Teaching Methods in US Undergraduate Economics Courses

Teaching Methods in U.S. Undergraduate Economics Courses William E. Becker and Michael Watts

Abstract: In 1995 and 2000, the authors surveyed academic economists in the United States to establish how economics is taught in four types of undergraduate courses. The authors report overall findings from the 2000 survey and compare these results with the aggregate findings for respondents from all types of colleges and universities in the 1995 survey. The basic finding is that, despite some indications of increased emphasis and interest in teaching over this period, the teaching methods in these courses have changed very little over the past five years and are still dominated by “chalk and talk” classroom presentations. Key words: teaching methods, undergraduate economics JEL code: A22 In 1995 and again in the spring of 2000, we surveyed academic economists in the United States to establish how economics is taught in four different types of undergraduate courses at all types of post-secondary institutions. Results from these two surveys allowed us to document any changes in teaching methods that occurred during this period, when there were several prominent calls for economists as well as post-secondary instructors in other fields to devote more attention and effort to teaching. In this article, we report the aggregate findings from the 2000 survey and compare these results to the aggregate findings for respondents from all types of colleges and universities in the 1995 survey. In our earlier publications on the 1995 survey (Becker and Watts 1996), we only reported results using the Carnegie Foundation’s five major categories of U.S. colleges and universities (Research, Doctoral, Master’s, Baccalaureate, and Associate, as listed in A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 1994 edition), so the 1995 aggregate results reported here have not been published before. Before discussing these surveys and survey results, we set the stage for the significance of our results by considering some evidence about recent trends in academic economists’ interest in and commitment to teaching. William E. Becker is a professor of economics, Indiana University (e-mail: [email protected]) and adjunct professor, School of International Business, University of South Australia. Michael Watts is a professor of economics, Purdue University. Julia K. Huffer, Kevin M. Green, Siddhartha Kapoor, Chatchai Meteveravong, Alexandre Skiba, and Suzanne Becker are thanked for their help in the preparation of this article. Carol Johnston and William Walstad provided helpful comments. Financial support from the Purdue University Center for International Business Education and Research, the University of South Australia School of International Business, and the National Council on Economic Education through its sponsorship of the Journal of Economic Education is gratefully acknowledged.

Summer 2001

269

IS TEACHING UNDERGRADUATES MORE IMPORTANT, INTERESTING, OR REWARDING? In an edited volume on The American University: National Treasure or Endangered Species? Ronald Ehrenberg (1997, 15–16) concluded: With diminished support, either university research will be funded increasingly from undergraduate students’ tuition revenue or research productivity will decline . . . (F)aculty will need to focus more on their revenue-generating customers and devote more time to undergraduate education. Will faculty understand that . . . they must diminish the time they allocate to research?

Maybe. Some economists, of course, have always been interested in improving the teaching of economics. Since the 1950s, the National Council on Economic Education and the American Economic Association (AEA) Committee on Economic Education have sponsored programs to improve basic teaching and assessment methods and to promote innovative teaching methods. These programs have always attracted some economists’ interest, but in recent years, there are signs that interest in these kinds of programs, and in the general issues surrounding classroom teaching of economics, is growing. Specifically, several recent books describe a wide range of teaching practices and explain how economists can use alternative teaching methods (other than chalk and talk) in various kinds of undergraduate courses (e.g., Becker and Watts 1998; Walstad and Saunders 1998). Other books focus on particular teaching methods, such as using classroom experiments, spreadsheet applications, or active and cooperative-learning assignments (e.g., Bergstrom and Miller 1997; Hazlett 1999; Keenan and Maier 1995; Porter and Riley 1995). Becker (2000) documents the mid-1990s increase in sessions on teaching economics at the annual meetings of the AEA and the Allied Social Sciences Association. At the 2000 meetings, 11 sessions were devoted to teaching, including a session chaired by World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz on teaching economics in transition economies. At the 1999 meetings, 12 sessions dealt with teaching economics, ranging from a retrospective on Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson’s principles textbook to a session on how faculty advisors deal with students’ apprehensiveness about taking economics courses. At the 1998 meetings, 14 sessions were devoted to teaching economics, including one headed by Nobel laureate Ronald Coase on teaching business economics. That all contrasts sharply with what was done as recently as the 1996 meetings, where there were only 6 sessions on teaching, and at the 1994 meetings, where there were only 4. Small numbers of sessions on teaching and economic education date back into the 1980s. A cursory review of recent programs of regional associations suggests that similar trends have occurred at those annual meetings as well. More evidence of increased interest in teaching economics and in the scholarship on teaching economics is provided by the rapid growth in the number of accesses or hits on the Journal of Economic Education Web site at http://www .indiana.edu/~econed/. From April 1995 to April 2000, the number of hits increased exponentially from 553 per month to nearly 47,000 per month (Figure 1). That is a substantial rise even allowing for the growth of the Internet. To the extent 270

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC EDUCATION

Figure 1 Monthly Accesses to JEE Web Site

that it reflects faculty members’ growing familiarity and use of the Web, there was apparently no close substitute that allowed faculty members to act on their interest in teaching at anything approaching this level before the JEE Web site became available. It is also important to note that this interest is by no means limited to economists in the United States; the hits are broken down by nation in Figure 2. Finally, it is also interesting to see the widespread interest in teaching and the use of JEE at different types of institutions. The college or university affiliations for the 50 schools that accessed the JEE Web site most frequently are shown in Table 1. The evidence suggests that even top-ranked universities and prestigious colleges are now requiring more extensive documentation of teaching effectiveness by their economics faculty. There are instances of faculty members at some of these schools not receiving tenure or promotions because of weak teaching. Becker and Watts (1999) reported that at the Carnegie baccalaureate institutions, teaching carried a 50 to 60 percent weight in personnel decisions. Even at the top Carnegieclassified research universities, teaching enters annual salary raise, tenure, and promotion decisions in economics with an average weight of 25 to 30 percent. When we have disaggregated our current survey data, we will again be able to address the relative importance of teaching, research, and service across the different types of institutions. But the aggregated data we report here already reveal several interesting trends, and in other cases what may well be interesting constants, or at least near constants. THE 1995 AND 2000 SURVEYS: METHODS AND SAMPLING ISSUES In early 1995, we mailed a five-page questionnaire to individuals selected either as academic members of the AEA or as college/university teachers of economics listed in the College Marketing Guide (CMG). Membership in the AEA Summer 2001

271

Figure 2 Top 20 Countries Accessing the JEE Web Site from Outside the United States (January 1, 1999–November 1, 1999)

is open to anyone who pays annual dues, but the roughly 21,000 members are typically academic, business, or government economists. Unfortunately, the AEA no longer provides mailing lists of members who are employed by universities, so we did not use the AEA list for the 2000 survey. CMG is a private company that offers comprehensive mailing lists of many different kinds of groups. In economics and most other disciplines, it offers mailing lists of U.S. college and university instructors, broken down by areas of interest (such as public policy or industrial organization) and also by those who teach introductory courses. Our 1995 survey was mailed to 2,947 academic economists. In February and April 2000, we mailed a similar questionnaire to 3,103 academic economists, taken from CMG lists, after deleting names of those whose positions were in departments such as sociology and political science and also the duplications that resulted from drawing names from more than one interest area, such as introductory economics, microeconomics, and public policy. In both the 1995 and 2000 mailings, fixed-interval sampling was used to identify the questionnaire recipients from these lists. 272


TABLE 1 Top 50 Universities/Colleges to Access the JEE Web Site (Aug. 96–Nov. 99)

Rank n.r. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

U.S. university

No. of hits Rank

Indiana Univ. (home Web page) n.r. Purdue Univ. 1,619 Univ. of Minnesota 1,418 Stanford Univ. 1,398 Univ. of Illinois 1,257 Penn State Univ. 1,136 Univ. of Pittsburgh 886 California State Univ., San Marcos 881 Occidental College 870 Univ. of Washington 860 Marshall Univ. 771 Dartmouth College 721 Columbia Univ. 706 Univ. of Louisville 699 Ohio State Univ. 674 Univ. of Delaware 672 Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln 662 Virginia Tech 647 Rutgers Univ. 644 Univ. of Michigan 616 Univ. of Scranton 614 Univ. of Texas 612 Univ. of Central Florida 600 Florida State Univ. 591 Univ. of North Texas 589

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

U.S. university

No. of hits

Univ. of Cincinnati Univ. of Arizona San Francisco State Univ. Univ. of Wisconsin Washington Univ., St. Louis Texas A&M Univ. San Diego State Univ. North Carolina A&T State Univ. Univ. of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Univ. of Virginia Princeton Univ. Univ. of North Carolina State Univ. of New York, Buffalo Georgia Tech Univ. of Pennsylvania Univ. of Oregon Univ. of Northern Iowa Univ. of California, Berkeley New York Univ. Univ. of Maryland Univ. of North Carolina, Charlotte Univ. of Iowa Washington State Univ. State Univ. of New York, Oswego State Harvard Univ.

581 573 572 555 550 549 548 540 534 530 527 515 514 512 506 497 487 477 476 476 473 470 461 461 460

n.r.: not relevant because Indiana University houses the JEE Web site.

On both surveys, respondents were asked to provide information for four different kinds of undergraduate courses—principles, intermediate theory, statistics and econometrics, and other upper-division courses—but only for courses that they had recently taught. Part 1 of both surveys featured questions on (1) classroom presentation styles (e.g., lecture, classroom discussion, and media use); (2) other classroom activities (e.g., computer labs, classroom experiments and simulations, cooperative learning and small-group work, etc.); (3) assignments involving print or computer-accessed materials (e.g., textbooks, workbooks, articles from the financial press, and instructor-developed class notes and problem sets); (4) assignments to conduct database searches (e.g., Internet searches), and (5) assignments to conduct literature searches of published books and articles. In Part 2 of both surveys, we first asked about testing and grading methods and determined what percentage of course grades were assigned using multiplechoice questions, short-answer questions, essay questions, writing assignments (broken down into categories for term papers, shorter papers, homework/problem sets, and other written assignments), class participation, oral presentations, performance in classroom simulations or experiments, and other assignments. Then we asked how important different levels of mathematics were in each type of Summer 2001

273

course, and what percentages of grades in each type of course were based on group work rather than individual assignments and exam scores. Finally, in Part 3 of the surveys, we asked for background information on individual respondents, their schools, and their departments. This section included questions on the individual’s gender; education; academic rank; years of teaching experience; allocation of effort between teaching, research, and other activities (reported as a percentage of total work time); recent publication experience; and fields of specialization. We also asked for data on the size of the respondent’s school, the number of economics majors at the school, the department’s typical class sizes and teaching loads, and weightings on the different criteria for promotion and tenure and for annual raises. In 1995, our response rate was 625 out of 2,947, or 21.2 percent. For 2000, there were 591 responses from our mailing of 3,103, for a 19.0 percent response rate. Both surveys were based on opportunistic samples and self-reported data. We have no way of knowing whether respondents are representative of all U.S. teachers of undergraduate economics courses. For both 1995 and 2000, our intuition is that those with greater interest in teaching were more likely to complete the questionnaire and return it in the prepaid envelope provided. This likely selection bias only reinforces the hypothesis that, as a group, academic economists continue to stick to their customary teaching methods and eschew innovative teaching techniques.1 We calculated two average measures (medians and means) and the sample standard deviation of responses for which a number line measurement is meaningful. Before discussing the survey results in more detail, however, several caveats and explanations are in order. In Part 1 of the surveys, respondents were asked to give a 0–4 integer response corresponding to a nonlinear range of percentage class time usage for each identified teaching method. We asked respondents to indicate whether a particular method was used never (0), rarely (1), occasionally (2), frequently (3), or always (4), and specified a nonlinear time range for each of these responses (0 = 0 percent, 1 = 1–10 percent, 2 = 11–33 percent, 3 = 34–65 percent, and 4 = 66–100 percent of classes over the term of the course). To report these responses here, we have transformed the 0 through 4 responses to the midpoints of these time ranges. Therefore, a response of 0 = 0 percent of classes, 1 = 5.5 percent, 2 = 22 percent, 3 = 49.5 percent, and 4 = 83 percent. A few respondents in the 2000 survey indicated that they used a particular teaching method but did not give the percentage of time. In these cases, we entered the modal response for all respondents in that survey cell, which was almost always also the median value. In the first section of Part 2 of the surveys, respondents indicated the importance of different assessment methods by stating the percentage (0–100 percent) of the course grade determined using each kind of assessment procedure. Unfortunately, a few respondents continued to use the 0–4 responses from Part 1 and never wrote a value other than 0–4 in Part 2. All such responses were transformed into the same midpoint percentage responses used in Part 1. In the second section of Part 2 of the 1995 survey, respondents were asked to assign a 0–3 integer rating to the importance of various mathematical skills, and 274


a few respondents seemed to continue to use the 0–4 responses from Part 1. Here there was no way to identify all of those who used the 0–4 range, versus the desired 0–3 range. For that reason, all responses of 4 were converted into a maximum response of 3 = extremely important. Given this experience, in the 2000 survey we used a scale of 0 (not at all important) to 4 (extremely important) in Part 2. Finally, percentage responses were not required to sum to 100 percent. Such a constraint was inappropriate in Part 1 of the survey and could not be enforced in later parts. This raises the question of whether respondents were using the same metrics in their responses. That did not appear to be a serious problem in 1995, when we found little difference between average responses for instructors from the five types of schools—suggesting that, on average, respondents used the same metrics. We have not yet separated the 2000 data into the five types of schools to check for consistency across institutional types. SURVEY RESULTS The typical U.S. instructor of undergraduate economics courses is a male (81 percent in 2000 and 83 percent in 1995), Caucasian (89 percent in 2000 and 89 percent in 1995), with a Ph.D. (84 percent in 2000 and 86 percent in 1995—note that graduate student instructors are rarely included on either the AEA or CMG lists of instructors).2 In both 1995 and 2000, this typical instructor had not written or edited a book within the past five years (median response is zero in both years) but had written at least one article over the same time period (median articles written in the 1995 survey was 2, with a mean of 3.6; in the 2000 survey the median is 1 with a mean of 2.5). So our picture of the typical academic economist shows a low and declining level of publication activity. Consistent with this decline is a reported drop in time devoted to research, which fell from a median of 30 percent (mean of 33 percent) of work time in 1995 to a median of 20 percent (mean of 26 percent) in 2000. The amount of time devoted to teaching increased from a median of 50 percent (mean of 52 percent) of work time in 1995 to a median of 60 percent (mean of 56 percent) in 2000. This shift toward teaching and away from research is also consistent with the reported reward structure for the respondents’ departments. For both promotions and annual raises, respondents indicated that there was over a 5 percentage point increase in the median weight given to teaching and an even greater decrease in the median weight given to research between 1995 and 2000. Given this apparent change in the importance of teaching in the reward structure and in time devoted to teaching, we might also expect to find changes in teaching methods used, and in particular, greater use of innovative, active-learning, and technology-based approaches, rather than the chalk and talk methods that were so dominant in the 1995 survey. But that is not the case (Table 2). The median respondent is usually or always lecturing, with the amount of time spent lecturing in all of the courses estimated to be 83 percent. Universally, the median amount of time devoted to the use of the chalkboard for writing text and graphs during class is also 83 percent. These median values are exactly what we Summer 2001

275

TABLE 2 Some Results from the 1995 and 2000 Surveys Intro

Theory

Stat/metric

Upper

1995 Time in Traditional Classroom Lectures MEDIAN MEAN STDEV COUNT

83.0 72.9 20.9 426

83.0 72.0 21.9 300

83.0 73.1 21.0 153

83.0 69.0 23.8 421

1995 Time Writing on Chalkboard in Class MEDIAN MEAN STDEV COUNT

83.0 63.1 30.8 420

83.0 69.3 26.3 294

83.0 67.8 28.0 147

83.0 65.1 28.3 411

25.0 27.0 20.0 189

20.0 26.1 18.6 443

1995 Class Size MEDIAN MEAN STDEV COUNT

40.0 69.8 92.0 453

MEDIAN MEAN STDEV COUNT

83.0 68.0 24.5 497

29.0 32.0 27.4 332

2000 Time in Traditional Classroom Lectures 83.0 70.3 22.7 273

83.0 66.9 25.2 158

83.0 64.9 25.3 406

2000 Time Writing on Chalkboard in Class MEDIAN MEAN STDEV COUNT

83.0 65.3 27.1 495

MEDIAN MEAN STDEV COUNT

40.0 63.5 84.8 503

83.0 70.1 21.8 279

83.0 66.6 25.6 158

83.0 63.4 26.4 408

20.0 27.4 32.1 190

20.0 25.9 24.2 411

2000 Class Size 25.0 31.8 32.4 299

2000 Class Discussion: Student(s) with Student(s) MEDIAN MEAN STDEV COUNT

5.5 19.9 22.9 474

5.5 14.9 20.3 266

5.5 16.1 22.6 151

22.0 23.6 24.2 404

2000 Class Discussion: Instructor with Student(s) MEDIAN MEAN STDEV COUNT

276

49.5 43.3 28.1 500

22.0 38.3 27.4 273

22.0 39.1 28.2 157

49.5 47.3 26.1 413


found in 1995. Small drops in the mean values for these items from 1995 to 2000 range from about 1 to 5 percentage points. The most prominent form of instruction in all U.S. higher education is class discussion, rather than extensive lecturing (Sax et al. 1996). In the 2000 survey, we asked explicitly about the form of discussion that takes place in economics courses. Instructor-student discussion occurs, especially at the introductory level and upper division courses; but student-to-student discussion is rare across the entire spectrum of economics courses (Table 2). Despite recent attention given to cooperative and active-learning methods, and to alternative classroom assessment techniques, there is still very little use of these practices in undergraduate economics courses. In the 2000 survey, with the exception of upper-division courses, the median use of guest lectures remains zero. The median use of team teaching remains zero for all courses. For both guest lectures and team teaching the mean rates of use are below 5.5 percent for all courses. Similarly, there is a zero median response for the use of student self-assessment techniques, such as the one-minute paper, for which Chizmar and Ostrosky (1998) provide impressive evidence of changes in student learning. Cooperative learning and small group assignments are used at rare but basically equal levels across the different types of courses. The use of examples dealing with gender, race, and ethnic issues are about as rare as references to sports in all types of courses. In both the 1995 and 2000 surveys, textbooks are used 83 percent of the time. Instructor-developed problem sets are popular in all courses and, as in our 1995 survey, especially so in teaching statistics and econometrics. It seems unlikely that these problems sets are based on current, real-world data, however, because popular business and economics press readings (e.g., articles in the Wall Street Journal and The Economist) are assigned rarely in statistics and econometrics courses and only occasionally in the other types of courses. Readings from scholarly publications such as the American Economic Review, Journal of Economic Literature, and so forth, are never or rarely used in all courses except the upperdivision field courses, where they are occasionally used. Except in statistics and econometrics classes, a zero median response suggests that computer labs, computer games and simulations, and computer-generated displays (e.g., PowerPoint) are rarely used to teach economics. There is, however, now a somewhat higher median response for the use of Internet database searches in all four types of courses. In the 2000 survey, class size continues to vary from a median of 40 for introductory courses to 20 for upper division courses (Table 2), with great variation across the different types of institutions. This topic is the focus of some of our ongoing research. Although there are few differences in teaching methods across different types of courses, there are (as there were in 1995) some marked differences in grading procedures. In particular, multiple-choice questions are heavily used in principles courses, with the mean respondent indicating that a 44.9 percent (median 47.5 percent) weight in grading is given to multiple-choice questions. But in other types of classes, the mean response for using such items was less than 20 percent, with a median response of zero use. Summer 2001

277

Finally, calculus was not viewed as important in any of the four types of courses, and the strong consensus was that it had no importance in introductory courses. Algebra was rated extremely important for statistics/econometrics and for intermediate theory courses but only moderately so for introductory courses. Graphs were judged extremely important for both introductory and intermediate courses. At the undergraduate level, therefore, economics is not taught as a particularly quantitative subject, at least compared to routine practice in courses on engineering, mathematics, and the hard sciences. Interesting questions beyond the scope of this preliminary report are whether academic economists who are currently publishing have a view of the importance of math that differs from those who are not publishing; and whether views of the importance of math differ across institutions. CONCLUDING REMARKS In 1995, we speculated that there might not have been sufficient incentives in place to move instructors away from the status quo. Perhaps there are some disincentives beyond the inherent costs of developing and learning how to use new teaching methods. Our current results suggest that the reward structure has moved slightly toward more emphasis on teaching, and that academic economists are now spending more time on teaching or preparing to teach. But the method of choice for teaching economics—or at least the method of choice for instructors, if not their students—is still chalk and talk. It is possible that this resistance of teaching innovations by economists is no different from what occurs in other disciplines, although Sax et al. (1996) suggest otherwise. It is also possible that the refusal to use alternative teaching methods reflects an equilibrium in which teaching efficiency, if not effectiveness, has been achieved. This efficiency may reflect instructors’ preferences and constraints, or even students’ preferences and constraints. The psychologist W. McKeachie (1997, 1219) states: Many students prefer teaching that enables them to listen passively—teaching that organizes the subject matter for them and that prepares them well for tests . . . research, however, points to better retention, thinking, and motivational effects when students are more actively involved in talking, writing, and doing . . . Thus, some teachers get high ratings for teaching in less than ideal ways.

As long as departments of economics rely on end-of-semester student evaluations of instruction that have little to do with student learning (Becker and Watts 1999) and have only a little to do with instructors’ self-evaluations of their own teaching effectiveness (Bosshardt and Watts 2001), academic economists may strive for higher student evaluations at the expense of student learning, and students may acquiesce by focusing on grades and entertainment instead of what they learn. Despite these inherent problems, we continue to believe that the variety of teaching methods available for use in undergraduate economics courses offers the means for any instructor to increase both student learning and interest in the subject. Given some preparation and a modicum of sensitivity to student respons278


es, instructors may expect their student ratings to go up, along with what students learn, when students are actively involved in the classroom learning experience. NOTES 1. It has been suggested to us that those who spend more time on their teaching might be less likely to have returned the survey because they were spending more time preparing for their teaching. We find that argument barely plausible and considerably more contorted than our simple and more direct assumption that a faculty member who is more interested in teaching than most of his or her colleagues is more likely to respond to a five-page survey on teaching methods in undergraduate economics courses. 2. One referee suggested that teaching assistants may be more innovative, on average, than regular faculty members. That is plausible, but it seems at least equally likely to us that teaching assistants are less likely to innovate because of the demands of their own coursework and other degree requirements and are perhaps also more risk averse than full-time faculty members when it comes to the use of innovative (i.e., nonstandard) teaching methods, unless incentives or directives in a department encourage such initiatives. REFERENCES Becker, W. E. 2000. Teaching economics in the 21st century. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (Winter): 109–19. Becker, W. E., and M. Watts. 1995. A review of teaching methods in undergraduate economics. Economic Inquiry 33 (October): 692–700. _____. 1996. Chalk and talk: A national survey of teaching undergraduate economics. American Economic Review 86 (May): 448–54. ———. eds. 1998. Teaching economics to undergraduates: Alternatives to chalk and talk. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar. ———. 1999. How departments of economics evaluate teaching. American Economic Review 89 (May): 344–49. Bergstrom, T., and J. H. Miller. 1997. Experiments with economic principles. New York: McGrawHill. Bosshardt, W., and M. Watts. 2001. Comparing student and instructor evaluations of teaching. Journal of Economic Education, 32 (1): 3–17. Chizmar, J., and A. Ostrosky. 1998. The one-minute paper: Some empirical findings. Journal of Economic Education 29 (Winter): 3–10. A classification of institutions of higher education. 1994. Princeton, N. J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Ehrenberg, R. G. 1997. The American university: Dilemmas and directions. In R. G. Ehrenberg, ed., The American university: National treasure or endangered species? Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Hazlett, D. 1999. Economic experiments in the classroom. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Longman. Keenan, D., and M. H. Maier. 1995. Economics live: Learning economics the collaborative way. New York: McGraw-Hill. McKeachie, W. 1997. Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist 52 (November): 1218–25. Porter, T. S., and T. M. Riley. 1995. Computer exercises in microeconomics. Fort Worth, Tex.: Dryden. Sax, L. J., et al. 1996. The American college teacher: National norms for the 1995–96 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Summer 2001

279