Professor Cotton Spring 2009 Economics 212 Introductory Macroeconomics 1.
Redesigning Introductory Economics
description
Transcript of Redesigning Introductory Economics
AMICAL, June 2006
Redesigning Introductory Economics
Techno-collaborative Learning
Maha Bali
Aziza Ellozy
Herb Thompson
AMICAL, June 2006
The context
Changing landscape in teaching and learning
“Teach less, learn more”
Learning technologies allow for innovations, can be powerful learning tools
Today’s Today’s LearnersLearners
New New LearningLearning SpacesSpaces
Learning Learning
TechnologiesTechnologies
PedagogyPedagogy
LEARNING
AMICAL, June 2006
Introduction
Aim of project was to create a learner-centered, formatively assessed course that used web-enabled technology
Introductory Microeconomics chosen to be redesigned
Has many sections and has “broad institutional impact”
AMICAL, June 2006
Research question
Does computer-mediation, coupled with “active” learning pedagogy enhance student performance or student interest in the learning process?
AMICAL, June 2006
Commenting on the experiment, Dr Thompson says
“The experiment, carried out in conjunction with the Center for Learning and Teaching, compared two classes taught concurrently. In one class I used the “talking head” approach with examinations. In the other class I used the “active learning” approach in which groups of students interactively used computer sites, created projects, did the lecturing and used me as a facilitator to help guide them through the morass of information.”
AMICAL, June 2006
Commenting on the experiment, Dr Thompson’s says
“ Had you walked into the first class you would have probably been as bored as the students. Had you walked into the second you would have probably been astonished by the chaos. Which group of students do you think did better?”
AMICAL, June 2006
Description and Methodology
To gather comparative data: Two parallel sections: “traditional” and
“innovative” were taught:
Same professor Same semester Same textbook Same final exam Same pre- and post- tests
AMICAL, June 2006
Characteristic
TRADITIONAL SECTION INNOVATIVE SECTION
Population 20 (mostly 1st and 2nd year) 16 (mostly 1st and 2nd year)
Textbook N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics Chapters 1-17
Class projector and screen for use by all. Each student supplied with a personal
computer. Software (Timbuctu) allowed any of the computers to use projection
screen.
One computer, projector and screen for professor
Class Environment
Lectures by students using .ppt slides. Student centred, open class participation
and interaction encouraged (e.g., peer instruction, group activities collaboration
and sharing of computer searches to solve problems or discuss issues)
Lectures by instructor with .ppt slides. Students were
encouraged to ask questions before and during lectures.
Lecture
Syllabus, topic notes, glossary, ppt. slides, learning styles questionnaire, study guide, chapter links to relevant
internet material, links to classical scholars in economics, calendar,
bonus questions, discussion forum and quizzes. Student group projects and learning journals were uploaded
for viewing by the entire class.
Syllabus, topic notes, glossary, ppt slides, learning styles
questionnaire, required and additional reading, assignments,
calendar, bonus questions, discussion forum.
Material Online
Teaching/learning approaches in each section
AMICAL, June 2006Pre- and Post-course tests, Student evaluations, a Small Group
Instructional Diagnosis, Learning Styles questionnaire, WebCT tracking student activities
Indirect Assessment
10 online quizzes – 10%Class/Web participation – 20%
Class project – 30%Learning Journal – 15%
Final Exam – 25%
2 pop quizzes – 20%Class participation – 20%
Midterm – 20%2 paper-based readings and
summary analysis – 20%Final Exam – 20%
Direct Assessment
10 online quizzes – one per week. Following quiz, peers discuss
answers. Credit given simply for taking quiz
2 paper-based pop quizzes, with normal assessment of correct
answers.
Quizzes
Group project; Learning journal uploaded on WebCT
2 readings and summary analysis uploaded on WebCT discussion forum
Assignments
Characteristic
TRADITIONAL SECTION INNOVATIVE SECTION
Population 20 (mostly 1st and 2nd year) 16 (mostly 1st and 2nd year)
Textbook N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics Chapters 1-17
Teaching/learning approaches in each section
AMICAL, June 2006
LLT Structure at AUC
Libraries and Learning
Technologies
(LLT Dean)
Main Library
Rare Books &Special
Collections Library
Center forLearning
and Teaching
(CLT)
Academic Computing Services
(ACS)
Classroom Technologies
& Media
Services
(CTMS)
WebCommunications
AMICAL, June 2006
Collaboration in Stages
Instructional Design WebCT Design Implementation Formative Assessment Data analysis Final Assessment
Of course, the instructor was involved throughout
AMICAL, June 2006
Collaboration:Planning
Planning Stage CLT ACS Library
Planning and Instructional Design √ √WebCT Design √ √Implementation (CTMS classroom) √
AMICAL, June 2006
Collaboration: Assessment
Assessment Stage CLT ACS Library
Uploading WebCT Quizzes √Analyzing quiz results √Observation √Weekly progress meetings √ √
AMICAL, June 2006
Collaboration: Assessment
Assessment Stage CLT ACS Library
Student Feedback (SGID) √Pre/Post-test √
End of semester Evaluation √
Data Analysis and Reporting on Results √
AMICAL, June 2006
Available Data
Learning Styles Questionnaire Pre- and Post- test results Final Exam and final grades Student course evaluations Small Group Instructional Diagnosis
AMICAL, June 2006
Learning Styles Questionnaire1
Active vs. Reflective learners Sensory-based vs. Intuitive learners Visual vs. Verbal learners Sequential vs. Global learners
Results more anecdotal than analytical.Provides room for consideration
1 Felder and Solomon available at http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/
AMICAL, June 2006
Pre- and Post-Course test results
Pre-test results Mean Standard deviation
Traditional section 27.2 5.3
Innovative section 30.3 2.5
American sample 24.7 7.9
Post-test results
Traditional section 13.4 3.9
Innovative section 16.5 5.1
American sample 16.67 6.3
AMICAL, June 2006
Final Exam and Final Grades
Traditional Section
Innovative Section
Final Exam 74% 75%
Final Grade 78.7% 83.8%
AMICAL, June 2006
Student evaluationsA. Course
Question Traditional section
Innovative section
Dept. of Economics overall
School of Business
Reading materials are challenging and stimulate my thinking
3.80 4.43 3.94 3.78
Tests and assignments reflect the purpose and content of the course
4.30 4.29 4.18 4.03
Tests and assignments challenge me to do more than memorize
4.40 4.57 3.97 3.86
The number and frequency of tests and assignments are reasonable
4.10 4.43 4.17 4.00
The working load is appropriate for the number of credits
4.30 4.43 4.08 3.91
Overall, this is a useful course 4.40 4.57 4.18 3.99
Evaluation (Mean) of Course on a scale of 1-5 with 1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree
AMICAL, June 2006
Student evaluationsB. Instructor
Question Traditional section
Innovative section
Dept. of Economics overall
School of Business
Inspires student interest in course
4.29 4.33 4.08 3.94
Organised and prepared for class
4.43 4.56 4.45 4.23
Explains concepts clearly 4.00 3.94 4.19 4.01
Emphasises conceptual understanding and critical thinking
4.29 4.41 4.15 3.99
Evaluation (Mean) of Instructor on a scale of 1-5 with 1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree
AMICAL, June 2006
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis: summary Innovative section:
Students more comfortable with speed of the course, the use of technology, and the material covered.
Traditional section: Students uncomfortable with the speed of
instruction; felt their questions were not sufficiently answered and that the course was not sufficiently interactive.
AMICAL, June 2006
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis: summary Innovative section:
Students much more interested in taking more economics courses and/or majoring in economics
Traditional section: Students showed much less enthusiasm
for the material covered, or for economics as a discipline
AMICAL, June 2006
Conclusions
Insufficient quantitative and qualitative data to allow clear, undifferentiated judgements.
Activity-based alternative vs. “talking head”/ conventional testing
Sufficient evidence to show that the learning process (and economics) enjoyed much more by students when engaged in an open, active, collaborative manner.
AMICAL, June 2006
Publication
This work has been presented at WEBIST 2006: International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (in Portugal, April 2006) and appears in the refereed conference proceedings
AMICAL, June 2006