This study investigated the likely effects of undergraduate economics on whether a college graduate has opened a retirement account four years after graduation. Economic education is measured by the number of economics credit hours or whether a college graduate had majored in economics. Additional control variables for the logit analyses include occupation differences, employment record, and some demographics. Completing an undergraduate course in economics is significantly associated with having a retirement account, and economics majors are more likely than some other majors to have a retirement account. The analysis uses college transcript data from the Baccalaureate and Beyond study ( nces.ed.gov/surveys/b&b/ ).

The effects of courses on student achievement are studied using 2006 data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in economics. A regression analysis showed expected and significant achievement differences by course, with the highest scores in advanced economics, followed by general economics. Courses in business and personal finance were not substitutes for advanced or general economics courses. A probit analysis showed that students taking economics courses relative to personal finance courses are significantly more likely to think their courses helped them understand the US economy, the international economy, and current events--but not how to manage personal finances.

This study investigates three questions: (i) are there differences in teaching and research behavior between economists and other professors; (ii) do economists in the top 100 research departments allocate time differently than faculty in other disciplines at similarly ranked departments; and (iii) do professors respond to changes in incentives in allocating their time? The study uses data from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF). The study specifies a regression equation controlling for institutional incentives to compare time allocation to teaching and research for economics professors and faculty members in math, physics, psychology, political science and business.

This edition of the Test of Understanding of College Economics (TUCE-4) is a revision of a test that was developed 40 years ago, and has a long history of use by teachers and researchers in the economics profession. The previous editions and their uses have been described in earlier studies (e.g., Rendigs Fels 1967; Phillip Saunders, Fels, and Arthur L. Welsh 1981; Saunders 1991) and in research in economic education (e.g., William E. Becker 1997). As with past editions, the TUCE-4 has two main objectives: to offer a reliable and valid assessment instrument for students in principles of economics courses; and to provide norming data for a national sample of students in principles classes so instructors can compare the performance of their students on a pretest and a posttest with this national sample. Separate exams were prepared in microeconomics and macroeconomics. Both exams consist of 30 multiple-choice items and can be administered within the time constraints of a single class period for most course formats. What follows is a description of the revision process, the content and cognitive specifications, the norming sample, and the statistical characteristics of the TUCE-4.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress in Economics: Findings for General Economics by William B. Walstad and Stephen Buckles. Published in volume 98, issue 2, pages 541-46 of American Economic Review, May 2008

Economics instruction in U.S. high schools is basically delivered in two ways. About half of high-school students take a required or elective course in economics, according to transcript data. The great majority of these students (about 95 percent) enroll in a regular course that focuses on basic economic concepts with applications. The remaining small percentage of students take a college-oriented course that is often called “honors” or Advanced Placement (AP) economics. Economics instruction for the other half of high-school students, if it is provided at all, is typically delivered in the context of other courses in the high-school curriculum in what is sometimes called the “infusion” or “integrative” approach. These courses would most likely be required courses taught in the social studies, such as U.S. history or American government, or in elective courses taught in business education. This study investigates what high-school students know about basic economics given the different types of economics instruction. The primary focus is on the achievement of students who complete a basic course in high school economics. These results are important because they supply insights into what high school students who have received direct instruction in economics know about the subject. For comparison purposes, the achievement of students who have not taken a formal course in economics will be investigated to identify what they know about economics. The comparison of those students with and without instruction in a separate course in economics gives the best estimate of the importance of direct instruction in economics to the economic understanding of most high-school graduates. In addition, similar comparisons between those students with and without direct instruction in economics will be made for two groups of higher-ability students: those who enroll in honors or AP courses in economics and those who enroll in such courses for other social-studies subjects.

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