Using Internationally Collaborative Case Studies To Teach Intermediate Microeconomics Elsa Galarza Universidad del Pacifico and Marianne Johnson University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Abstract Described is an internationally collaborative course project that was added to an intermediate microeconomics course. Students at a US university were paired with students at a Peruvian university to collaborate on a semester-long project. The project required students to use microeconomic tools to comparatively analyze the market for milk in both countries, including demand and supply determinants and market equilibrium outcomes. Students collaborated using Blackboard, video-conferencing, email and instant messenger. An outline of the project is presented, learning objectives are evaluated, and suggestions for implementation at other universities are made. Potential pitfalls are discussed. We believe that the ideas of international student collaboration and extensive case studies could be modified to fit different courses, and therefore the structure, procedure, and evaluation may prove generally interesting. JEL Codes: A1, A22 Key Words: Collaborative Learning, International Exchange, Intermediate Microeconomics
*Corresponding author: Marianne Johnson, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, 800 Algoma Blvd., University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, WI 54901. Phone (920) 424-2230, Fax (920) 424-1734, email
[email protected]. Elsa Galarza, Professor, Department of Economics, Centro de Investigación, Jr. Sánchez Cerro 2041 - Jesús María, Lima 11, Perú. Phone: (511) 219-0100, email
[email protected]. We would like to thank the Department of Economics at the Universidad del Pacifico, the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and the Center for International Business and Education Research (CIBER) at the University of Wisconsin Madison for financial support.
1
Using Internationally Collaborative Case Studies to Teach Intermediate Microeconomics
“As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.” —Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
Economics programs in the United States are under many and often competing pressures to improve student learning, to offer more and different approaches to learning, and to introduce more writing, data analysis, group work, real-world applications, and recently, more international emphasis. There have been extensive calls for reform of the traditional economics curriculum to include different types of learning and evaluation techniques beyond the traditional “chalk-andtalk” routine (Hansen 1986; Hansen 2001). Economic theory courses such as intermediate microeconomics particularly open to these criticisms, given the heavy reliance on lecture and problem-based homework exercises (Becker and Watts 2001; von Allmen and Brower 1998).
There are many and diverse opinions on how to reform the economics curriculum. The Association of American Colleges faulted economics programs for their lack of writing assignments (Simpson and Carroll 1999). Siegfried (1991) encourages projects with an evaluative learning process that incorporates rounds of writing and feedback. Simpson and Carroll (1999) find that long research-type writing assignments are associated with the better understanding of course material, though may not be useful for students in their jobs later. Lowry (1999) argues
2
that role-playing can encourage students to do research, prepare to speak on the assigned topic, and perhaps increase student’s excitement about the course or material.
This paper describes a project designed to incorporate some of the suggestions for economics education reform. Intermediate microeconomics students in the United States were paired with students in Peru to collaborate on a semester-long project to complete a case-study analysis of the market for milk in both countries. The goals of the project were (1) to apply economic theory to real-world situations, and (2) to give students an “international experience” during the semester. The project required students of both countries to research, synthesize, compare, write, discuss, and present on topics in microeconomics. Project collaboration took place through Blackboard, video-conferencing, internet chat rooms, email and instant messenger.
The project was divided into two distinct phases, matching the material covered in class. Phase 1 asked students to prepare an analysis applying consumer and producer theory to the milk market in the US and Peru based on a number of guiding questions. In Phase 2, students examined the market equilibrium, the role of government in the market, and aspects of exchange and international trade. The project was concluded with a simulated trade conference between US and Peru to discuss issues in the milk market, after which students prepared a final report.
We evaluate the project in two distinct ways. First, we ask students to self-evaluate their economics skills at the beginning and end of the semester. The survey was guided by Hansen’s (1986; 2001) suggested proficiencies. Second, we ask for students’ written evaluations of the project. The responses are categorized and analyzed. The results are not entirely clear-cut. However, we believe that overall, students evidenced a better understanding of how theoretical economics can be applied to real-world situations, without (much) loss of theoretical proficiency.
3
Further, the project also contributed to broader university learning objectives, such as promoting global awareness.
Though we describe a specific project, we believe that the ideas of international student collaboration and case studies could be modified to fit many courses, and therefore, the structure, procedure, and evaluation may prove generally interesting.
MOTIVATION
Our motivation for this project was two-fold. First, we sought to redesign intermediate microeconomics to incorporate a wider variety of learning and evaluative techniques, taking advantage of the literature on the economic education and the specific proficiencies laid out by Hansen (2001).1 Second, we also sought to meet the demand for greater international content in our course work, as is consistent with our department’s new international economics emphasis and our university’s commitment to international education.2 Given this trend across the US, universities and academic departments need to be increasingly creative to meet the demand for international experiences. We do not argue that our format is a substitute for actual international experience, but that it can be a complement.3 International collaboration changes the usual group dynamic, challenges students’ collaboration skills, and gives students the opportunity to work with very different people. The collaboration also encourages cross-cultural exchange, learning to work across cultural and language barriers, and demonstrates the applicability of economic theory to divergent countries.
Hansen (1986 and 2001) identified six key skills for economics majors including: locating existing economics knowledge, demonstrating a command of existing knowledge, having the
4
ability to identify or draw out existing economics knowledge from a variety of sources, read and analyze data, use economics knowledge to explain situations, and create new knowledge (Hansen 2001, pp. 150 – 151). A summary of the proficiencies and examples are provided in Table 1. There is extensive support in the education literature to revise economics programs and courses to emphasize Hansen’s proficiencies (Carlson, Cohn, and Ramsey 2002, Hansen, Salemi and Siegfried 1999).
[Table 1. Hansen’s Proficiencies]
The particular project design was motivated by the wide-spread incorporation of case-study analysis, discussion, and role-playing in microeconomics courses at the partner Peruvian university. Case studies were added to the Peruvian curriculum in 2000, in an effort to introduce problem-based inquiry into courses that were traditionally lecture and homework based. Initially only using case studies in introductory microeconomics, the Peruvian university now uses case studies in seven different courses, including intermediate microeconomics. The essential format of the case approach is the same across the courses. Students are expected to apply economic theory to a contemporary market in groups of four or five. Students are required to collect and analyze data and examine government policy. The case study is to give students practice solving complex problems and making a connection between economic theory and the real world.
Several learning objectives are associated with the case study that normally would not be achieved in the traditionally-formatted of an intermediate microeconomics course. The objectives include illustrating to students the practical necessity of acquiring technical economic skills, the ability to work in teams not of their own choosing, and learning how to plan work and selfmanage assignments.
5
PROJECT DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Project Structure and Content Intermediate microeconomics is a required course of economics majors and minors at the US and Peruvian university. The US university offers three sections of the course per year, each section averaging 30 students. At the US university, students are required to have met prerequisites of introductory microeconomics and two semesters of business calculus or one semester of standard calculus; students at the Peruvian university are required to have taken one full year of calculus. Included in this study are two sections of intermediate microeconomics from the Fall 2004 semester and one section from the Fall 2005 semester. In Fall 2004, the section participating in the collaborative case study (treatment group) met on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9:40 to 11:10am. The second section, which did not participate in the project (control group) also met on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but from 1:20 to 2:50pm. In Fall 2005, the one section that participated in the collaborative project (treatment group) met on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 1:20 to 2:50pm.
To complete the project, groups of US students were teamed with Peruvian students, with whom they had to work to complete a semester-long analysis of the microeconomics of the milk market. During the Fall 2004 semester, a class of 25 US students and a class of 35 Peruvian students were divided into groups.4 In Fall 2005, the experiment was repeated with 31 US students and 35 Peruvian students collaborating. The same US and Peruvian instructors taught the course in both semesters; groups were assigned by the course instructor.5 The project was divided into two parts: an analysis of the milk market based on applications of consumer and producer theory, and an analysis of milk market equilibrium and governmental policies. Each part of the project asked students to conduct research, prepare information to be shared cross-culturally and cross-
6
lingually, prepare a final write-up of their research, prepare a 5 to 10 minute presentation of their team’s case study, and discuss their findings and conclusions in a student-led discussion forum. Discussion of the case takes one of three forms: (1) exposition in front of the classroom, (2) discussion between the different groups in class and in the video conferences, and (3) role-play in a simulated trade negotiation.
Since the US groups and Peruvian groups were expected to work closely together, an effort was made to organize the classes in a similar fashion, including coordinating the number and dates of exams and problem-solving type homework assignments. In addition, both classes used an intermediate microeconomics textbook by Walter Nicholson.6 The US and Peruvian instructors scaled back the usual number of homework assignments. For the US class, one exam and one homework assignment were eliminated, as was a review of introductory microeconomics and the review days before the midterm and final exams. Given this rearrangement, the project was added to the course without loss of coverage. Students had approximately five weeks to prepare each major part of the case, and two weeks to prepare the final paper. An outline of the project, assignments, and events is included in Table 2.
[Table 2. Project Outline]
By the end of the semester, each group had (1) produced a 25 to 30-page written case study, including graphs and data analysis, (2) made one presentation in front of the class, and (3) had participated in class discussions and simulations. Students were given guidelines for each part of the project. For example, in the each part of the project, students were asked to address specific questions that required applying topics in consumer and producer theory to the milk market (see Tables 3 and 4).
7
[Table 3. Guiding Demand and Supply Case Study Questions]
While students had some flexibility, generally their analysis was expected to include a discussion of budget constraints, utility functions – e.g. substitutes versus complements –, some discussion of the general demographic and social trends that might drive milk demand, an analysis of the elasticity of the demand for milk, and construct a demand curve (either by plotting data or by using simple regression). In addition, producer analysis should have included a discussion of milk inputs, labor and capital usage in production, and estimated cost curves or supply functions. Students were also required to learn some of the technical and complicated details of the current milk producing and pricing system and be familiar with the data, policy, and analysis of the milk industry by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Students were given limited guidance; in addition to the questions, students were provided with suggestions for websites and data sources (USDA, Wisconsin Dairy Association, FedStats, etc.), as well as some research articles on the U.S. Dairy Industry.
[Table 4. Guiding Market Case Study Questions]
Communication Students were given very limited time in class for group work; the majority of the work was expected to be completed outside class. Beyond the usual group work, the case study involved collaboration and communication between the US and Peruvian groups. As indicated in Table 1, US groups were assigned on the first day of class, and most of that class period was devoted to establishing group-work guidelines, determining group leaders, and group meeting schedules. To facilitate international group contact, in the second week of class, we began the project with a video-conference to introduce the US students to those of the Peruvian university. Students met
8
the members of their matching groups, and all students had the opportunity to listen to both instructors describe the case study and learning objectives.7
Students primarily communicated via email and internet chat rooms. Some groups relied on instant messenger and two groups scheduled group-to-group video conferences in Fall 2004. In Fall 2005, five groups scheduled group-to-group conferences. The Peruvian university hosted the class project on their Blackboard website. All project materials were copied over to the US university’s similar on-line learning system. Both the faculty and students found that it was a problem that the two learning systems could not be easily linked or accessed directly. The US class had to log into the Peruvian system with separate usernames and passwords, or vice versa. The primary language of communication was English, though some of the US groups had individuals who could speak Spanish. Those groups exchanged materials in both English and Spanish.
Professor Exchange To emphasize the importance of international exchange and allow each instructor to better understand the other’s university and students, the project instructors exchanged classes for two weeks in the middle of the semester in Fall 2004. While not always practically or financially an option, we found this exchange very beneficial in terms of developing a better understanding of the level and detail at which intermediate microeconomics is taught at both universities. Instructors also became aware of the different motivations and concerns of the students and the different student lifestyles at the two universities.
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
9
While the students were enrolled in highly similar courses in the US and Peru, there were some important differences that influenced student performance on, and satisfaction with, the project. The group dynamics and personalities that complicate collaborative projects in one location compound across locations and languages. The primary issue was communication – misunderstandings and miscommunications as to who would complete what work and at what time. Additional issues included the expectations about what information would be exchanged, in what format, in what language, when, and if the materials were what had been requested.
There are several significant differences between the US and Peruvian intermediate microeconomics students. In Peru, students attend one fewer years of high school and one additional year of college. Further, in Peru, as in many Latin American countries, students specialize in their major immediately upon entry into the university. Thus, students taking intermediate microeconomics in Peru were all in their second year of university, compared to students in the US, who often take two years of general course work before specializing. Overall, the US students were nearly three years older than their Peruvian counterparts. Additional information is reported in Table 5.
[Table 5. Comparison of US and Peruvian Students ]
The younger Peruvian students with less university experience tended to become anxious as deadlines approached, whereas the US students tended toward procrastination. Another issue was the differing expectations about the quality of the work being produced by the groups. Some of the differences in expectations can be attributed in part to the number of class hours per week (6 hours in Peru compared to 3 hours in the US). Other explanations include the differences between the attitudes of Peruvian private-school and US public-school students toward school, and the
10
number of hours worked by the Peruvian students compared to the American students. These differences contributed to education-culture clash between the classes, which sometimes had to be resolved by the intervention of the instructors.
Given the less rigid course scheduling system in the US, we find that the US students had taken more economics courses and a wider variety of courses than their Peruvian counterparts. Thus, despite having better technical skills, the Peruvian students had less wide-ranging economic experience than their US counterparts. In Table 5, we can observe that, on average, the Peruvians report studying considerably more and working considerably less than the US students. The Peruvian class had significantly more women, than the US class. We can also observe that the Peruvian students were paying significantly more for their education, even before adjusting for purchasing-power parity.
Other issues that influenced the collaboration included timing and schedule matching between the US and Peruvian universities. The US university started two weeks later and ended one week later than the Peruvian university during the fall semester. Classes did not meet at the same time nor on the same days of the week, requiring that video conferencing take place largely outside of class for all students. There were also many minor, but crucial practical considerations, including when the video-conferencing technology was available and adjusting for day-light savings.8
EVALUATION
The case study project had multiple learning objectives; graded project outcomes included powerpoint slides, oral presentations, discussion, and a written paper. The case study required students to learn different things than the students in the standard intermediate microeconomics course.
11
Given the multiple learning outputs, which are not easily measured, and the incongruity of these learning outputs compared to those in the standard class, we attempt to evaluate the project using both quantitative and qualitative methods.
We have comparative information from a class of intermediate microeconomics, taught by the same instructor and using the same textbook and exams, but which did not participate in the collaborative case-study project. This control section completed four additional homework assignments, instead. Since the students were evaluated on different assignments, and because the courses had a different emphasis, an examination of head-to-head test scores and/or grades between the US treatment and control sections would be inappropriate. Further, the qualitative elements of the case study and the essay/short-problem exams used in the class makes evaluation difficult, since the standard regression approaches would not be appropriate. Ultimately we use two different methods to evaluate student learning in the course: student learning self-evaluation, and open-ended student project evaluations. Results are reported for US students only.
Pre- and Post-project Self Evaluations Using nine questions based on Hansen’s proficiencies we surveyed students at the beginning and end of the semester as to how they would self-rate their economics skills on a scale of zero (not at all confident about performing the task) to ten (nearly absolutely certain about performing the task correctly). For comparison, the students in the control section of intermediate microeconomics were also surveyed.
Students in the treatment sections reported smaller gains in confidence at the end of the semester compared to students in the control section. The differences in mean values reported for each question from the beginning to the end of the semester are reported in Table 6. In nearly every
12
case, treatment students reported statistically significantly smaller gains in Hansen’s proficiencies than the control group.
[Table 6. Student Self-Evaluations Based on Hansen’s Proficiencies]
There are several possible reasons why students in the treatment section gained less confidence. First, it is possible that students in the control section were over-confident in evaluating the skills they learned over the course of the semester. Never being asked to apply economic theory, do research, or interpret data, they simply felt that if asked, they would be able to. Second, it is also possible that the treatment section was initially over-confident, and when faced with actually practicing Hansen’s proficiencies, realized they knew less than they thought.
Demographically speaking, the treatment and control sections exhibited a fairly high degree of similarity. All classes reported working nearly 19 hours per week. There was also no significant difference in the ages of the classes, in the hours they report volunteering and spending in extra curricular activities, nor in their college admission ACT scores. All classes reported a high preference for quantitative courses and felt that the course was important to their future careers. Further, only one student in the treatment section of Fall 2004 and one student in the control section of Fall 2004 reported that they were not able to register for their preferred section of intermediate microeconomics.9
There were some significant differences, however. The treatment sections reported studying five hours more per week for their courses than the control group (p < 0.01) and had statistically significantly higher self-reported GPAs (p < 0.04). Further, the treatment sections were on average one-half year more advanced through their university curriculum (p < 0.02), though they
13
do not report having taken any more economics courses and were not any more likely to have failed an economics course. Regression analysis does not suggest, however, that these differences are explaining factors in the pre- and post-evaluation scores.
Written student evaluations of the project help understand these statistics. A common theme in the written evaluations was that students found the milk industry complicated to understand (pricing structures, governmental policy, and different types of products) and that finding data on their own was difficult. A second theme was that the project demonstrated to students how little they knew about actually applying economics, evidence of Rumsfeld’s Law.10 As one student stated:
“With people gaining knowledge, I think they realized how little they actually knew...this project may have just been a reminder of how students still need to dig further to become more specialized to make better assessments on the subject.”
Another explanation lies in the initial level of confidence reported by the students in the different sections. We observe for Fall 2004 that the students in the treatment section initially reported much higher levels of confidence than students in the control section, thereby mitigating potential gains (Table 7). For questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9, these differences were statistically significant at the 6% level, or better. Breaking down the responses by gender, by number of economics courses taken, and by university class-status does not shed any light on the disparity. However, the values converged over the course of the semester, so that the final values are much more consistent across the sections. In contrast, the students in the Fall 2005 treatment group reported much more modest levels of confidence, more consistent with those initially reported by the control group for Fall 2004. In only two cases did the Fall 2005 treatment students evidence a statistically significant difference in initial ratings, compared to the Fall 2004 control group (which met at the same time, in the same classroom, with the same professor, though during different semesters).
14
The two questions where students differed were questions number 2 and 8. In four cases (questions 1, 3, 5 and 9), students in the Fall 2005 treatment group reported statistically significantly different levels of confidence from the Fall 2004 treatment group. In both cases, a significance level of 10% was used.
[Table 7. Initial and Final Responses to Self-Assessment Questions]
Additionally, we face some issues of selection bias. In Fall 2005, many students were aware that one section of intermediate microeconomics was participating in the international case project, and another section, taught by a different professor, was not. Thus the disparity between the Fall 2004 treatment group and the Fall 2005 treatment group might be explained, in part, by students interested in the project selecting into that particular section.
US Open Ended Evaluation and Comments Student verbal and written evaluations of the project were highly positive. Despite the muddiness of the evaluative process indicated by the numerical assessments, over 89% of the participants (40 out of 45 written evaluations competed in the two sections) recommended that collaborative case studies become a regular part of the intermediate microeconomics curriculum on the in-class questionnaire. In addition, 66% of students reported that they felt the case study helped them to develop a sense of how to apply economic theory to real-world situations.
“Case studies are very interesting and it’s more logical than doing homework because some jobs may require you to do lots of research and put it all together with other group members.“ (sic) “It was very interesting because you got to actually see economics and its policies in the real world.”
15
“At first I didn’t want to do to this project, but the farther we got into it, the more I liked it. I’ve learned so much and it really helps apply economics to the real world, which I thought was really important.” (sic) “It [the project] is a good educational tool that helps us learn about our economy as well as another country’s economy.” “Economic information on taxes, tariffs, and budget constraints that I learned in class will help me with the real world.” “While Principles of Microeconomics taught me a lot about graphs, models, methods of computing, etc....I did not know where those numbers came from, nor how economists would use those models to explain about the market. With the lectures, examples, and readings from the book, I was able to apply this to the project. Every time I go back to look at the project, it just summarizes what I’d learned in Intermediate Microeconomics!” “It [the project] made me more conscious of our class and made me use the material we learned in a more relevant manner, which made the homework and material easier.” “It [the project] got me more involved in the micro course.”
A significant majority of the students stated that working with people from another country was the most interesting part of the project (65%), despite the fact that most students also reported that communication was the major difficulty of the project (52%). Overall, students reported much higher levels of global awareness, particularly with regards to differences in income, health, and living standards in different countries. Revisiting the usefulness of the case study through an online discussion forum of the Fall 2004 section, all of the participating students (7 out of 7) felt that the project was useful and should be continued one year later. Thus, the results from the written questionnaire strongly suggest that the student felt this was a worthwhile project.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this paper, we describe a class project that was completed collaboratively during the Fall 2004 and Fall 2005 semesters by intermediate microeconomics students at a US and Peruvian university. Students were required to collect data, analyze supply and demand determinants,
16
apply the theories of budget constraints, utility functions, consumer maximization, and firm cost minimization to the market for milk in the US and Peru. The project was completed in groups. By the end of the semester, each group had completed a written comparative analysis of the US and Peruvian markets, made a presentation on some aspect of the milk market in front of the class, and had participated in class and video-conference discussions.
We believe that the ideas of international student collaboration and extensive case studies could be modified to fit different courses at different levels. Therefore the structure, procedure, and evaluation may prove generally interesting. Our recommendations for implementation at other universities and in other classes include the following.
•
Choose classes with highly similar content, at similar difficulty levels, and with a similar course format;
•
Choose to work with a university with which you have strong ties, and where communication and exchange between the instructors is relative easy and supported by the administration;
•
Devoting time to establishing groups within a location and fostering group communication across locations improves student perceptions of the project and seems to increases student commitment;
•
Seek out classes or universities in relatively similar time zones – this encourages realtime communication and contemporaneous discussion;
•
Be aware that students have trouble with the open-ended questions, ambiguity, and alternative interpretations. Students often worry about finding the “right” answers to questions. Students able to function in an atmosphere of uncertainty seem to find the
17
project more appealing than students who are interested in moving in a straight line from question to answer; •
Be aware that such a project requires a significant time investment from the professor, to assist with research and questions, to mediate group conflicts, and generally get students to see the forest for the trees.
Despite the additional work, students responded favorably to the project, with 89% recommending that the project become part of the regular intermediate microeconomics curriculum. Students also reported that they enjoyed the discussions and the research aspects of the project. However, on a survey that asked students to self-assess their economics knowledge and skills, we find that students who completed the project felt less confident about their skills at the end of the semester than they had at the beginning. While not ideal, the decline in confidence may be attributable to students realizing the complexity of real-world economic problems, the difficulty of finding quality data and sifting through an extensive literature, and could prove useful to the vast majority of economics majors who do not go on to attend graduate school. The majority of students reported that the international aspect and working with the Peruvian students was their favorite part of the project (65%). Students reported increased interest in international issues and study abroad, thereby contributing to university-wide objectives to increase global awareness in students.
18
References Becker, W. and M. Watts. 2001. Teaching methods in US undergraduate economics courses. Journal of Economic Education 32 (Summer): 269 - 279. Bollag, B. 2004. Get out of the country, please. Chronicle of Higher Education (November 19): 42. Carlson, J., R.L. Cohn, and D. Ramsey. 2002. Implementing Hansen’s proficiencies. Journal of Economic Education 33 (Spring): 180 – 191. Gartner, M. 2001. Teaching economics to undergraduates in Europe: volume, structure, and contents. Journal of Economic Education 32 (Summer): 219 – 230. Hansen, W.L. 2001. Expected proficiencies for undergraduate economics majors. Journal of Economic Education 32 (Summer): 231 – 242. Hansen, W.L. 1986. What knowledge is most worth knowing – for economics majors? American Economic Review 76 (May): 149 – 152. Hansen, W.L., M. Salemi, and J. Siegfried. 2001. Creating a Standards-Based Economics Principles Course. Vanderbilt University Working Paper 0105. Johnston, C., R. James, J. Lye, and I. McDonald. 2000. An evaluation of collaborative problem solving for learning economics. Journal of Economic Education 31 (Winter): 13 – 29. Lowry, P. 1999. Model GATT: a role-playing simulation course. Journal of Economic Education 30 (Spring): 119 - 126. Nicholson, W. 2004. Intermediate Microeconomics and Its Applications, 9th Edition. Ohio: Southwestern. Siegfried, J. 1991. The status and prospects of the economics major. Journal of Economic Education 22 (Summer): 197 – 224. Simpson, M., and S. Carroll. 1999. Assignments for a writing-intensive economics course. Journal of Economic Education 30 (Fall): 402 – 410. Vol Allmen, P., and G. Brower. 1998. Calculus and the teaching of intermediate microeconomics: results from a survey. Journal of Economic Education 29 (Summer): 277 – 284.
19
Table 1. Hansen’s Proficiencies
1. Access existing knowledge, including: -
-
retrieval of economic information; locating published economics research; finding economics data and information on how that data was generated/constructed.
2. Display a command of existing knowledge, including: -
explain economic ideas/concepts and how they can be used; summarize the major ideas of a prominent economist; elaborate a controversial economics topic discuss the key features of current economic policy issues
3. Interpret existing knowledge, including -
explain and evaluate the economics concepts used in the popular press describe what the concepts add to the analysis of the current event
4. Interpret and manipulate economic data, including -
read, understand, and interpret numerical data in tables identify trends in data construct tables in support of an economic argument describe relationships among different variables conduct, describe, and explain regression analysis
5. Apply existing knowledge, including -
prepare papers, cost-benefit analysis, or policy positions using current economic theory and data
6. Create new knowledge, including -
formulate new research questions prepare a proposal for a research project complete an in-depth research project and present the results conduct group research that results in a research paper
*Proficiencies as stated by Hansen (2001), pp. 232 – 233. See also Carlson, Cohn, and Ramsey (2002), p. 182.
20
Table 2. Project Outline Type of Activity
Time Period
Group Formation
1st week of class (1 class period used)
Video Conference
2nd week of class (1 class period used)
Description
-
Producer & Consumer Case
5 weeks from start (1 class period used)
-
Market Case
5 weeks from previous part (no class time used)
-
-
Simulation of a Trade Negotiation by Video Conference
12th week of class (1 class period used)
-
Final Project
2 weeks
-
-
-
Students were assigned groups Group organization exercises
Introduction of US and Peruvian professors Exchange of names, emails, and group information among the students Question & answer session between the classes Research into the determinants of demand Applications of consumer theory to milk Research into the determinants of supply Applications of producer theory to milk Exchange of material between the Peruvian and US groups Presentations by groups comparing the US market and Peruvian markets Student-led group discussion of 4 policy-related questions Research into government intervention in the market, including regulations and the government provision of milk to the poor Research into the international milk market Exchange of information between the groups Assignment of roles for a simulation of “Free Trade Negotiations” between the US and Peru Presentations of the US position by one US group and the Peruvian position by one Peruvian group Statement of the talking points of each country Negotiation on the top 3 topics of discussion Written final project/case incorporating material from all parts of the case Written policy recommendations for the management of the market, international trade
21
Table 3. Guiding Demand and Supply Case Study Questions
1. Which is the historical context necessary to understand the present operation of the milk market? How has dairy farming changed over the last 100 years – who are the producers? Where is milk produced in the US? How many producers are there? 2. How many types of cow milk exist in the market and in what forms or types? How are these types driven by preferences? Who consumes the types of milk? Who are the producers? 3. What is the distribution system? Is sold more in supermarkets or elsewhere? 4. Are there groups that receive milk under social or governmental aid programs? How are budget constraints affected by such programs? 5. Is there foreign milk donation? How much? From where? 6. Estimate the demand for each of the different types of milk products? What are the determinants of the demand for milk, and are the influences of demand the same for each type of product? 7. What is the elasticity of the demand for milk? Does it vary by country? Why? 8. What about organic milk or milk produced with cows given extra hormones? How does this relate to the above questions and influence the milk market? 9. What are the features most important in the industry producing milk – how many companies serve the market and for how long? What is the production technology like? What inputs are necessary? What is the supply for milk? 10. What inputs go into the production of milk? How have the costs of inputs been changing? Have producers responded by changing the input mix? 11. Who are the major producers of milk, powdered milk, and evaporated milk? What international markets do they serve? 12. Graph/plot some cost curves for the milk industry. What has happened to the average total cost of producing milk over time? 13. Graph/plot/estimate a supply curve for milk. Does it behave as you would expect it to?
22
Table 4. Guiding Market Case Study Questions
1. How have governmental regulations influenced milk production? The costs of producing milk? The markets for milk (i.e. how consumers and producers come together to determine prices and quantities)? 2. Discuss the US International market share compared to that of New Zealand and Australia – why isn’t the US in the Peruvian market? 3. What has been the influence of global politics on the production of milk? Has this influenced the cost of milk? Has it modified the market equilibrium in the US? In Peru? 4. Identify the main problems that confront the US milk market and discuss several proposals or policies that could be implemented as solutions. 5. Consider whether the international market can or cannot to help the improvement of the situation of the internal market. Should the government design export policies for milk?
23
Table 5. Comparison of US and Peruvian Students United States Students
Peruvian Students
Mean age of students
21.86 years (2.17)
18.94 years (1.50)
Year in the University
3.68 (0.55)
2.36 (0.70)
27.78%
45.45%
Mean hours students work per week
18.85 hours (11.80)
0.00 (0.00)
Mean hours students study per week
12.13 hours (8.47)
20.12 hours (15.48)
Mean number of economics courses taken
4.74 courses (2.28)
4.00 courses (4.00)
13.89%
8.2%
2.86 (0.51)
14.14** (1.19)
45.07% 54.96% 0.00% 0.00%
12.12% 66.66% 15.15% 6.06%
Percentage of female students in the class
Percentage that have failed an econ. Course Mean GPA Distribution of Expected Grades About an A About a B About a C Refused Response N = 49
N = 33***
*Standard deviation is provided in parenthesis. ** The Peruvian University relies on a 20 – point grade scale. *** We have survey information on 49 US students, in two sections of Intermediate Microeconomics (Fall 2004 and Fall 2005), and 33 Peruvian students in one section (Fall 2004).
24
Table 6. Student Self-Evaluations Based on Hansen’s Proficiencies Question
Treatment Differences in Mean Value Reported
Control Differences in Mean Value Reported
T-test of Mean Differences
1. On the scale below, indicate how confident you feel that you could access existing economics knowledge and/or retrieve information on a particular economics topic or find relevant economic data without assistance.
0.36
0.90
p < 0.116
2. On the scale below, circle how confident you would feel summarizing a key economic concept and explaining how that concept could be used to others.
0.37
1.19
p < 0.027
3. On the scale below, circle how confident you would feel making a recommendation to your boss based on the economic theory you have learned in your classes so far.
0.52
1.05
p < 0.131
4. On the scale below, circle how confident you would feel discussing a real-world economics event you heard about on the news with an economics professor.
0.62
1.10
p < 0.084
5. On the scale below, circle to what degree you feel that you understand concepts in economics as opposed to memorizing mechanically how to solve specific problems? In other words, do you feel that you would be able to use the course concepts and apply them to new problems that you have not seen before?
0.12
1.19
p < 0.027
6. On the scale below, circle to what extent you feel that the economic theories you have learned so far can be applied to the real business world?
0.18
0.90
p < 0.057
7. On the scale below, circle how confident you are that you can interpret and manipulate economic data to make an argument or convince someone of the correct course of action?
0.52
0.43
p < 0.431
8. On the scale below, circle how confident you are that you could formulate a relevant economics research question that will illuminate new economic knowledge?
0.50
1.76
p < 0.011
9. On the scale below, circle how confident are you talking about economics in front of other people and/or asking informed economics questions?
0.76
1.29
p < 0.143
N = 42
N = 21
The self-assessment scale ranged from zero (not at all confident about performing the task) to ten (nearly absolutely certain about performing the task correctly). In Fall 2004, 19 out of 25 students completed both the pre- and post-survey of Hansen’s proficiencies. In Fall 2005, 23 out of 31 students completed both.
25
Table 7. Initial and Final Responses to Self-Assessment Questions Questions
Treatment Section Fall 2004
Treatment Section Fall 2005
Control Section Fall 2004
Initial Response
Final Response
Initial Response
Final Response
Initial Response
Final Response
1. On the scale below, indicate how confident you feel that you could access existing economics knowledge...
7.43 (1.47)
6.90 (1.67)
6.50 (1.84)
7.63 (1.28)
6.35 (1.47)
7.10 (1.37)
2. On the scale below, circle how confident you would feel summarizing a key economic concept...
6.70 (1.69)
6.86 (1.68)
6.17 (1.70)
6.75 (1.67)
5.43 (1.12)
6.57 (1.29)
3. On the scale below, circle how confident you would feel making a recommendation to your boss...
6.35 (1.94)
6.43 (1.57)
5.58 (1.98)
6.46 (1.93)
5.44 (1.88)
6.48 (1.60)
4. On the scale below, circle how confident you would feel discussing a real-world economics event...
6.96 (2.12)
6.75 (2.17)
6.15 (1.85)
7.46 (1.41)
6.30 (1.36)
7.48 (1.40)
5. On the scale below, circle to what degree you feel that you understand concepts in economics as opposed to memorizing mechanically how to solve specific problems...
6.87 (1.84)
6.40 (1.70)
6.08 (1.83)
6.75 (1.76)
6.13 (1.25)
7.29 (1.82)
6. On the scale below, circle to what extent you feel that the economic theories you have learned so far can be applied to the real business world?
7.13 (1.39)
7.15 (1.50)
6.48 (1.84)
6.92 (1.72)
7.00 (1.60)
7.52 (1.50)
7. On the scale below, circle how confident you are that you can interpret and manipulate economic data...
6.74 (1.89)
6.60 (1.70)
6.04 (1.95)
7.21 (1.28)
6.39 (1.83)
6.62 (1.83)
8. On the scale below, circle how confident you are that you could formulate a relevant economics research question...
5.57 (2.04)
5.90 (2.21)
5.19 (2.06)
5.79 (2.04)
4.48 (2.45)
6.24 (1.79)
9. On the scale below, circle how confident are you talking about economics in front of other people...
6.83 (1.90)
7.05 (1.86)
5.96 (2.01)
7.39 (1.64)
5.87 (2.03)
7.05 (2.27)
26
1
The Peruvian university’s objectives included: (a) introducing problem-based learning in
intermediate microeconomics, (b) improving students’ English proficiency, and (c) familiarizing students with the US university system. 2
International education opportunities are generally concieved of as courses with an international
curriculum (readings, disucssion, and materials on other countries or by writers of other countries) or as study abroad programs (either short-term island programs or long-term study abroad). According to the Institute of International Eduction, approximately 175,000 US students studied abroad in 2005. The number of student studying in Latin America is projected to increase by 14%, to over 25,000. Of students studying abroad, more than 50% choose short-term programs of 8 weeks or less. The primary reason for the choice of short term programs is affordability (Bolag 2004). 3
Overall, 15% of students in the two treatment sections participated in the Peru study abroad
program thus far. In addition, two students enrolled in the treatment section specifically because they had been to Peru and knew about the collaborative case study project. One student stated, “The project is why I took the class, and my choice would not change after experiencing the course.” 4
Previous studies have identified intermediate microeonomics courses as good candidates for
horizontal communication in Europe because of the homogenaity of course structure, topics covered, and textbooks (Gartner 2001). 5
Johnston, James, Lye, and McDonald (2000) have suggested that collaborative learning can help
students learn more effectively, by emphasizing verbal expression and problem-solving skills. However, as the authors point out, the success of a group learning is depends on a number of factors including group size, group personal dynamics, and projects or assignments designed to allow the work of each member to be identified and evaluated.
27
6
Nicholson’s book was chosen because it exists in a quality Spanish translation. The US students
used the version with limited calculus, while the Peruvian students used a more technical version. 7
The first video-conference also included a question and answer session between each US-Peru
group pairing. Students asked about hobbies, studying, jobs, beer, favourite foods, etc. While not actually relevant to the case study, we felt that this was time well spent, since it encouraged a feeling of camaraderie among the groups and classes. 8
The US and Peruvian universities share the same time zone from April to October, while the US
is on day-light savings. The rest of the year, the US university is one hour behind. 9
There were only two sections of intermediate microeconomics in Fall 2004. Thus, all students
enrolled in that semester were either in the treatment or the control section, both taught by the same instructor. 10
Re-opening the on-line learning site for the Fall 2004 course, students were asked for their
opinion as to why they felt their confidence did not increase. Out of 21 students, seven responded. Of the 21 students enrolled in the treatment section for fall 2004, eight graduated between the time of completing the project and resurveying the students. No effort was made to track down current email or physical addresses for these students.
28
