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