort. Comparing student would have less incentive to respond to
achievement in economics courses taught pedagogical changes designed to induce
with and without such a policy, Marburger greater effort and learning.
(2006) found that although the expected Most studies have shown that verbal,
attendance gap developed, it had only a quantitative, or composite college entrance
small total effect on achievement by the examination scores (SAT, ACT) are pos
end of the course. A policy of requiring stu itively correlated with TUCE, course
dents scoring below the median on the mid examination results, and course grades in
term exam to attend class during the second introductory college economics courses
half of the course may improve achieve (Becker 1997; Siegfried and Walstad 1998).
ment even when controlling for other mea The quantitative or mathematics scores
sures of student effort (Dobkin, Gil, and seem to be especially important for both
Marion 2010). Self (2012) concluded that introductory economics and intermedi
a policy that punishes students for skip ate micro and macro theory course per
ping class, rather than one that rewards formance (Butler, Finegan, and Siegfried
students for good attendance, was more 1994; Siegfried and Walstad 1998; Arnold
effective in reducing absenteeism, but she and Straten 2012; Elzinga and Melaugh
did not investigate whether the difference 2009). Similar findings have been reported
in the attendance policy affected student for South Africa (Parker 2006), the Middle
achievement. East (Kherfi 2008), the Netherlands ( Arnold
and Straten 2012), and the United Kingdom
6.3 Mathematics Aptitude
(Lagerlöf and Seltzer 2009). The result
Many studies purport to relate math persists whether student self-reported or
ematics and verbal aptitude (or ability) to administrative data are used to measure
learning and understanding undergraduate mathematics preparation (Haley, Johnson,
economics at various levels, but unfortuand McGee 2010).
nately most of these studies confound apti Disentangling the effect of mathematics
tude with education or training. A student saptitude from mathematics training on learn
performance on such tests may reflect edu ing economics is difficult because students
cation (taking courses), effort or motivation, wbo are more likely to take a calculus course
and what might be considered natural aptiprior to taking economics generally have high
tude.15 Krohn and O'Connor (2005) suggest mathematics aptitude scores. Bosshardt and
Manage (2011) matched about 3,000 other
wise similar students in pairs that either took
15The "ability bias" problem pervades studies that or did not take a calculus course prior to eco
attempt to assess the effectiveness of education. At a more
nomics to separate the effects of precalculus
general level, Heckman and Vytlacil (2001) show that edu
cation and cognitive ability are so strongly related that theaptitude from learning calculus. They found
wage effects of the two cannot always be separated, eventhat both mattered, but mathematics apti
with large samples. In empirical terms, this means that the
tude dominated mathematics course taking.
effects of ability and schooling on earnings are all interac
tion terms, and no single variable effect, implying that it The effect of taking a calculus course was
may be futile to try to separate the effects. moderated substantially, once mathematics
aptitude was controlled by their matching learning introductory economics, Orlov and
procedure.16 Roufagalas (2012) found that the score on a
A few studies find that neither college-level more sophisticated three-question "cognitive
mathematics courses nor the score on a reflection test" (CRT) had a positive effect on
mathematics achievement test improvetest performance in upper-level economics
achievement in college economics (Cohn
classes. The CRT contains questions whose
et al. 1998; Parker 2010). These conflicting
apparent answers are incorrect, such as "A
bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs
results could reflect the fact that typical mea
sures of mathematics aptitude or achieve $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the
ment measure different quantitative skills.
ball cost?"17 The questions require reflection
Ballard and Johnson (2004) found that the
beyond the initial incorrect response, which
most important quantitative determinantthey
of argue is characteristic of many economic
principles performance was students' scores
problems studied in more advanced courses.
on the mathematics ACT college entrance
6.4 Cheating
exam. They also discovered that having taken
a calculus course, a remedial mathematics Cheating is often modeled like criminal
course, or a basic mathematics quiz eachbehavior with students who expect a higher
made independent contributions to explain
benefit being more likely to cheat and stu
dents who expect a higher cost being less
ing performance in introductory economics.
likely to cheat. Such a model predicts that
They showed that quiz questions pertaining
to basic concepts of arithmetic, algebra, and
students facing higher penalties from cheat
geometry were most important. In a similaring, or who perceive a higher probability of
vein, Schuhmann, McGoldrick, and Burrus detection, are less likely to cheat (Kerkvliet
and Sigmund 1999). These simple models,
(2005) found that basic quantitative skills,
however, ignore differences in the types of
such as being able to solve a system of equa
tions and compute a percentage, and being cheating. For example, students who cheat
on a take-home assignment may use cheat
able to interpret increases and decreases on
ing as a substitute for study time, but stu
a graph, contributed most to learning princi
ples of economics. Using pre- and post-test
dents who copy answers from other students
mathematics exams in an economics course, during an exam may have realized they are
they discovered that principles students not going to perform as well on the exam as
they expected even if they did study.
learn some pure mathematics, and the extent
of the mathematics learned contributes toResearch on cheating poses unique chal
the economics learned. lenges. Cheating behavior will be driven by
In contrast to the conclusion that basic attitudes towards honesty, which is an omit
mathematics skills are of greatest value forted variable for which there are likely to be
no good proxies. Magnus et al. (2002) found
that Russian students are the most tolerant
16 From a longer-term perspective, selection bias also
affects measures of the return to mathematics aptitude. of cheating and the least tolerant of those
Song, Orazem, and Wohlgemuth (2008) studied the return informing on cheaters, whereas the oppo
to postgraduate schooling from 1976 to 1998. It rose even site is the case for U.S. students. Although
faster (from 32 percent to 67 percent) than the return to
a bachelor's degree (25 percent to 45 percent) over the
studies using students from a single college
period. But the postgraduate return is understated because
bachelor's degree recipients with stronger mathematics
skills and weaker verbal skills are more likely to take a job l^The answer ($1.05 for the bat and $0.05 for the ball)
after receiving their bachelor's degree than to seek further is be found by solving a system with two equations and two
education. unknowns.
310 Jou rnal of Economic Literature, Vol. LIII (June 2015)
or university may not have the same degree faculty who will teach the course and another
of heterogeneity as can be observed by of which is future changes in teaching tech
cross-country comparisons, there still will be nology. Economics instruction also can be
unmeasured differences in attitudes towards influenced by how teaching is evaluated and
cheating that are difficult to proxy even in rewarded. Most colleges and universities rely
studies at individual institutions. There are on student evaluations of teaching and some
also types and forms of cheating that will use peer review of teaching as measures of
have different determinants and require dif- teaching effectiveness. Providing training
ferent policies to control. for economics faculty and graduate students
Perhaps of greater concern for research also can reduce the cost of becoming a better
on cheating is the difficulty collecting data, teacher and can increase teaching skills with
which has been done in many ways: asking alternative methods, thus changing the class
students if they cheated (Bisping, Patron, room pedagogy.
and Roskelley 2008); using random response _ . „ ... ,
/XT n it r , XT' i i * 7.1 leacher Composition and Change
surveys (rsowell and Lauter 1997; Kerkvhet ' °
and Sigmund 1999); surreptitious methods Economics m
(Nowell and Laufer 1997); or statistical meth- dents who ta
ods to infer that students cheat (Harmon and ics courses are u
Lambrinos 2008). Regardless of the data col- faculty. Teachi
lection method used, the results indicate that course assign
students do cheat and that efforts to raise the graduate course
cost of cheating lower the frequency of cheat- undergraduate e
ing. Attitudes towards cheating, however, also member for 2012
seem to be important (Bisping, Patron, and type in table 1.
Roskelley 2008) and universities and profes- There are pro
sors may be able to shape those attitudes. the teaching loa
The growth of online education and the institutions. Eco
greater difficulty of monitoring academic PhD-granting
honesty in these settings suggest there will tially fewer cours
likely be greater research in this area in the at other public ins
future. As Harmon and Lambrinos (2008) of that teaching
note, it may be possible with time constraints uate classes. The
and randomly selected exam questions to ics faculty teachin
offer unproctored exams that are not more institutions, re
susceptible to cheating than proctored exams. teaching at othe
Of course, the question of bow to deal with other outlier is
plagiarism and other forms of cheating in majors per econ
massive online courses with tens of thousands PhD-granting pub
of students may depend on new technology. student-to-faculty
at any other type of institution.
n rj, , r~, I j rr 7 • nomics professors, however, often receive
7. leacner Change and leaching , . r . r , ,
T,rc .. ° ° teaching assistance from graduate students
Effechvenes* who J wor]dng
The teaching of undergraduate econom- their large size, the
ics courses is affected by many factors, one institutions struggle t
of which is the composition of economics intensive of an educa
TABLE 1
Economics Faculty Course and Student Loads
Institution
Institution type
type Full time BA degrees Courses BA degrees per
(observations) faculty per year per year faculty member
Public PhD (71) 25.1 216.0 3.6 8.6
Public Masters (34) 14.0 40.8 4.9 2.9
Public Bachelors (74) 9.1 26.2 5.8 2.9
Private PhD (29) 29.7 126.7 3.4 4.3
Private Sel. Liberal Arts (65) 9.8 46.9 5.1 4.8
Private others (63) 6.2 20.7 6.0 3.3
Source: Supplemental data obtained from the 2012 UAQ of the American Economic Association.
economics majors as is found at selective A response to this situation is to change the

liberal arts colleges and other smaller insti- composition of the faculty who teach eco
tutions. On the other hand, the public PhD- nomics at these institutions by hiring more
granting institutions are generally more full-time faculty in nontenure-track positions
financially accessible than private colleges as teaching specialists under such titles as
and universities. lecturers, professors of practice, and clinical
University professors who teach and also professors. In 2011 the mean percentage of
are heavily involved in research often face full-time, nontenure-track faculty weighted
a trade-off between the two responsibili- by faculty size was 15 percent for the 83 top
ties, but economists may be especially sen- PhD-granting departments of economi
sitive to it. A study of faculty teaching at 7.3 percent for the top 189 national libe
PhD-granting institutions found that econ- arts colleges, and 11.8 percent for economic
omists allocated less time to teaching than departments at the top 107 regional masters
professors in other disciplines (mathematics, institutions (Ehrenberg 2012, p. 198). The
physics, political science, psychology, and percentages will likely grow as departments
business) and more time to research than all experience an increasing division of lab
but one discipline (physics), indicating that between research and teaching responsib
economists are more likely to consider the ities and colleges and universities seek
time cost of teaching (Allgood and Walstad control costs.
2013). Growing pressure for more research Increasing the share of full-time facul
from economists at almost all institutions who are hired based on teaching effectiv
is likely to adversely affect time devoted ness at PhD-granting institutions is likely to
to undergraduate teaching, adopting new improve instruction because these facult
teaching methods, or teacher training. are more likely to be dedicated teachers an
free of research obligations, and although innovations.19 The 1960s saw the introduc
they usually teach more courses per year tion of televised lectures. In the 1970s, it
than tenured or tenure-track faculty, their was mainframe computers and videotapes.
teaching loads are comparable to those of For the 1980s, it was the microcomputer. In
faculty at institutions that do not emphasize the 1990s, searching on the Internet rose to
research (Ehrenberg 2012). Evidence sup- prominence, while the 2000s brought large
porting this hypothesis comes from a study of scale adoption of laptop computers and
15,662 freshmen who entered Northwestern online instruction. Now in this decade we
University between 2001 and 2008. It found see the further expansion of online instruc
that students who took a first-semester course tion such as through Massive Open Online
from a nontenure-track faculty member with Courses (MOOCs) (Banerjee and Duflo
a longer-term relationship with the univer- 2014; Hoxby 2014; Cowen and Tabarrok
sity (not a temporary lecturer or part-time 2014) and the advantages and disadvantages
adjunct) were 7.5 percentage points more of smart phones in the classroom. This use
likely than those who had a tenured or ten- of technology is likely to lead to the democ
ure-track professor to take a second course in ratization of education (Acemoglu, Laibson,
the same subject, and earn a higher grade in and List 2014) and reduce educational costs
the subsequent course (Figlio, Schapiro, and (Ehrenberg 2012). How this new technology
Soter 2013). Adding full-time, nontenure- will affect teachers and how effective it will
track faculty at other types of institutions is be for improving student learning outcomes
likely to be more problematic because it will in undergraduate economics or other college
be difficult to attract talented teachers on a subjects is an ongoing research subject, as it
nontenure-track basis (Ehrenberg 2012). has been for new instructional technology in
The general topic of how full-time, nonten- higher education in past decades.20
ure-track faculty will affect the teaching of _ » n. , , „ , . rrn ,.
i , , y . ,.3 7.2 student Evaluations of leaching.
undergraduate economics merits further J ®
study across different types of institutions.18 At many colleg
The other major change to the teaching evaluations of tea
of undergraduate economics will come not a course are use
from faculty or students, but from technol- siderations in the
ogy. Instructors and students now have at quality of faculty,
their disposal technological tools for learn- that perpetually
ing inside and outside of the classroom. (Becker and Watts
Studying the effects of technology in the students think abou
teaching of undergraduate economics is an instructor. This
not new because each decade produces of whether student r
I8 Another issue is the use of part-time,19 For some

adjunct history, see Siegfried and F
instruc
Becker (1997);
tors in place of full-time tenured or tenure-track and Walstad and Saunders (199
faculty,
but it seems to be more important in professional fields
2°The uncertainty about the effects of
(e.g., business) than in economics, which may not employ
instructional technology is reflected in a sur
many part-time adjuncts. The overall evidence on that
presidents dif
of four-year colleges and unive
dents
ference is mixed, with Bettinger and Long (Selingo
(2010) 2014). It found that 81 perc
reporting
positive effects from adjunct instructors on encourag
presidents thought that hybrid courses (face
ing student enrollment in other courses in would
online) a fieldhave
and a positive impact on Ame
Ehrenberg (2012, pp. 200-201) reviewing findings
education that
in the future, but only 2 percent g
first-year persistence rates and graduation ratesfor
response decreased
MOOCs and 52 percent thought
when students were taught by adjunct instructors.
have a negative impact.
are sufficiently accurate to provide useful course, and, among those students who
information. The answer is yes for two rea- do, not all submit a SET (often because of
sons. First, SETs provide a regular and large absences). SETs are biased upward because
stream of convenient data for researchers to students who do better in a course or who
investigate, so it should not be surprising that are more committed to a course are more
SETs are one of the most studied topics in likely to complete a SET (Kherfi 2011).
economic education. Second, the aggregation Consequently, economics instructors read
of findings across studies reveals some fairly ing their SET ratings may think they are
consistent insights regarding what affects stu- better teachers than they really are. This
dent opinions of teaching. Regardless of their upward bias may explain why SET scores are
validity, SETs are relevant if they impact fac- often above average on a typical scale such
ulty behavior. If faculty compensation is tied as 1 to 5. Studies using SETs show that they
to SETs, or if faculty review them to see what can be influenced by a personal characteris
works and what does not work, then they tic that may or may not be related to teaching
alter the costs and benefits faculty face when productivity, such as the appearance of the
choosing how to teach and how much time to instructor (Hamermesh and Parker 2005),
devote to teaching. gender, race, and age (McPherson, Jewell,
Studies in the 1980s and 1990s found and Kim 2009; Kherfi 2011), or proficiency
that SET scores were influenced by student with the English language (Finegan and
perceptions of instructor characteristics or Siegfried 2000). SETs also typically are no
actions such as enthusiasm, clarity of pre- reported to faculty or administrators in a way
sentation, organization, signaling (using oral that permits them to be used meaningfully,
statements to draw attention to an upcom- such as whether an individual faculty mem
ing point), ability to explain material, skill in ber's SET score is significantly different from
answering questions, questioning and prob- the department average or from the average
ing to maintain active student involvement, of similar departments with tougher gradin
accepting students' ideas, rapport with stu- standards (McCullough and Radson 2011).
dents, and "fair" grading practices (Siegfried ,, „ , , _ ,
,. . or , . i. . 7.3 Effective leacners and Grades
and Walstad 1998). More recent studies rem- JJ
force the earlier findings. Organization and Perhaps the most controversial iss
clarity still seem to be the most important related to SETs is whether they can be used
attributes of effective economics instructors identify more effective teachers. Weinbe
from the students' perspective (Boex 2000), Hashimoto, and Fleisher (2009) showed th
and SETs still are affected by student percep- while SETs and grades from the same e
tions of teacher qualities such as preparation, nomics course are positively related, SE
clarity, interest in students, "fair" grading were unrelated to learning in subseq
procedures, and recognizing when students courses once current grades were control
do not understand the content (Ragan and Their research casts doubt about the v
Walia 2010). The general conclusion from of high SETs for identifying effective
research on SETs is that student opinions are ers in economics, and is consistent with
largely influenced by what instructors do in findings from a controlled study of calcu
the classroom or for the course. Such actions professors and student learning in calcu
are generally considered to be good teaching courses (Carrell and West 2010).
practices that should be encouraged. SETs are often used to evaluate facu
SETs are subject to sample selection for salary, tenure, or promotion decision
bias because not all students complete a provoking the criticism that instructor
"buy" higher student ratings through some personnel decisions, they can be more or less
type of manipulative practice such as award- excised. Although a number of schemes have
ing higher grades. On this issue, Isely and been proposed over the years to adjust SET
Singh (2005) found that economics students scores for such unwanted influences (e.g.,
who expected to receive higher grades in Becker 1999; Ragan and Walia 2010) , appar
a class were more likely to give generous ently few department or university admin
teaching ratings. Controlling for unobserved istrators are willing to use such adjustment
course-specific, instructor-specific, and schemes because the adjustments them
semester-specific effects, McPherson (2006) selves can generate criticism. If either raw or
also found evidence that instructors can con- adjusted SETs are used for faculty evaluation,
taminate SET scores by raising grade expec- they must be interpreted in clear recognition
tations. In a broader study using data across that they only measure students' opinions or
fifteen different disciplines, Matos-Diaz perceptions, but are not necessarily accu
(2012) concluded that adjusting academic rate measures of teaching effectiveness. In
standards to raise the expected grades of stu- view of these criticisms, it is surprising that
dents could be used to increase SET ratings SETs continue to be used as the primary
and enrollments. When Wellesley College required measure of teaching effectiveness
lowered grades in high-grading humanities in economics departments at almost all col
and social science departments, average SET leges and universities (Becker, Bosshardt,
ratings of instructors in the affected depart- and Watts 2012). The inertia (which itself is
ments all declined (Butcher, McEwan, and a topic worthy of more research) is probably
Weerapana 2014). due to the lack of a widely accepted alter
Economic theory demonstrates that the native that is as efficient to use on a regu
mixed empirical findings can be explained basis as SET scores.
by accounting for the behavioral responses - . ,. . , r _ ,,
r . j . i r ta , 7.4 Alternative Assessment of bacultu
ot students and proiessors. Kanagaretnam, , . J J
c I Pfif*niYi o
Mathieu, and Thevaranjan (2003) showed ■

that whether SETs are manipulated by pro- Along with SETs, another way to evalu
fessors through "soft grading" depends on ate teaching effectiveness is peer review, in
the emphasis given to SETs within an institu- which a designated faculty member evalu
tion. When the emphasis is low or moderate, ates the teaching practices of another faculty
professors are less constrained by SETs and member. In its simplistic form, peer review
can use a strict grading policy that does not includes classroom visits and consideration
foster grade inflation; but when emphasis is of course syllabi, SET scores, and other
high or excessive, professors may respond teaching materials from an instructor. This
with inflated grades. Another model draws information is used to prepare an évalua
ble similar conclusion that more reliance tion statement by one faculty member about
on SETs for evaluating teaching increases the teaching of another faculty member. In
the likelihood of grade inflation and can a more complex form, peer review might
decrease faculty teaching effort (Love and require an instructor to prepare and submit a
Kotchen 2010). detailed teaching portfolio documenting his
If factors affecting SETs such as grade or her teaching work. The portfolio would
inflation, selection bias, variations in class include items like course syllabi, descriptions
size, and particular differences in the char- of teaching materials, video examples of
acteristics of faculty or courses are deemed teaching, samples of assignments and exams,
inappropriate influences on SETs used for data on course grade distributions, SETs,
Attgood et al.: Research on Teaching Economies to Undergraduates 315
letters from students, and a written state- strategies and instead are likely to rely on
ment of teaching philosophy and teaching lecture because it is the method used most
innovations. The teaching portfolio provides often in their graduate courses,
a broader array of evidence for judging the The history of providing teacher educa
teaching contribution of an instructor. tion and pedagogical resources for econom
Peer assessments, in either simple or com- ics instructors shows that it is more effective
plex form, are time-consuming to conduct, when the teaching staff or the developers are
relative to using SETs, and so are usually economists who have expert knowledge of
reserved for major decisions such as tenure both economics and education because it is
or promotion. They are used in some form difficult to demonstrate how different meth
at only 54 percent of institutions (Becker, ods can be used to teach a wide array of eco
Bosshardt, and Watts 2012). Peer reviews, nomic content (Goodman, Maier, and Moore
too, can be subjective and imprecise mea- 2003; Salemi 2003; Salemi and Walstad 2010;
sures of teaching as indicated by several Maier, McGoldrick, and Simkins 2012). A
questions that must be confronted to con- key advantage of teacher training programs
duct them properly. Who is qualified to do and related resources is that they reduce the
the peer evaluation? What are the criteria for time cost for economics instructors to learn
writing the assessment? What is the standard how to use new pedagogical techniques,
for comparison? Nevertheless, peer reviews thus making the adoption of new teaching
of teaching have the significant advantage of methods relatively more attractive from a
considering context of teaching inputs and benefit-cost perspective,
outcomes that extend beyond just student One comprehensive example is the
opinions as reported on SETs. Peer review Teaching Innovations Program (TIP) in eco
also generally is acceptable to most faculty nomics conducted over a six-year period for
members because it is used to evaluate fac- 335 economics professors, funded by the
ulty research, so in this respect, the practice National Science Foundation (Salemi and
as applied to teaching is familiar to faculty. Walstad 2010). In its first phase, economics
Tl, „1 rrr , „ . . instructors attended a residential workshop
7.5 1 he Value ot leacher Training , , . . , . 1
J ° to learn now to use interactive teaching
New PhD economists typically receive methods as an alternat
limited teacher training as a part of their the traditional lect
graduate education. About half of the eco- consisted of a voluntar
nomics departments that permit graduate instruction and men
students to teach their own courses require nomics instructors us
no formal departmental training in teaching in their classrooms.
(McCoy and Milkman 2010; Walstad and participants an opport
Becker 2010) and almost half of economics the scholarship of
graduate students report that they received making conference p
no preparation for teaching (McGoldrick, papers about their p
Hoyt, and Colander 2010). As a result, grad- Evidence of the v
uate students and new PhD economists affecting teaching co
often begin their teaching careers with inad- nal survey administe
equate knowledge of fundamentals such as one to four years af
course design, principles of effective presen- (Walstad and Salemi
tation, and assessment of student learning. 95 percent of the part
They also may not know about interactive the program improved
asked to cite what changed, they identified: almost two decades ago. Since then, several
(1) learning how to use interactive teaching hundred relevant research studies have been
techniques (87 percent); (2) engaging more completed. We also have more information
students in the learning process (79 per- about the short-term and long-term effects
cent); and (3) becoming more motivated to of majoring in economics or taking eco
teach (56 percent). nomics courses. Our purpose in this review
Concerns, too, have been raised about was to survey the recent literature and offer
how the increasing number of new PhD insights about the status of the teaching and
economists and graduate student teaching learning of economics in the undergraduat
assistants (TAs) who are foreign and nonna- curriculum. We specifically prepared the
tive English speakers may affect the quality review so that it would be of value to ac
of undergraduate education because these demie economists who teach undergradu
instructors may have trouble communicating ates and want to know more about it beyond
with students and be less comfortable with their personal perspective or experiences
interactive teaching methods (Ehrenberg and also to administrators who are respon
2004). Borjas (2000), in an early study of the sible for managing courses and curricula in
issue, concluded that foreign-born TAs had economics departments,
an adverse effect on the learning of under- Most academic economists teach under
graduates in principles courses. Based on graduate courses either for majors, o
an analysis of their teaching skills, he con- more broadly for undergraduates taking
eluded that ". . . additional class preparation principles or other economics courses
may resolve the teaching difficulties encoun- or they have taught such courses during
tered by foreign-born TAs." (Borjas 2000, their careers. This connection with under
357). Fleisher, Hashimoto, and Weinberg graduate teaching, in combination with a
(2002) controlled for the teaching skills of natural curiosity about what is happening
foreign-born TAs at a large public univer- inside and outside of the classroom, may
sity where all such TAs participated in a lead them to conduct a research study in
one-term graded seminar on teaching meth- economic education. In this research pro
ods in economics that was taught by a senior cess, an economist identifies an interesting
faculty member. They found no evidence pedagogical or learning question, secures
that foreign TAs adversely affected either data on students, and then analyzes the data
student grades or whether or not students using econometric methods to control fo
enrolled in a subsequent economics course, rival hypotheses. This scientific approach
although students gave the foreign-born to the study of questions about the teach
TAs lower teaching evaluations. We know ing and learning of economics has advanced
little, however, about how new PhDs who research in economic education, perhaps
are nonnative English speakers perform in to a greater extent than the study of teach
undergraduate courses, the value of teacher ing in most other disciplines. What is most
training for this group, and what effects their impressive, and should be emphasized as a
increasing numbers will have on the teaching major concluding point, is that the ernpir
of undergraduate economics. ical studies surveyed in this review come
from academic institutions ranging from
Conclusion PhD-granting research universities to small
private liberal arts colleges, reflecting the
The last JELurvey
survey
on tfon the teaching of broad interest among academic economists
undergraduate economics was published in undergraduate teaching.
The economics major and the teaching of by most undergraduate economics majors
economics are central to the undergradu- after graduation. Adults in the labor force
ate curriculum at most colleges and univer- who majored in economics earn more than
sities. Students are more likely to major in those with business or other majors, although
economics than they are in other quantita- they may work more hours to achieve those
tive subjects such as mathematics, statistics, earnings. Their economic education also
chemistry, or physics. The combination of seems to influence both their willingness to
verbal and quantitative skills developed by assume risk in later life and their prudence in
studying economics make it attractive as a managing personal household finances,
double major for those students who have The theoretical framework economists use
selected other popular majors such as busi- more generally is valuable for thinking about
ness or a natural science. Economics is also teaching and learning in the classroom,
important for nonmajors. About 40 percent Economics professors make many instruc
of all undergraduates take at least a prin- tional choices that set course parameters,
ciples course and a large fraction enroll in They select the teaching methods used in the
other economics courses to enrich their classroom, whether it is passive lectures or
understanding of public finance, labor, interactive classroom experiments or cooper
health, international trade, and other topics ative learning. Class size can factor into these
studied by economists. decisions because it influences the teaching
The coursework for the economics major time cost for an instructor and the perceived
has not changed substantially since 1980, effectiveness of different teaching methods,
with most institutions requiring the same Instructors choose the learning technology,
set of ten courses (two principles, two inter- be it just the textbook or extensive use of
mediate theory, statistics or quantitative online instruction. They set course require
analysis, and five electives). The number of ments in terms of assigned homework, the
institutions requiring a course in economet- number of exams, and attendance and cheat
rics has increased substantially, suggesting ing policies. During the course, students
the growing importance of technical rigor in make choices too, given the course parame
the discipline and the value of numeracy in ters, on how much time to study, how often
the workplace. A decrease in the number of to attend class, and how to react to the grad
programs requiring a course in money and ing scheme of the professor,
banking reflects waning interest in particular Both professors and students allocate time
topical coverage. Despite these changes in to a course, professors to teaching and stu
coursework, the general goal for the econom- dents to learning. How much time gets allo
ics major has remained the use of economics cated depends on individual preferences and
concepts to show students how to think like choices. A professor may adopt a new peda
an economist. Students who major in eco- gogy (e.g., auto-graded homework or a new
nomics also recognize this goal as primary. textbook) even if it does not increase student
The short- and long-term outcomes from learning because it saves instructional time
the major are positive. Undergraduates who that can be reallocated to research or leisure,
earn a degree in economics are generally Similarly, if an economics instructor adopts
satisfied with their major choice. This major a new teaching technology that makes learn
serves as a flexible springboard to future ing economics more efficient for students,
pursuits, whether it be a professional degree they may reallocate the recovered study
(MBA or law), graduate study in economics, time to other courses or leisure. As a result,
or an employment option, which is selected an empirical study of the effects of the new
technology may find no change in student becomes a substitute for out-of-class study
learning of economics. time, the policies may not be effective. And if
This review of the empirical studies offers a change in course policy causes students to
some tentative conclusions about particu- substitute study time in economics for study
lar topics. Although there are too many to time in other disciplines, our colleagues in
summarize here, some are worth noting to history, math, and political science may be
illustrate the range. The evidence on the use less enthralled with our clever teaching tac
of classroom experiments and cooperative tics than are we economists. Some students
learning shows consistent positive effects on avoid studying and the grade consequences
student achievement, but for other teaching through cheating, which seems to be driven
methods the research is either too limited by student attitudes that universities or pro
or the results too ambiguous to draw defin- fessors can influence by increasing the prob
itive conclusions. Teaching an economics ability of detection and consequent costs,
course online instead of face-to-face seems The composition of faculty is likely to
to have a negative effect on student learn- change in the future because of the addi
ing, but there appear to be no learning dif- tion of more nontenure-track faculty,
ferences when online technology is used to Technological forces also will likely alter the
replace in-class methods for such activities delivery of economics content and teaching
as classroom experiments and homework. methods. We do not yet know, however, the
Students appear to benefit significantly from specific ways in which these personnel and
being taught in small classes, based on such technological innovations will affect eco
outcomes as achievement and persistence in nomics instruction in the future,
enrolling in subsequent economics courses. Finally, we considered teaching effective
The choice of a textbook for most princi- ness—how it is measured and what can be
pies or intermediate courses probably is done to improve it. Higher education in gen
inconsequential for learning because of the eral, and economics in particular, does a poor
similarities in content coverage and peda- job of assessing teaching by relying so heav
gogy found in most textbooks. ily on student evaluations. Although SETs
Student behavior contributes to student provide information about what students
learning, which may seem obvious, but the think about their economics instructors,
more important question is how. Perhaps they are a poor measure of student learning,
the most effective way that professors can Unfortunately, the alternatives to SETs are
increase student learning is to figure out more time-consuming and they, too, are sub
ways to increase student study time or effort jective. One direct way to improve under
because of the strong positive relationship graduate economics instruction is to provide
found between study time (effort) and eco- teacher training for graduate students and
nomic knowledge or grades. Yet it is chal- young faculty members, but it can be costly
lenging to decide what to do. For example, and the incentives to participate are murky,
adopting a tougher grading scheme that An ongoing development that may boost
requires greater effort may have a differ- teaching quality in some economics depart
ential effect on high-ability students (study ments is the hiring of more full-time teach
more to get a good grade) and low-ability stu- ing specialists.
dents (study less because it is futile). Policies There are many opportunities for fur
designed to increase class attendance may ther study of issues described in this survey
improve student grades if they induce stu- as well as other topics related to econom
dents to study more; but if attendance ics teaching and learning that may come to
mind as economics instructors engage in Principles of Economics Classes: Using Our WITS."
American Economic Review 96 (2): 442-46.
classroom instruction. We encourage such
Ballard, Charles L., and Marianne F. Johnson. 2004.
investigations to advance our understand "Basic Math Skills and Performance in an Introduc
ing of economic education in colleges and tory Economics Class." Journal of Economic Educa
universities. tion 35 (1): 3-23.
Banerjee, Abhijit V., and Esther Duflo. 2014. "(Dis)
organization and Success in an Economics MOOC."
References American Economic Review 104 (5): 514-18.
Bauman, Yoram, and Elaina Rose. 2011. "Selection
Acemoglu, Daron, David Laibson, and John A. List. or Indoctrination: Why Do Economics Students
2014. "Equalizing Superstars: The Internet and Donate the Less than the Rest?" Journal of Economic
Democratization of Education." American Economic Behavior and Organization 79 (3): 318-27.
Review 104 (5): 523-27. Becker, William E. 1975. "The University Professor
Algan, Yann, Pierre Cahuc, and Andrei Shleifer. 2013. as a Utility Maximizer and Producer of Learning,
"Teaching Practices and Social Capital." Ameri Research, and Income." Journal of Human Resources
can Economic Journal: Applied, Economics 5 (3): 10 (1): 107-15.
189-210. Becker, William E. 1997. "Teaching Economics to
Allgood, Sam. 2001. "Grade Targets and Teaching Undergraduates ."Journal of Economic Literature 35
Innovations." Economics of Education Review 20 (5):(3): 1347-73.
485-93. Becker, William E. 1999. "Turning Merit Scores into
Allgood, Sam, William Bosshardt, Wilbert van der Salaries." Journal of Economic Education 30 (4):
Klaauw, and Michael Watts. 2011. "Economics 420-26.
Coursework and Long-Term Behavior and Experi Becker, William E., William Bosshardt, and Michael
ences of College Graduates in Labor Markets and Watts. 2012. "How Departments of Economics Eval
Personal Finance." Economic Inquiry 49 (3): 771-94.uate Teaching." Journal of Economic Education 43
Allgood, Sam, William Bosshardt, Wilbert van der(3): 325-33.
Klaauw, and Michael Watts. 2012. "Is Economics Becker, William E., and John R. Powers. 2001. "Stu
Coursework, or Majoring in Economics, Associateddent Performance, Attrition, and Class Size Given
with Different Civic Behaviors?" Journal of EcoMissing Student Data." Economics of Education
nomic Education 43 (3): 248-68. Review 20 (4): 377-88.
Becker, William E., and Michael Watts. 1998. Teaching
Allgood, Sam, and William B. Walstad. 2013. "How
Economists Allocate Time to Teaching and
Economics to Undergraduates: Alternatives to Chalk
Research." American Economic Review 103 (3):and Talk. Cheltenham: Elgar.
654-58. Becker, William E., and Michael Watts. 1999. "How
Arias, J. J., and Douglas M. Walker. 2004. "Additional Departments of Economics Evaluate Teaching."
Evidence on the Relationship between Class Size American Economic Review 89 (2): 344-49.
and Student Performance." Journal of Economic Becker, William E., Michael Watts, and Suzanne R.
Education 35 (4): 311-29. Becker. 2006. Teaching Economics: More Alter
Arnold, Ivo J. M., and Jerry T. Straten. 2012. "Motiva natives to Chalk and Talk. Cheltenham, U.K. and
tion and Math Skills as Determinants of First-Year Northampton, Mass.: Elgar.
Performance in Economics." Journal of EconomicBedard, Kelly, and Peter Kuhn. 2008. "Where Class
Education 43 (1): 33-47. Size Really Matters: Class Size and Student Ratings
Artés, Joaquin, and Marta Rahona. 2013. "Experimen of Instructor Effectiveness." Economics of Education
tal Evidence on the Effect of Grading Incentives on Review 27 (3): 253-65.
Student Learning in Spain." Journal of EconomicBergstrom, Theodore, and John H. Miller. 2000. Exper
Education 44 (1): 32-46. iments with Economic Principles: Microeconomics,
Avery, Rosemary J., W. Keith Bryant, Alan Mathios, Second edition. New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Hyojin Kang, and Duncan Bell. 2006. "ElectronicBettinger, Eric P., and Bridget Terry Long. 2005.
Course Evaluations: Does an Online Delivery Sys "Do Faculty Serve as Role Models? The Impact of
tem Influence Student Evaluations?" Journal of Eco Instructor Gender on Female Students." American
nomic Education 37 (1): 21-37. Economic Review 95 (2): 152-57.
Babcock, Philip. 2010. "Real Costs of Nominal Grade Bettinger, Eric P., and Bridget Terry Long. 2010. "Does
Inflation? New Evidence from Student Course Eval Cheaper Mean Better? The Impact of Using Adjunct
uations." Economic Inquiry 48 (4): 983-96. Instructors on Student Outcomes." Review of Eco
Babcock, Philip, and Mindy Marks. 2011. "The Falling nomics and Statistics 92 (3): 598-613.
Time Cost of College: Evidence from Half a Century Bigoni, Maria, Margherita Fort, Mattia Nardotto, and
of Time Use Data." Review of Economics and Statis Tommaso Reggiani. 2011. "Teams or Tournaments?
tics 93 (2): 468-78. A Field Experiment on Cooperation and Competi
Ball, Sheryl B., Catherine Eckel, and Christian Rojas. tion among University Students." Institute for the
2006. "Technology Improves Learning in Large Study of Labor Discussion Paper 5844.
Bisping, Timothy O., Hilde Patron, and Kenneth Ros Chen, Jennjou, and Tsui-Fang Lin. 2008. "Class Atten
kelley. 2008. "Modeling Academic Dishonesty: The dance and Exam Performance: A Randomized
Role of Student Perceptions and Misconduct Type." Experiment." Journal of Economic Education 39 (3):
journal of Economic Education 39 (1): 4—21. 213-27.
Black, Dan A., Seth Sanders, and Lowell Taylor. 2003. Chizmar, John F. 2000. "A Discrete-Time Hazard Anal
"The Economic Reward for Studying Economics." ysis of the Role of Gender in Persistence in the Eco
Economic Inquiry 41 (3): 365-77. nomics Major." Journal of Economic Education 31
Boex, L. F. Jameson. 2000. "Attributes of Effective (2): 107-18.
Economics Instructors: An Analysis of Student Eval Coates, Dennis, Brad R. Humphreys, John Kane, and
uations." journal of Economic Education 31 (3): Michelle A. Vachris. 2004. '"No Significant Distance'
211-27. between Face-to-Face and Online Instruction: Evi
Bonesrpnning, Hans, and Leiv Opstad. 2012. "Howdence from Principles of Economics." Economics of
Much Is Students' College Performance AffectedEducation Review 23 (5): 533-46.
Cohn, Elchanan, Sharon Cohn, Richard E. Huit, Jr.,
By Quantity of Study?" International Review of Eco
nomic Education 11 (2): 46-63. Donald C. Balch, and James Bradley, Jr. 1998. "The
Borjas, George J. 2000. "Foreign-Born Teaching AssisEffects of Mathematics Background on Student
tants and the Academic Performance of UndergradLearning in Principles of Economics." Journal of
uates." American Economic Review 90 (2): 355-59. Education for Business 74 (1): 18-22.
Bosshardt, William, and Neela Manage. 2011. "Does
Cohn, Elchanan, and Eric Johnson. 2006. "Class Atten
Calculus Help in Principles of Economics Courses?dance and Performance in Principles of Economics."
Estimates Using Matching Estimators." The Ameri Education Economics 14 (2): 211-33.
can Economist 57 (1): 29-37. Colander, David, and KimMarie McGoldriek. 2009.
Brickley, James A., and Jerold L. Zimmerman. 2001."The Economics Major as Part of a Liberal Edu
"Changing Incentives in a Multitask Environment: cation: The Teagle Report." American Economic
Evidence from a Top-Tier Business School ."journal Review 99 (2): 611-18.
of Corporate Finance 7 (4): 367-96. Cowen, Tyler, and Alex Tabarrok. 2014. "The Industrial
Brown, Byron W., and Carl E. Liedholm. 2002. "CanOrganization of Online Education." American Eco
Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles ofnomic Review 104 (5): 519-22.
Microeconomics?" American Economic Review 92 Craft, R. Kim, and Joe G. Baker. 2003. "Do Economists
(2): 444-48. Make Better Lawyers? Undergraduate Degree Field
Butcher, Kristin F., Patrick J. McEwan, and Aldlaand Lawyer Earnings." Journal of Economic Educa
Weerapana. 2014. "The Effects of an Anti-grade-intion 34 (3): 263-81.
Dean, David H., and Robert C. Dolan. 2001. "Liberal
flation Policy at Wellesley College." journal of Eco
nomic Perspectives 28 (3): 189-204. Arts or Business: Does the Location of the Econom
ics Department Alter the Major?" Journal of Eco
Butler, J. S., T. Aldrich Finegan, and John J. Siegfried.
1994. "Does More Calculus Improve Student Learnnomic Education 32 (1): 18-35.
ing in Intermediate Micro and Macro Economic Del Rossi, Alison F., and Joni Hersch. 2008. "Double
Theory?" Anrerican Economic Review 84 (2): 206-10.Your Major, Double Your Return?" Economics of
Calafiore, Pablo, and Damian S. Damianov. 2011. "The
Education Review 27 (4): 375-86.
Effect of Time Spent Online on Student Achieve Dickie, Mark. 2006. "Do Classroom Experiments
ment in Online Economics and Finance Courses." Increase Learning in Introductory Microeconom
journal of Economic Education 42 (3): 209-23. ics?" Journal of Economic Education 37 (3): 267-88.
Carnevale, Anthony P., and Ban Cheah. 2015. "FromDobkin, Carlos, Ricard Gil, and Justin Marion. 2010.
Hard Times to Better Times: College Majors, Unem "Skipping Class in College and Exam Performance:
ployment, and Earnings." https://cew.georgetown. Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Class
edu/wp-content/uploaas/HardTimes2015-Report. room Experiment." Economics of Education Review
pdf. 29 (4): 566-75.
Carrell, Scott E., and James E. West. 2010. "Does Durham, Yvonne, Thomas McKinnon, and Craig
Professor Quality Matter? Evidence from Random Schulman. 2007. "Classroom Experiments: Not Just
Assignment of Students to Professors." journal of Fun and Games." Economic Inquiry 45 (1): 162-78.
Political Economy 118 (3): 409-32. Dynan, Karen E., and Cecilia Elena Rouse. 1997. "The
Carroll, Thomas, Djeto Assane, and Jared Busker. Underrepresentation of Women in Economics: A
2014. "Why It Pays to Major in Economics." journal Study of Undergraduate Economics Students." Jour
of Economic Education 45 (3): 251-61. nal of Economic Education 28 (4): 350-68.
Carter, Linda K., and Tisha L. N. Emerson. 2012. Ehrenberg, Ronald G. 2004. "Prospects in the Aca
"In-Class vs. Online Experiments: Is There a Differ demic Labor Market for Economists." Journal of
ence?" journal of Economic Education 43 (1): 4-18. Economic Perspectives 18 (2): 227-38.
Cartwright, Edward, and Anna Stepanova. 2012. "What Ehrenberg, Ronald G. 2005. "Involving Undergradu
Do Students Learn from a Classroom Experiment: ates in Research to Encourage Them to Undertake
Not Much, Unless They Write a Report on It." jour Ph.D. Study in Economics." American Economic
nal of Economic Education 43 (1): 48-57. Review 95 (2): 184-88.
Ehrenberg, Ronald G. 2012. "American Higher Educa Economic Education 40 (1): 3-25.
tion in Transition." Journal of Economic Perspectives Grimes, Paul W. 2002. "The Overconfident Princi
26 (1): 193-216. ples of Economics Student: An Examination of a
Elzinga, Kenneth G., and Daniel O. Melaugh. 2009. Metacognitive Skill." Journal of Economic Education
"35,000 Principles of Economics Students: Some 33 (1): 15-30.
Lessons Learned." Southern Economic Journal 76 Grodner, Andrew, and Nicholas G. Rupp. 2013. "The
(1): 32-46. Role of Homework in Student Learning Outcomes:
Emerson, Tisha L. N., KimMarie McGoldrick, and Evidence from a Field Experiment." Journal of Eco
Kevin J. Mumford. 2012. "Women and the Choice to nomic Education 44 (2): 93-109.
Study Economics." Journal of Economic Education Grove, Wayne A., and Tim Wasserman. 2006. "Incen
43 (4): 349-62. tives and Student Learning: A Natural Experiment
Emerson, Tisha L. N., KimMarie McGoldrick, and with Economics Problem Sets." American Economic
John Siegfried. 2014. "Gender and Undergraduate Review 96 (2): 447-52.
Major Trends: 2001-2010." Unpublished. Haley, M. Ryan, Marianne F. Johnson, and M. Kevin
Emerson, Tisha L. N., and Beck A. Taylor. 2004. "Com McGee. 2010. "A Framework for Reconsidering the
paring Student Achievement across Experimental Lake Wobegon Effect." Journal of Economic Educa
and Lecture-Oriented Sections of a Principles of tion 41 (2): 95-109.
Microeconomics Course." Southern Economic Jour Hamermesh, Daniel S., and Amy Parker. 2005. "Beauty
nal 70 (3): 672-93. in the Classroom: Instructors' Pulchritude and Puta
Fels, Rendigs. 1969. "Hard Research on a Soft Subject: tive Pedagogical Productivity." Economics of Educa
Hypothesis-Testing in Economic Education." South tion Review 24 (4): 369-76.
ern Economic Journal 36 (1): 1-9. Hansen, W. Lee. 2001. "Expected Proficiencies for
Figlio, David N., Morton O. Schapiro, and Kevin B. Undergraduate Economics Majors." Journal of Eco
Soter. 2013. "Are Tenure Track Professors Better nomic Education 32 (3): 231-42.
Teachers?" National Bureau of Economic Research Harmon, Oskar R., and James Lambrinos. 2008. "Are
Working Paper 19406. Online Exams an Invitation to Cheat?" Journal of
Finegan, T. Alarich, and John Siegfried. 2000. "Are Stu Economic Education 39 (2): 116-25.
dent Ratings of Teaching Effectiveness Influenced Harter, Cynthia L., and John F. R. Harter. 2004.
By Instructors' English Language Proficiency?" The "Teaching with Technology: Does Access to Com
American Economist 44 (2): 17-29. puter Technology Increase Student Achievement?"
Fleisher, Belton, Masanori Hashimoto, and Bruce A. Eastern Economic Journal 30 (4): 507-14.
Weinberg. 2002. "Foreign GTAs Can Be Effective Harter, Cynthia L., Georg Schaur, and Michael
Teachers of Economics." Journal of Economic Edu Watts. 2015. "School, Department, and Instructor
cation 33 (4): 299-325. Determinants of Teaching Methods in Undergrad
Fournier, Gary M., and Tim R. Sass. 2000. "Take My uate Economics Courses." Southern Economic
Course, Please: The Effects of the Principles on Stu Journal.
dent Curriculum Choice." Journal of Economic Edu Heckman, James, and Edward Vytlacil. 2001. "Identi
cation 31 (4): 323-39. fying the Role of Cognitive Ability in Explaining the
Franz, Wan-Ju Iris. 2010. "Grade Inflation under the Level of and Change in the Return to Schooling."
Threat of Students' Nuisance: Theory and Evidence." Review of Economics and Statistics 83 (1): 1-12.
Economics of Education Review 29 (3): 411-22. Hernândez-Juliân, Rey, and Christina Peters. 2012.
Frey, Bruno S., and Stephan Meier. 2003. "Are Politi "Targeting Teaching: Does the Medium Matter?
cal Economists Selfish and Indoctrinated? Evidence Online versus Paper Coursework." Southern Eco
from a Natural Experiment." Economic Inquiry 41 nomic Journal 78 (4): 1333-45.
(3): 448-62. Hoxby, Caroline M. 2014. "The Economics of Online
Goldin, Claudia. 2013. "Notes on Women and the Eco Postsecondary Education: MOOCs, Nonselective
nomics Undergraduate Major." Newsletter of the Education, and Highly Selective Education." Ameri
Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics can Economic Review 104 (5): 528-33.
Profession Summer: 4-5. Hoyt, Gail M., and KimMarie McGoldrick, eds. 2012.
Goldin, Claudia, Lawrence F. Katz, and Ilyana Kuz International Handbook on Teaching and Learning
iemko. 2006. "The Homecoming of American Col Economics. Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton,
lege Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Mass.: Elgar.
Gap." Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (4): Huynh, Kim P., David T. Jacho-Châvez, and James K.
133-56. Self. 2010. "The Efficacy of Collaborative Learning
Goodman, Rae Jean B., Mark Maier, and Robert L. Recitation Sessions on Student Outcomes." Ameri
Moore. 2003. "Regional Workshops to Improve the can Economic Review 100 (2): 287-91.
Teaching Skills of Economics Faculty." American Isely, Paul, and Harinder Singh. 2005. "Do Higher
Economic Review 93 (2): 460-62. Grades Lead to Favorable Student Evaluations?"
Gratton-Lavoie, Chiara, and Denise Stanley. 2009. Journal of Economic Education 36 (1): 29-42.
"Teaching and Learning Principles of Microeconom Jensen, Elizabeth J., and Ann L. Owen. 2001. "Peda
ics Online: An Empirical Assessment." Journal of gogy, Gender, and Interest in Economics." Journal of
Economic Education 32 (4): 323-43. Courses?" American Economie Review 100 (2):
Johnson, Bruce K., John J. Perry, and Marie Petkus. 283-86.
2012. "The Status of Econometrics in the Economics Lin, Tsui-Fang, and Jennjou Chen. 2006. "Cumulative
Major: A Survey." Journal of Economic Education 43 Class Attendance and Exam Performance." Applied
(3): 315-24. Economics Letters 13 (14): 937—42.
Lombardi, Waldo, Lall B. Ramrattan, and Michael
Johnston, Carol G., Richard H. James, Jenny N. Lye,
and Ian M. McDonald. 2000. "An Evaluation of Col Szenberg. 2004. "Anomalies in Economics Enroll
laborative Problem Solving for Learning Econom ment: 1991-1992 to 1995-1996." Economics of Edu
icsJournal of Economic Education 31 (1): 13-29. cation Review 23 (2): 153-65.
Jones, Steven, Eric Hoest, Richie Fuld, Mahesh Dahal, Lopus, Jane S., and Lynn Paringer. 2012. "The Princi
and David Colander. 2009. "What Economics Majors ples of Economics Textbook: Content Coverage and
Think of the Economics Major." In Educating Econ Usage." In International Handbook on Teaching and
omists: The Teagle Discussion on Re-evaluating the Learning Economics, edited by Gail M. Hoyt and
Undergraduate Economics Major, edited by David KimMarie McGoldrick, 296-303. Cheltenham, U.K.
Colander and KimMarie McGoldrick, 191-211. and Northampton, Mass.: Elgar.
Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Elgar. Love, David A., and Matthew J. Kotchen. 2010.
Joyce, Theodore J., Sean Crockett, David A. Jaeger, "Grades, Course Evaluations, and Academic Incen
Onur Altindag, and Stephen D. O'Connell. 2014. tives." Eastern Economic Journal 36 (2): 151-63.
"Does Classroom Time Matter? A Randomized Field Lusardi, Annamaria, and Olivia S. Mitchell. 2014. "The
Experiment of Hybrid and Traditional Lecture For Economic Importance of Financial Literacy: Theory
mats in Economics." National Bureau of Economic and Evidence." Journal of Economic Literature 52
Research Working Paper 20006. (1): 5-44.
Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran, Robert Mathieu, and AlexMacDermott, Raymond J. 2013. "The Impact of
Thevaranjan. 2003. "An Economic Analysis of the Assessment Policy on Learning: Replacement Exams
Use of Student Evaluations: Implications for Univer or Grade Dropping." Journal of Economic Education
sities." Managerial and Decision Economics 24 (1): 44 (4): 364-71.
1-13. Magnus, Jan R., Victor M. Polterovich, Dimitri L.
Kennedy, Peter E., and John Siegfried. 1997. "Class Danilov, and Alexei V. Sawateev. 2002. "Tolerance of
Size and Achievement in Introductory Economics: Cheating: An Analysis across Countries." Journal of
Evidence from the TUCE III Data." Economics of Economic Education 33 (2): 125-35.
Education Review 16 (4): 385-94. Maier, Mark H., KimMarie McGoldrick, and Scott P.
Kennelly, Brendan, John Considine, and Darragh Flan Simkins. 2012. "Starting Point: Pedagogic Resources
nery. 2011. "Online Assignments in Economics: A for Teaching and Learning Economics." Journal of
Test of Their Effectiveness." Journal of Economic Economic Education 43 (2): 215-20.
Education 42 (2): 136-46. Main, Joyce B., and Ben Ost. 2014. "The Impact of Let
ter Grades on Student Effort, Course Selection, and
Kerkvliet, Joe, and Charles L. Sigmund. 1999. "Can We
Control Cheating in the Classroom ?" Journal of Eco
Major Choice: A Regression-Discontinuity Analysis."
nomic Education 30 (4): 331-43. Journal of Economic Education 45 (1): 1-10.
Kherfi, Samer. 2008. "Economic Education in the Marburger, Daniel R. 2001. "Absenteeism and Under
Middle East: Are the Determinants of Success in graduate Exam Performance." Journal of Economic
Introductory Economics Any Different?" Journal of Education 32 (2): 99-109.
Economic Education 39 (1): 22-40. Marburger, Daniel R. 2005. "Comparing Student Per
Kherfi, Samer. 2011. "Whose Opinion Is It Anyway? formance Using Cooperative Learning." Interna
Determinants of Participation in Student Evaluation tional Review of Economics Education 4(1): 46-57.
of Teaching." Journal of Economic Education 42 (1):Marburger, Daniel R. 2006. "Does Mandatory Atten
19-30.
dance Improve Student Performance." Journal of
Kokkelenberg, Edward C., Michael Dillon, and Sean Economic Education 37 (2): 148-55.
M. Christy. 2008. "The Effects of Class Size on Stu Matos-Diaz, Horacio. 2012. "Student Evaluation of
dent Grades at a Public University." Economics of Teaching, Formulation of Grade Expectations, and
Education Review 27 (2): 221-33. Instructor Choice: Explorations witn Random-Ef
Krohn, Gregory A., and Catherine M. O'Connor. 2005. fects Ordered Probability Models." Eastern Eco
"Student Effort and Performance over the Semes nomic Journal 38 (3): 296-309.
ter."Journal of Economic Education 36 (1): 3-28. McCoy, James P., and Martin I. Milkman. 2010. "Do
Lagerlöf, Johan N. M., and Andrew J. Seltzer. 2009. Recent PhD Economists Feel Prepared to Teach
"The Effects of Remedial Mathematics on the Economics?" Journal of Economic Education 41 (2):
Learning of Economics: Evidence from a Natural 211-15.
Experiment." Journal of Economic Education 40 (2): McCullough, B. D., and Darrell Radson. 2011. "Ana
115-37. lysing Student Evaluations of Teaching: Comparing
Lee, William, Richard H. Courtney, and Steven J. Bal Means and Proportions." Evaluation and Research in
assi. 2010. "Do Online Homework Tools Improve Education 24 (3): 183-202.
Student Results in Principles of Microeconomics McGoldrick, KimMarie, Gail Hoyt, and David
Colander. 2010. "The Professional Development of Encouragement: A Regression Discontinuity Analy

Graduate Students for Teaching Activities: The Stu sis." Journal of Economic Education 41 (3): 217-34.
dents' Perspective." Journal of Economic Education Parker, Jeffrey. 2010. "An Empirical Examination of the
41 (2): 194-201. Roles of Ability and Gender in Collaborative Home
McPherson, Michael A. 2006. "Determinants of How work Assignments." Journal of Economic Education
Students Evaluate Teachers." Journal of Economic 41 (1): 15-30.
Education 37 (1): 3-20. Parker, Kudayja. 2006. "The Effect of Student Char
McPherson, Michael A., R. Todd Jewell, and Myungsup acteristics on Achievement in Introductory Micro
Kim. 2009. "What Determines Student Evaluation economics in South Africa." South African Journal of
Scores? A Random Effects Analysis of Undergrad Economics 74 (1): 137-49.
uate Economics Classes." Eastern Economic Journal Petkus, Marie, John J. Perry, and Bruce K. John
35 (1): 37-51. son. 2014. "Core Requirements for the Economics
Miller, Ellen, and Géraldine Westmoreland. 1998. Major."Journal of Economic Education 45 (1): 56-62.
"Student Response to Selective Grading in College Pyne, Derek. 2007. "Does the Choice of Introductory
Economics Courses." Journal of Economic Educa Microeconomics Textbook Matter?" Journal of Eco
tion 29 (3): 195-201. nomic Education 38 (3): 279-96.
Moore, Robert L. 2011. "The Effect of Group Com Ragan, James F., Jr., and Bhavneet Walia. 2010. "Dif
position on Individual Student Performance in an ferences in Student Evaluations of Principles and
Introductory Economics Course." Journal of Eco other Economics Courses and the Allocation of Fac
nomic Education 42 (2): 120-35. ulty across Courses ."Journal of Economic Education
Mumford, Kevin J., and Matthew W. Ohland. 2011. 41 (4): 335-52.
"Student Performance in Undergraduate Econom Rankin, Elizabeth L., and David J. Hoaas. 2001. "Does
ics Courses." Journal of Economic Education 42 (3): the Use of Computer-Generated Slide Presentations
275-82. in the Classroom Affect Student Performance and
Munley, Vincent G., Eoghan Garvey, and Michael Interest?" Eastern Economic Journal 27 (3): 355-66.
J. McConnell. 2010. "The Effectiveness of PeerRask, Kevin. 2010. "Attrition in STEM Fields at a Lib
Tutoring on Student Achievement at the University eral Arts College: The Importance of Grades and
Level." American Economic Review 100 (2): 277-82. Pre-collegiate Preferences." Economics of Education
Myers, Steven C., Michael A. Nelson, and Richard W. Review 29 (6): 892-900.
Stratton. 2011. "Assessment of the Undergraduate Rask, Kevin N., and Elizabeth M. Bailey. 2002. "Are
Economics Major: A National Survey." Journal of Faculty Role Models? Evidence from Major Choice
Economic Education 42 (2): 195-99. in an Undergraduate Institution." Journal of Eco
Nalley, Lanier, and Andrew McKenzie. 2011. "How nomic Education 33 (2): 99-124.
Much Is That Exam Grade Really Worth? An Esti Rask, Kevin N., and Jill Tiefenthaler. 2008. "The Role
mation of Student Risk Aversion to Their Unknown of Grade Sensitivity in Explaining the Gender Imbal
Final College Course Grades." Journal of Economic ance in Undergraduate Economics." Economics of
Education 42 (4): 338—53. Education Review 27 (6): 676-87.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2011. "Inte Robb, Roberta Edgecombe, and Leslie Robb. 1999.
grated Postsecondary Education Data System." "Gender and the Study of Economics: The Role of
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/. Gender of the Instructor." Journal of Economic Edu
National Center for Education Statistics. 2013. "Digest cation 30 (1): 3-19.
of Education Statistics." http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ Salemi, Michael K. 2003. "A Model Teacher-Educa
digest/. tion Program for Economics." American Economic
National Center for Science and Engineering Statis Review 93 (2): 455-59.
tics. 2010. "National Survey of College Graduates." Salemi, Michael K., and W. Lee Hansen. 2005. Dis
https://sestat.nsf.gov/sestat/sestat.html. cussing Economics: A Classroom Guide to Preparing
Nowell, Clifford, and Doug Laufer. 1997. "Undergradu Discussion Questions and Leading Discussion. Chel
ate Student Cheating in the Fields of Business and Eco tenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Elgar.
nomics." Journal of Economic Education 28 (1): 3-12. Salemi, Michael K., and William B. Walstad. 2010.
Oettinger, Gerald S. 2002. "The Effect of Nonlinear Teaching Innovations in Economics: Strategies and
Incentives on Performance: Evidence from 'Econ Applications for Interactive Instruction. Chelten
101'." Review of Economics and Statistics 84 (3): ham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Elgar.
509-17. Savage, Scott J. 2009. "The Effect of Information Tech
Orlov, Alexei, and John Roufagalas. 2012. "Performance nology on Economic Education." Journal of Eco
Determinants in Undergraduate Economics Classes: nomic Education 40 (4): 337-53.
The Effect of Cognitive Reflection." International Schuhmann, Peter W., KimMarie McGoldrick, and
Review of Economics Education 11 (2): 28-45. Robert T. Burrus. 2005. "Student Quantitative Lit
Ost, Ben. 2010. "The Role of Peers and Grades in eracy: Importance, Measurement, and Correlation
Determining Major Persistence in the Sciences." with Economic Literacy." American Economist 49
Economics of Education Review 29 (6): 923-34. (1): 49-65.
Owen, Ann L. 2010. "Grades, Gender, and Scott, Charles E., and John J. Siegfried. 2013.
"American Economic Association Universal Aca Stange, Kevin M. 2013. "Differential Pricing in Under
graduate Education: Effects on Degree Production
demic Questionnaire Summary Statistics." American
Economic Review 103 (3): 678-82. By Field." National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Paper 19183.
Self, Sharmistha. 2012. "Studying Absenteeism in Prin
ciples of Macroeconomics: Do Attendance PoliciesStinebrickner, Ralph, and Todd R. Stinebrickner. 2008.
Make a Difference?" Journal of Economic Education "The Causal Effect of Studying on Academic Per
43 (3): 223-34. formance." B E. Journal of Economic Analysis and
Selingo, Jeffrey J., ed. 2014. The Innovative UniverPolicy 8 (1).
sity: What College Presidents Think about ChangeStock, Wendy A., et al. 2013. "Cheap and Effective:
in American Higper Education. Washington, D.C.: The Impact of Student-Led Recitation Classes on
Chronicle of Higher Education. Learning Outcomes in Introductory Economics."
Journal of Economic Education 44 (1): 1—16.
Siegfried, John J. 1998. "The Goals and Objectives of
the Economics Major." In Teaching Undergraduate Stock, Wendy A., John J. Siegfried, and T. Aldrich Fin
Economics: A Handbook for Instructors, edited by egan. 2011. "Completion Rates and Time-to-Degree
William B. Walstad and Phillip Saunders, 59-72. in Economics PhD Programs." American Economic
New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Review 101 (3): 176-88.
Siegfried, John J. 2012. "The Economics Major in Svinicki,
the Manila, and Wilbert J. McKeachie. 2011.
United States." In International Handbook on Teach McKeachie's Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and
ing and Learning Economics, edited by Gail M. Hoyt Theory for College and University Teachers, Thir
and KimMarie McGoldrick, 723-32. Cheltenham, teenth edition. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Elgar. Swinton, Omari H. 2010. "The Effect of Effort Grad
Siegfried, John J. 2014. "Trends in Undergraduate Eco ing on Learning." Economics of Education Review 29
nomics Degrees, 1991-2013." Journal of Economic (6): 1176-82.
Education 45 (4): 387-91. Tinkler, Sarah, and James Woods. 2013. "The Read
Siegfried, John J., Robin L. Bartlett, W. Lee Hansen, ability of Principles of Macroeconomics Textbooks."
Allen C. Kelley, Donald N. McCloskey, and Thomas Journal of Economic Education 44 (2): 178-91.
H. Tietenberg. 1991. "The Economics Major: Can Tran, Anh, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2009. "Rank as
and Should We Do Better than a B-?" American an Incentive." Harvard Kennedy School Faculty
Economic Review 81 (2): 20-25. Research Working Paper 09-019.
Trost, Steve, and Djavad Salehi-Isfahani. 2012. "The
Siegfried, John J., and Rendigs Fels. 1979. "Research
on Teaching College Economics: A Survey." JournalEffect of Homework on Exam Performance: Exper
of Economic Literature 17 (3): 923-69. imental Results from Principles of Economics."
Siegfried, John J., and David K. Round. 2001. "Inter Southern Economic Journal 79 (1): 224-42.
national Trends in Economics Degrees during Walstad, William B., and Sam Allgood. 1999. 'What Do
the 1990s." Journal of Economic Education 32 (3):College Seniors Know about Economics." American
203-18. Economic Review 89 (2): 350-54.
Walstad, William B., and William E. Becker. 2010.
Siegfried, John J., and William B. Walstad. 1998.
"Research on Teaching College Economics." In "Preparing Graduate Students in Economics for
Teaching Undergraduate Economics: A Handbook for Teaching: Survey Findings and Recommendations."
Journal of Economic Education 41 (2): 202-10.
Instructors, edited by William B. Walstad and Phillip
Saunders, 141-66. New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Walstad, William B., and Ken Rebeck. 2002. "Assess
Siegfried, John J., and William B. Walstad. 2014. ing the Economic Knowledge and Economic Opin
"Undergraduate Coursework in Economics: A Sur ions of Adults." Quarterly Review of Economics and
Finance 42 (5): 921-35.
vey Perspective." Journal of Economic Education 45
(2): 147-58. Walstad, William B., and Ken Rebeck. 2008. "The Test
Siegfried, John J., and James T. Wilkinson. 1982. "The of Understanding of College Economics." American
Economics Curriculum in the United States: 1980." Economic Review 98 (2): 547-51.
American Economic Review 72 (2): 125-38. Walstad, William B., and Michael K. Salemi. 2011.
Skoorka, Bruce M., and Carol M. Condon. 2002. "Fac "Results from a Faculty Development Program in
tors Underlying Trends in Economics Majors: A Teaching Economics." Journal of Economic Educa
Cause for Concern?" The American Economist 46 tion 42 (3): 283-93.
(2): 54-64. Walstad, William B., and Phillip Saunders, eds. 1998.
Song, Moohoun, Peter F. Orazem, and Darin Wohlge Teaching Undergraduate Economics: A Handbook
muth. 2008. "The Role of Mathematical and Verbal for Instructors. New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Skills on the Returns to Graduate and Professional Walstad, William B., Michael Watts, and William Boss
Education." Economics of Education Review 27 (6): hardt. 1998. "The Principles of Economics Course:
664-75. History, Content, and Use." In Teaching Under
Stanca, Luca. 2006. "The Effects of Attendance on graduate Economics: A Handbook for Instructors,
Academic Performance: Panel Data Evidence for edited by William B. Walstad and Phillip Saunders,
Introductory Microeconomics." Journal of Economic185-206. New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Education 37 (3): 251-66. Wang, X. Heniy, and Bill Yang. 2003. "Why Competition
May Discourage Students from Learning? A Behav Wood, William C., and Joanne M. Doyle. 2002. "Eco
ioral Economic Analysis." Education Economics 11 nomic Literacy among Corporate Employees." Jour
(2): 117-28. nal of Economic Education 33 (3): 195-205.
Watts, Michael, and Georg Schaur. 2011. "Teaching and Xu, Di, and Shanna Smith Jaggars. 2013. "The Impact
Assessment Methods in Undergraduate Economics: of Online Learning on Students' Course Outcomes:
A Fourth National Quinquennial Survey."Journal of Evidence from a Large Community and Technical
Economic Education 42 (3): 294-309. College System." Economics of Education Review
Weinberg, Bruce A., Masanori Hashimoto, and Belton 37: 45-57.
M. Fleisher. 2009. "Evaluating Teaching in Higher Yamarik, Steven. 2007. "Does Cooperative Learning
Education." Journal of Economic Education 40 (3): Improve Student Learning Outcomes?" Journal of
227-61. Economic Education 38 (3): 259-77.

Research On Teaching Economics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research On Teaching Economics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Economic Association

Research on Teaching Economics to Undergraduates

Research on Teaching Economics

1. Introduction more insight about the teaching and learn

economics majors is sizable on most cam- The number of undergraduate economics

2 For further discussion of the role of time trends and

1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01

Figure 1. U.S. Undergraduate E

Source: NCES 2013, Table 325.92.

been likened to a tree. The ma

Student learning outcomes, probably differentiation.4 The typical major require

(2002) finds that students in a principles of as discussion, classroom experiments, case

6. Course Requirements and time mattered. Although the ordinary least

Public PhD (71) 25.1 216.0 3.6 8.6

Public Masters (34) 14.0 40.8 4.9 2.9

Public Bachelors (74) 9.1 26.2 5.8 2.9

Private PhD (29) 29.7 126.7 3.4 4.3

Private Sel. Liberal Arts (65) 9.8 46.9 5.1 4.8

Private others (63) 6.2 20.7 6.0 3.3

economics majors as is found at selective A response to this situation is to change the

I8 Another issue is the use of part-time,19 For some

Mathieu, and Thevaranjan (2003) showed ■

Colander. 2010. "The Professional Development of Encouragement: A Regression Discontinuity Analy

You might also like