This book demonstrates alternatives to the lecture and chalkboard approach that dominates the teaching of economics, providing a range of innovative teaching techniques and examples aimed at engaging undergraduates in the learning of economics.

In this paper we consider several factors affecting performance in principles of economics courses that have received little or no previous attention in the economic education literature. While these variables reflect a diverse group of factors, they have all become important in recent years, and are likely to remain so in the future. Specifically, we examine: 1) the effects on student learning and grades of assigning graduate student instructors who speak English as a second language; 2) the effects of alternative semester formats that change the intensity and duration of instruction in principles courses; 3) the effects of mixing freshmen and upperclassmen with sophomores who have tradi

In spring 2000, we conducted a national survey of academic economists to determine how economics is taught in four different types of undergraduate courses (Principles, Intermediate Theory, Statistics and Econometrics, and other upper-division courses) at institutions in the five Carnegie classifications (research, doctoral, master’s, baccalaureate, and associate), as listed in A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 1994 Edition. This new survey replicates our 1995 survey (Becker and Watts, 1996). Therefore, we can compare the results from the two surveys to document changes in teaching methods, as well as the related academic issues that were addressed in the background information section of the surveys. A key reason for believing that teaching methods might have changed during this period was the sharp decrease in economics enrollments during the early 1990’s (Becker, 1997; John Siegfried and David K. Round, 2001). As we have documented elsewhere (Becker and Watts, 1998), there is evidence that economists are less likely to use non-lecture teaching methods than instructors in other fields, and that students rate economics instructors somewhat lower than they rate other instructors. Changing teaching methods and increasing the importance of teaching within economics departments, in response to falling enrollments, is therefore a plausible and endogenous response for faculty members and departments concerned about losing resources. Furthermore, there is at least circumstantial evidence that economists are devoting more attention to teaching than in the recent past (Becker, 2000). Since our 1995 survey, several books have been published to illustrate how economists can use a wide range of alternative teaching methods in undergraduate courses (e.g., Becker and Watts, 1998; William Walstad and Philip Saunders, 1998). Other books have appeared focusing on specific teaching methods, such as using classroom experiments, spreadsheet applications, or active-learning and cooperative-learning assignments (e.g., Diane Keenan and Mark H. Maier, 1995; Tod S. Porter and Teresa Riley, 1995; Theodore Bergstrom and John H. Miller, 1997; Denise Hazlett, 1999). Becker (2000) documents the increase in AEA sessions devoted to teaching economics at the annual meetings of the Allied Social Sciences Association during the mid-1990’s. At the 1998–2000 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) meetings the number of sessions devoted to teaching economics ranged from 11 to 14, and presented sessions dealt with such topics as teaching economics in the transition economies (chaired by World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz), a retrospective on Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson’s principles textbook, how faculty advisors can deal with student apprehensiveness about taking economics courses, and teaching business economics (chaired by Nobel laureate Ronald Coase). As recently as the 1996 ASSA meetings in San Francisco there were only six sessions on teaching economics, and at the 1994 meetings in Boston there were only four such sessions. Similarly small numbers of sessions were scheduled through the 1980’s. Here we ask whether any increased emphasis on teaching in economics departments has led to changes in how economics is taught. Do academic economists report that they are now * Becker: Department of Economics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 (e-mail: [email protected]), and Adjunct Professor, School of International Business, University of South Australia; Watts: Department of Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47905 (e-mail: [email protected]). We thank Julia K. Huffer, Kevin M. Green, Siddhartha Kapoor, Chatchai Meteveravong, Alexandre Skiba, and Suzanne Becker for help in the mailing, data entry and tabulation, and preparing of this paper. Financial support from the Purdue University Center for International Business Education and Research, 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.

Based on results from a 1999 national survey, William Becker and Michael Watts found that student evaluations of teaching were by far the most widely used, and often the only method used by economics departments, to evaluate teaching in undergraduate economics courses. To investigate whether departments of economics have moved beyond the use of student evaluations of teaching, in 2011 the current authors conducted a national survey of departments based largely on questions used in the 1999 survey. The surveys included items on how courses and teaching are evaluated, and on how that information is used in departmental promotion and salary decisions.

Reports on the desirable goals and characteristics of economics programs, and reforms proposed to attain such programs (e.g., W. Lee Hansen, 1991; Hirschel Kasper et al., 1991), have ignored the issue of how economics is to be taught. That is surprising because several popular trade books have recently appeared condemning teaching practices at American colleges and universities. Some of these books were written by economists (e.g., Martin Anderson's [1992] Impostors in the Temple) and used economics courses as notable examples of these problems. Long before these reports and books appeared, the National Council on Economic Education (NCEE), together with the American Economic Association's (AEA) Committee on Economic Education, began sponsoring programs to improve the teaching of economics and to promote innovative teaching methods. In Becker and Watts (1995), we describe many of these improvements and explain how economists could use alternative teaching methods in different undergraduate courses. Until now, however, we could not provide data on how widely those approaches were used. We do that here, based on responses to a national survey.'

What Students Remember and Say about College Economics Years Later by Sam Allgood, William Bosshardt, Wilbert van der Klaauw and Michael Watts. Published in volume 94, issue 2, pages 259-265 of American Economic Review, May 2004

We conducted a national survey of department Chairs to investigate whether departments of economics changed course requirements for bachelors degrees since the Siegfried and Bidani (1992) paper using 1980 data. There have been few changes to course requirements. Most notable are a large increase in the number of departments requiring econometrics and a drop in departments requiring courses such as money, banking and economic history--courses once required in many business schools.

Assessment Practices and Trends in Undergraduate Economics Courses by Georg Schaur, Michael Watts and William E. Becker. Published in volume 98, issue 2, pages 552-56 of American Economic Review, May 2008

Research in Economic Education: Five New Initiatives by Michael K. Salemi, John J. Siegfried, Kim Sosin, William B. Walstad and Michael Watts. Published in volume 91, issue 2, pages 440-445 of American Economic Review, May 2001