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

Anecdotes are often quite suggestive. A graduate student in economics who was serving as a teaching assistant once reported that his major professor came into his office and told him that he was spending too much of his time helping his undergraduate students and not enough time on his research. Was the professor expressing a preference for time spent on teaching over research? Or was the professor suggesting to the student that the academic market rewards research more than teaching? Regardless, the underlying message that gets transferred from such an experience, as early as graduate education and perhaps throughout a career, is that teaching is not as important or valuable as research. Such strong conclusions, however, should not be based on anecdotal evidence. Whether economics professors are less interested in teaching and more interested in research is an empirical question worthy of study. Although teaching and research choices made by economics faculty members reflect both preferences and choice sets, in this study we focus on preferences and use a national survey to compare the teaching and research views of economists with faculty members in other major disciplines.

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. (JEL A22, I23, J44)

When estimating regression models of educational achievement with pre- and posttest data, researchers have overlooked a sample selection bias that may occur even where initial assignment to the control and experimental groups is random. The bias arises because students who take the pretest but do not take the posttest are excluded from the regression analysis. Using data from a nationally normed test of high school student knowledge of economics, adjustment for this bias is shown to influence the estimated effectiveness of programs aimed at increasing student learning of economics. Copyright 1990 by MIT Press.

The Instructional Use and Teaching Preparation of Graduate Students in U.S. Ph.D.-Granting Economics Departments by William B. Walstad and William E. Becker. Published in volume 93, issue 2, pages 449-454 of American Economic Review, May 2003

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