Australasian Journal of Economics Education

Volume 6, Number 2, 2009, pp.1-24

POOR STUDENT EVALUATION OF TEACHING IN

ECONOMICS: A CRITICAL SURVEY
OF THE LITERATURE *

Joseph D. Ongeri
Mathematics, Computer Science and Business Division
Spartanburg Methodist College

ABSTRACT
Research over the last twenty years or so has found that the subject of economics
and the quality of instruction in this subject have been consistently ranked among
the lowest by undergraduate students in colleges and universities in the United
States. In response, there has been an increased effort to understand the reasons
behind negative student perceptions of economics and what might be done to
improve this perception. This paper provides a survey of the literature produced
from this effort. The paper identifies a number of key explanations from this
literature for the persistence of poor student teaching evaluations including: a
tendency for economics courses to be organized around highly formal,
mathematical models; valuation by students of instructor attributes not possessed
by economics instructors such as organization and clarity of treatment; heavy use
of assessment instruments that limit the ability of students to show the depth of
their understanding; and teaching techniques that downplay student involvement
in the learning process. These factors suggest that poor student evaluation of
economics courses reflects a real, underlying problem with the adequacy of
university economics education and a range of measures is suggested to remedy
this deficiency.

Keywords: Economic instruction, student evaluations, active learning.

JEL classifications: A20, A22.

*
Correspondence: Joseph D. Ongeri, Mathematics, Computer Science, and Business
Division, Spartanburg Methodist College, 1000 Powell Mill Road, Spartanburg, South
Carolina, 29301, USA, Email: ongerij@smcsc.edu. Thanks to two anonymous referees
for helpful comments.

ISSN 1448-448X 2009 Australasian Journal of Economics Education

2 J. D. Ongeri

1. INTRODUCTION
Research over the last twenty years or so has found that the subject of
economics and the quality of instruction in this subject have been
consistently ranked among the lowest by undergraduate students in
colleges and universities in the United States (Cashin, 1990; Becker &
Watts, 2001b). In response, there has been an increased effort to
understand the reasons behind negative student perceptions of
economics and what might be done to improve this perception.
Several explanations have emerged from this effort. First,
economics is one of the few social science disciplines that heavily
utilizes statistical and mathematical models to analyze real-life
problems (Hansen, 2001; Cohn, Cohn, Hult, Balch & Bradley, 1998).
Students tend not to be attracted to courses that make heavy use of
mathematics and statistics, and this distaste for technical apparatus
may account for the poor evaluation of economics subjects. Second, in
the effort to make the citizenry more economically literate, many
colleges and universities require economics as a course for programs
such as business management, nursing, law and culinary arts, just to
mention a few (Hansen, 1982; Salemi & Siegfried, 1999). This
requirement draws large numbers of students into economics courses
that would not otherwise have chosen to study this subject, and such
students are more likely to be critical when they encounter problems
or difficulties in the learning process. Third, the lecture has been
found to be the predominant mode of instruction in economics, as
opposed to more progressive teaching techniques in other disciplines
that more actively involve students (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999;
Becker & Watts, 2001a; Quddus & Bussing-Burks, 1997). For
example, a 1996 national survey of 628 economics instructors found
that instructors spent an average of 83 percent of their class time
lecturing (Walstad & Watts, 1985; Becker & Watts, 1998, 2001a).
Since students are more likely to evaluate this approach to teaching
more critically, economics courses are more likely to suffer poor
ratings.
A growing body of research has also suggested ways to improve
teaching in economics departments in order to address negative
student perceptions of the discipline. As Becker and Watts (2001a,
p.446) argue, changing teaching methods and increasing the
importance of teaching within economics departments, in response to
 Poor Evaluation of Teaching in Economics 3

falling enrollments, is a plausible and endogenous response for faculty

members and departments.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive survey of
the explanations advanced for poor student perceptions of college and
university economics teaching and the strategies that have been
proposed to reverse these perceptions. Occasional surveys of this
nature are essential for the advancement of any field of study. They
bring to attention new findings that are scattered among disparate (but
related) studies, they project research trends, and they provide
opportunities to critique the often unquestioned assumptions of the
field (Granello, 2001; Hart, 1998). This is particularly the case in the
field of teaching economics. Considerable effort has been put into
finding effective methods of teaching. However, despite the continued
interest in searching for the best ways of teaching economics, there
has been no definitive review of the literature. This survey, therefore,
examines the existing literature on the potential causes of poor student
evaluations in the teaching of college economics and proposed
remedies in order to identify potential strategies for the improvement
of teaching in this field as well as directions for future research in this
area.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next
section explains how the literature to be surveyed was chosen and
provides an initial characterization of this literature including an
articulation of its main features. Each of the next four sections then
systematically outlines a set of themes which emerge from this initial
characterization. The final section of the paper provides an overall
discussion of the four themes and draws some conclusions.

2. SELECTING LITERATURE FOR REVIEW

To identify appropriate literature for review, an initial search of
databases including ERIC, ProQuest and dissertation and abstracts
databases was conducted using a combination of two descriptors:
teaching economics and learning in economics. This initial search
identified a total of 36 articles. Adding four more descriptors,
appropriate teaching, teaching techniques, teaching methods,
and effective learning, to an ERIC search yielded a total of 203
studies, of which 46 were journal articles, 18 were peer-reviewed
articles, 41 were conference articles, and one was a website article.
4 J. D. Ongeri

Three criteria were then used to select relevant articles from this
pool of 203 papers. First, articles had to be published no earlier than
1985, providing a time frame of 20 years from 1985 to 2005 for the
review. Second, the author was interested in papers that used some
form of empirical evidence to support claims made about the reasons
for poor performance of economics subjects in student evaluations.
This was due mainly to the fact that economists rely heavily on
empirical evidence for the verification of theoretical postulating and it
would, therefore, be interesting to see what conclusions could be
drawn from papers which ultimately relied on this kind of evidence.
To be selected, therefore, articles had to have utilized data derived
from teaching at the higher education (post-high school) level.
Thirdly, articles had to directly address teaching and/or learning in
economics.
The articles selected using these criteria, plus a number of related
conceptual papers, are shown in Table 1. Although these studies
examine a wide range of issues related to current concerns in the
teaching of economics, four broad themes emerged: the characteristics
of economics classes that may be responsible for the current state of
economics education; instructor attributes that may affect student
evaluation of economics teaching; approaches to assessment; and
strategies for improving economics instruction.
Table 1 classifies this literature according to the major theme
addressed by each paper. Methodologically, most of the papers
selected used regression analysis as their main analytical tool. Their
main sources of data were student evaluations of teaching (SET), the
U.S. normalized sample of objective and subjective data from the third
edition of the test of understanding college economics (TUCE III),
primary data, and a combination of other secondary data from school
documents such as GPA records, instructor evaluation records,
transcripts and SET. Nearly all of the studies chosen made use of SET
data in one way or another, with 13 studies using it as their only data
source. Four studies relied heavily on TUCE III as their main source
of data. Half of the studies collected primary data through
questionnaires, using surveys as the main technique of data collection.
Only one study used a combination of other secondary data sources
such as school documents (GPA records), instructor evaluation
records, transcripts and SET. Overall, it is clear that these studies
heavily relied on secondary data initially collected for
Table 1: Classification of Papers Identified by Treatment of Major Theme
Characteristics of
Economics Classes
Becker & Watts (1998)
Becker & Watts (1999)
Becker & Watts (2001a)
Cohn et al. (1998)
Cohn et al. (2001)
Colander (2000)
Gartner (2001)
Grimes et al. (2004)
Johnston et al. (2000)
Johnston et al. (2001)
Smith (2002)
Instructor Attributes
Anderson & Siegfried (1997)
Becker & Watts (2001a)
Boex (2000)
Bosshardt and Watts (2001)
Dynan & Rouse (1997)
Finnegan & Siegfried (1998)
Finnegan & Siegfried (2000)
Saunders (2001)
Shu-Hui & Goh (2003)
Assessment Methods
Boex (2000)
Finnegan & Siegfried (1998)
Finnegan & Siegfried (2000)
Freedman (1985)
Hansen (2001)
Johnston et al. (2000)
Johnston et al. (2001)
Saunders (2001)
Sherry (1989)
Smith (2002)
Walstad (2001)
Walstad & Watts (1985)
Alternative Teaching
Strategies
Bartlett & King (1990)
Bailey et al. (1997)
Baumol (1988)
Becker & Watts (1996)
Becker & Watts (2001b)
Bosshardt & Watts (2001)
Caropreso & Haggerty (2000)
Christoffersen (2002)
Grimes & Ray (1993)
Hervani & Helms (2004)
Johnston et al. (2000)
Leeds et al. (1998)
Little (1985)
Loviscek & Cloutier (1997)
Manning & Riordan (2000)
McGoldrick (1998)
McGoldrick et al. (2000)
Murphy (1987)
Nettleship (1992)
Parkinson et al. (2003)
Pereira-Ford (1998)
Post (1985)
Risinger (2001)
Saunders & Christopher (2003)
Siegfried & Sanderson (1998)
Smith (2002)
Sosin (1998)
Spencer & Van Eynde (1986)
Van Daele (1988)
Walstad (2001)
Watts (1998)
Poor Evaluation of Teaching in Economics 5
Wentland (2004)
6 J. D. Ongeri

purposes different from the objectives of the individual studies

themselves. Interestingly, even though qualitative data analysis has
been found to be rich in issues of perception, none of the studies
reviewed utilized exclusively descriptive research methods.
The following four sections examine each of the major themes that
emerged from the literature selected for survey.

3. CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPICAL ECONOMICS CLASS

The first theme asks the question: what is unique about the structure of
economics classes, as opposed to other college-level classes, that may
account for the poor student ratings consistently experienced by the
former? Most of the characteristics identified by the literature in
answer to this question pertain to subject content, student
preparedness and teacher expectations. Despite institutional
differences, class size, or even the instructors teaching load,
economics courses are often structured around formal mathematical
and/or statistical models. Colander (2000) argues that, conceptually,
introductory economics may be perceived by students as boring
because they are unfamiliar with mathematical discourse, find
learning this discourse an uninspiring prospect, and may well have
had very different expectations of what they would encounter in a
social science course. This is further compounded by a student
perception that to learn economics successfully, one must be capable
of abstract thinking (frequently related to mathematical approaches to
social explanation) and the application of this thinking to practical
problems, despite not being shown how to go about this kind of
application (Johnston, James, Lye & McDonald, 2000, p.13).
Economics classes may also be characterized by an expectation that
students will be able to express complex abstractions logically and
eloquently, again without necessarily being shown how to go about
this. The problem students encounter is that development of these
skills does not come easily, and students may easily feel intimidated
when they are unable to meet this expectation. Consequently they end
up viewing economics as a difficult course which should be left only
to gifted persons and this view may be reflected in poor economics
course evaluations.
A closely related characteristic of most economics courses is that
they use a standard textbook as the main resource for students
learning. Such an over-reliance on standard texts effectively places a
 Poor Evaluation of Teaching in Economics 7

restriction on instructors who may want to be innovative by soliciting

ideas from other sources, such as the internet, magazines, and/or
movies, but feel obliged to follow the textbook contents as if it were a
curriculum for the course. Reliance on standard texts may also hinder
the potential for creative discourse among economics instructors. The
result is that most economics professors tend to lecture instead of
using other more stimulating techniques that are often used in other
courses, and this too may lead to poor student evaluations of
university economics teaching (Becker & Watts, 1998, 1999, 2001a;
Smith, 2002).
Economics subject content adaptability is a related characteristic
that has generated some interest in recent studies. Adaptability refers
to the ease with which research findings or developments in economic
conditions are reflected in material taught in the classroom. As a
scholarly undertaking, teaching is seen as an extension of research
activities where subject content should be capable of reflecting recent
developments at the frontier of the discipline. As a subject dealing
with real-world economic systems, the teaching of economics should
be able to reflect developments that occupy the minds of policy
makers and business people. For example, it has been found that
popular media provide not only entertainment, but relevant
information that is current, interesting and easily accessible. But how
often is such material drawn upon in the teaching of university
economics and how easy is it to teach economics with popular
culture/media? The absence of this material from economics courses
and generally low levels of course adaptability may represent still
another possible factor explaining the poor evaluation of these courses
by students.
This issue of economics course adaptability (or lack of it) raises an
interesting set of questions: What is required if research
developments and the use of media/popular culture alternatives are to
be regularly and actively incorporated into the teaching of economics?
Who should determine the curriculum of economics courses? More
fundamentally: What should be taught? And how should it be taught?
(Johnston, McDonald & Williams, 2001, p.196). Currently what is
taught in economics is determined for the most part by academic
departments and individual instructors. This creates a bias towards
lecturing and textbook dependence. As textbooks are slow to undergo
major paradigm changes, it has been suggested that the immediate
8 J. D. Ongeri

clients, the student body, need to be listened to for views on both

course content and method of delivery, with the use of examples and
illustrations that relate to the students experiences being
recommended (Johnston et al., 2001). However, there has been no
research to show whether these recommendations are being put into
practice in economics classrooms. It would thus be instructive to see
how teaching in economics would change if students participated in
both curriculum development and in the selection of teaching/learning
techniques.
Some may argue that the unique characteristics of economics
courses considered above make economics genuinely different from
other university courses. In this sense, negative student evaluations
may simply be part of life. But these characteristics have been
associated with courses in other discipline areas in the past and have
been addressed in those discipline areas in ways that have had positive
impacts on teaching.
A methodological issue with many of the studies surveyed above is
that clear justification is not always provided for the specific
characteristics identified. A detailed study of all the characteristics of
an economics class with data collected from the same
student/instructor population may thus yield better results than the
individual characteristic studies. Another potential area for further
research is to study the impact of making economics a required course
for students who do not have a strong background in mathematics. Do
students ultimately benefit from being pushed to study a subject that
they would otherwise not be interested in, or are there ways of
increasing students interests for courses that they would not normally
choose of their own accord?
The picture that emerges from these studies is, however, one in
which the nature of economics does present particular teaching
challenges (for example its mathematical and formalistic nature) that
may not always have been handled in the most effective way by
economics instructors. Addressing these challenges in a way that
maintains integrity with the subject matter is likely to be important for
lifting student perceptions of teaching of the discipline.

4. INSTRUCTOR ATTRIBUTES
A second set of factors identified in the literature suggests that certain
attributes or qualities of instructors themselves may play a role in
 Poor Evaluation of Teaching in Economics 9

affecting student evaluation of economics courses. The typical image

of a U.S. undergraduate economics teacher continues to be that of a
male Caucasian PhD-holder, who has not written or edited a book
within the past five years. This teacher lectures to a class of students
as he writes text, equations, or graphs on the chalkboard, and assigns
students readings from a standard textbook (Becker & Watts, 2001a).
A number of scholars (Boex, 2000; Finnegan & Siegfried, 1998;
Saunders, 2001) have investigated this issue by attempting to identify
the attributes of the most effective economics instructors. Boex (2000)
uses data from students evaluation of instructors (SEIs) taken at
Georgia State University to show that the most important attributes of
effective instructors are organization and clarity of material. This was
found to be increasingly important as one moves to more advanced
levels of learning. Presentation skills, the ability to motivate students,
and approaches to setting assignments and grading were second, third
and fourth respectively in importance. Instructor disposition towards
students can also be important. Adopting an overly demanding stance
towards students may create in them an expectation that they are
likely to fail and this may impact negatively on evaluations of the
subject.
In looking at the differences between instructors and students
perceptions of what constitutes good teaching, Bosshardt and Watts
(2001) found that, although students and instructors perceptions of
how well the instructor teaches are different, they are positively
correlated.
A range of other instructor attributes have been discussed. Anderson
& Siegfried (1997) find no significant difference between student
ratings of male and female instructors in introductory economics
courses, suggesting that gender is not an important factor. Women did,
however, receive higher ratings than men at other course levels.
Dynan & Rouse (1997) and Shu-Hui & Goh (2003) found that
instructor ratings were not affected by years of teaching experience or
rank. Interestingly, Finnegan & Siegfried (1998) conducted a
regression analysis on the TUCE III data and found that no significant
difference could be found in objective measures of learning for
students in economics classes taught by PhD and masters degree
holders.
A number of studies report a substantial role in student perceptions
of instructors from fluency in the language of communication
10 J. D. Ongeri

(Finnegan & Siegfried, 2000; Bosshardt & Watts, 2001; Saunders,

2001). Instructors who are native English speakers are generally rated
as good teachers, while instructors for whom English is a second
language are assessed as good teachers only on their grading rigor,
and not on their overall teaching effectiveness (Bosshardt & Watts,
2001). Instructors of classes in introductory economics for whom
English is a second language received significantly lower student
ratings on average than did other instructors (Finnegan & Siegfried,
2000). This effect did not appear to operate at the level of introductory
classes. Data collected from one unnamed university for six years
covering classes taught by 97 instructors (62 Native English speakers
and 35 non-English speakers) found no significant difference between
introductory economics classes taught by instructors whose native
language is English, and those taught by instructors for whom English
is a second language (Saunders, 2001). Further research may be
necessary in this area to establish how cultural perceptions affect
student/instructor interactions. This is important in view of the fact
that international students represent a significant proportion of PhD
holders from US graduate schools and many of them could be
potentially hired to teach in economics departments (Siegfried &
Stock, 1999).
These studies highlight ways in which teacher attributes may affect
perceptions of economics teaching. What is less clear is whether these
findings hold regardless of teaching context, the type and level of
students, or the level of any course that may be considered. More
research is needed to answer these questions. Furthermore, although
these studies find that English language competency may be important
in affecting the evaluation of individual economics courses, they
generally fail to establish the overall percentage of economics
instructors whose native language is a language other than English.
Unless this percentage is large for the profession as a whole, lack of
fluency in English would not seem to account for the generally
negative perception of university economics teaching identified above.
In addition, many of the studies reviewed only evaluated the effect
of individual instructor attributes on effective teaching. It has already
been argued that single attribute studies inadequately explain the
effectiveness or non-effectiveness in teaching. Effective teaching is a
process of enculturating students into a set of social norms and ways
of working, and does not depend on just a single instructor attribute
 Poor Evaluation of Teaching in Economics 11

(Pratt et al., 2002). Similarly, Marsh (1987) advocates that teaching

should be viewed as a multidimensional activity, outlining the nine
dimensions of good teaching as: learning/value, enthusiasm,
organization, group interaction, individual rapport, breadth of
coverage, examination and grading, assignments, and
workload/difficulty. Therefore any study focusing on a single
instructor attribute may fail to appropriately address the full range of
attributes relevant to effective teaching.

5. ASSESSMENT AND TESTING IN ECONOMICS

Assessment and testing can be powerful tools for shaping learning
outcomes and the approaches students adopt towards specific learning
tasks. Assessment regimes can perform three general functions:
testing and grading in a summative sense to evaluate students and
determine grades; provision of feedback to instructors about student
learning; and provision of feedback to students about their own
learning (Boex, 2000; Hansen, 2001; Johnston et al., 2001; Smith,
2002; Walstad, 2001). Effective assessment regimes are likely to be
multidimensional, incorporating all of these functions and the amount
and type of assessment that students are subjected to is likely to be a
strong influence on their approaches to learning (Johnston et al.,
2001).
Instructors can use various forms of classroom assessment
techniques to obtain feedback from students to find out if they are
being effective or not. This feedback, if used well, can effectively
guide an instructors attention and energies to focus teaching practice
on activities that will have the biggest impact on student learning
(Smith, 2002). But Walstad (2001, p.283) argues that assessment
regimes will also be selected by instructors to: reinforce text material;
improve the range or depth of knowledge coverage; allow for
individual students learning styles; make grading easier; reduce
opportunities for cheating and deception; and to create opportunities
for repeat assessment during the course.
Traditional standardized tests such as multiple choice and true/false
tests tend to predominate in economics courses, especially at the
principles level and these provide minimal direct feedback about
student learning, instructors teaching or course design. The advantage
of this type of testing is that it gives the instructor flexibility to target a
large number of very specific concepts thus covering most of the
12 J. D. Ongeri

material studied in the course (Hansen, 2001; Walstad, 2001). But the
disadvantages of this type of testing centre around the fact that it does
not test the depth of understanding students have of concepts and
ideas as much as do instruments such as essays, short answer
questions or direct clinical observation assessment methods (Hansen,
2001). Multiple choice and true/false questions also tend to be set with
a relatively high level of difficulty and can often be graded severely.
These practices may also be contributing to poor student
evaluations of economics courses. If students are aware that the
assessment regimes they encounter in a course may only be testing
knowledge that is relatively superficial and are not structured to
provide them with sufficiently detailed feedback on their learning
processes, they are more likely to rate the course poorly. Similarly, if
instructors set these assessment items at too demanding a level and
grade these assessments severely this may have a negative impact on
students motivation to learn, and discouraged students are also more
likely to rate a course poorly.
This kind of analysis has led a number of academic economists to
advocate new types of assessment regimes for economics courses that
use alternative instruments to traditional multiple choice and true\false
questions. These alternative instruments would include such things as
essay style questions that allow learners to express themselves in
greater detail and thus to give the instructor a much clearer impression
of what the student has mastered as opposed to having learned at a
more superficial level. If structured effectively, such instruments also
provide more opportunities for the provision of feedback to students
on their learning and this is likely to have a positive impact on student
motivation and the overall quality of the learning they are able to
achieve (Hansen, 2001; Walstad, 2001). While this may also improve
student evaluations of economics courses there would be increased
alignment of these evaluations with positive learning outcomes. The
cost would, of course, be an increased allocation of faculty time to
assignment grading and this may have important implications for
university incentive structures (Walstad, 2001).

6. ALTERNATIVE TEACHING TECHNIQUES IN

ECONOMICS
Learning styles theory has demonstrated that individuals learn
differently in different environments. Gardener (1983) believes that
 Poor Evaluation of Teaching in Economics 13

we have multiple intelligences, rather than a single general

intelligence that underlies performance in all tasks. By using
appropriate teaching technique alternatives, educators will enhance
students learning and enjoyment of the learning experience. Of
particular importance here is the impact that teaching methods can
have on the depth at which students engage with material, and the
degree to which they retain ideas and frameworks they study
(Merriam & Brockett, 1997). Hervani & Helms (2004, p.267) have
argued that alternative teaching methods based on classroom
interaction can lead to more effective instruction in intermediate and
upper-level economics courses.
Just as there are many learning styles, alternative teaching
techniques are ways of addressing these varying learning styles and
there is considerable potential to exploit the availability of these
alternatives in economics education given its tendency to rely on the
traditional lecture. The literature listed in the final column of Table 1
suggests that effective teaching will have to use a combination of
techniques that include Marshs nine dimensions outlined in the
previous section (cf. Bosshardt & Watts, 2001). Alternative techniques
for teaching in economics identified in this literature include:
collaborative problem solving, service learning, the lecture plus
method, interactive role play, inverted classrooms, technology-based
case studies and experiments, demonstrations and dramatizations.
In the collaborative problem solving (CPS) approach, students
apply principles learned from course reading or other sources to solve
problems together in groups. McGoldrick, Battle & Gallagher (2000)
also outline how service learning can be seen as essentially practical,
and can involve interactive experiments, demonstrations, and
dramatizations (cf. Wentland, 2004). Wentland (2004) describes the
lecture plus method where students are made more actively involved
in the teaching/learning process through discussions and group
activities. According to Becker and Watts (1996, p.699), great
orators should lecture while the rest of us should consider using a
variety of teaching methods to actively engage our students and
reduce lecture time.
A number of studies also argue for increased creativity in the
teaching of economics (Caropreso & Haggerty, 2000; Christoffersen,
2002; Saunders & Christopher, 2003; Smith, 2002; Walstad, 2001).
Suggested ways to increase creativity include interactive and/or
14 J. D. Ongeri

cooperative learning, such as the CPS and service learning methods

discussed above, the lecture plus method, or methods which make
greater use of instructional support technology such as computers,
interactive software, and simulation programs (Grimes & Ray, 1993).
Using the internet in economics classes can also enhance learning and
improve instructor-student communication (Manning & Riordan,
2000; Pereira-Ford, 1998; Risinger, 2001; Sosin, 1998; Van Daele,
1988). Other studies suggest the use of sports (somatic learning) and
sports examples to improve teaching in economics (Siegfried &
Sanderson, 1998, p. 161). The advantages of using sports examples to
teach college economics go beyond simply increasing students
interest. Since economics is often taught by analogies, students are
more likely to gain a better understanding of a point if they can
connect personal body movement experiences to the analogy. The use
of literature and drama in teaching undergraduate economics courses
has also been advocated (Watts, 1998). According to this approach,
teaching economics can be appropriately and effectively done by
structuring class discussions around short handouts or student
presentations of dramatic scenes.
What is interesting is that, in spite of the attention given to
alternative teaching methods in economics, there has been little or no
change in the teaching of economics in college classrooms (Becker &
Watts, 2001b). A comparison of surveys from 1995 and 2000 found
that despite the attention given to cooperative learning methods, few
professors of economics made adjustments in their teaching approach.
Overall there has been little effort to use alternative techniques
regardless of the type of institution or class size. It was further found
that professors of economics rarely incorporate readings from
significant press outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, or from
leading academic journals such as the American Economic Review, the
Journal of Economic Perspectives or the Journal of Economic
Literature for test or other assessment questions. This is interpreted as
a clear indication of lack of innovation in the teaching of economics.
A number of studies, however, have challenged the conventional
educational wisdom that there are better methods of teaching than the
traditional lecture and that alternative teaching techniques improve
student learning. In an effort to identify methods of instruction that
facilitate long-term retention of economics content, Bailey,
Langdamn, Rotonda and Ryan (1997) surveyed 500 alumni of MBA
 Poor Evaluation of Teaching in Economics 15

programs from the 1990, 1991, and 1992 classes of Rutgers

University. Using frequency and correlation analysis, they
demonstrated that teaching methods which emphasize the four factors
(traditional lectures and standard texts, interactive discussions,
rejuvenating interruptions such as storytelling, and use of relevant
subject content) enhanced long-term retention of course material as
well as the overall quality of the course. Interestingly, results from this
study underscored the importance of basic methods of instruction,
such as lectures and standard textbook use. Although these methods
appear to have fallen somewhat out of favor among education
theorists, the study found that the alumni surveyed believed in the use
of such basic modes of content delivery and retention of knowledge.
Leeds, Stull and Westbrook (1998) used data from SETs,
economics department employment files, and face-to-face or
telephone interviews with instructors to investigate the impact of
multiple teaching techniques on student learning in an introductory
economics class at Temple University over the period 19901994.
These authors found that variation in teaching technique had no direct
or indirect effect on SET outcomes for this course over this period nor
did the degree of active student participation in teaching techniques
improve what students perceived themselves as learning or how
positively they evaluated courses via SETs. This supports Baumols
(1988) reflection that there is no magic formula for teaching
economics.
Contrary evidence that supports what might be called the
educational perspective is, however, provided by Loviscek &
Cloutier (1997) who also attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of
various teaching methods on learning outcomes using data from a
supplemental teaching program in economics. They employ a probit
regression model and use interview transcript data to find a significant
difference between students who enrolled in a supplemental
instruction program (where non-traditional methods of instruction
were used) and those who did not enroll in the program. This would
suggest some benefit for students from active learning methods in
economics education over more traditional methods. Similarly,
Johnston et al., (2000) support the use of innovation in teaching
economics by evaluating a package of measures designed to introduce
a CPS approach to learning in economics. They undertook a
regression analysis of pre-project and post-project student attitudes to
16 J. D. Ongeri

learning in a program that employed CPS techniques and found that:

a) the initiative was received positively, and that CPS led students to
value the performance of their tutors more highly and to enjoy their
tutorials more; b) the CPS package had a mixed effect on improving
students learning practices; and c) although there were no remarkable
gains in examination marks for local students, significant examination
performance gains were enjoyed by international students.
Thus, while the empirical evidence is mixed, a combined theoretical
and empirical case exists for potential gains to be made in the
economics discipline of using a wider range of alternative teaching
methods to improve the quality of student learning and the way
students evaluate economics courses. The most strongly advocated
alternative methods in the literature are those that combine the four
factors of traditional, interactive, rejuvenating and relevant subject
content. However, it appears that these teaching techniques require
longer class times to be effectively implemented and this may present
a challenge to institutionally structured contexts, where timing is
strictly schemed within a teaching semester. Further research is
needed to better understand how to effectively manage time when
implementing these different teaching techniques. Given the mixed
nature of the empirical evidence, studies to investigate the
effectiveness of alternative teaching techniques in economics, and in
particular, how they compare with the traditional lecture method
would also be useful.
7. DISCUSSION
The existence of a substantial amount of literature on teaching
economics is indicative of a legitimate interest in improving teaching
and enhancing learning in this area. Based on this literature, we can
draw a number of conclusions about the state of university economics
education and possible reasons for poor student evaluation of this
education:
Economics courses tend to be organized around highly formal,
mathematical models in which instructors have reasonably high
expectations of students abilities to engage with and express
formal, abstract and tight logical argument. These courses draw
heavily on standard textbooks as the main learning support for
students and little assistance is provided in assisting students to
learn the kind of logical argument or expression of this
argument;
 Poor Evaluation of Teaching in Economics 17

Students value certain instructor attributes very highly in their

assessment of university courses including organization and
clarity of treatment. Poor student evaluation of economics
courses may suggest that these attributes need to be more
strongly encouraged in the class room;
Economics courses tend to rely on assessment instruments such
as multiple choice and true/false questions which while having
some advantages, tend to limit the ability of students to show the
depth of their understanding of material covered and encourage
more superficial types of student learning;
The most common technique used in university economics
instruction is the traditional lecture method. Since this method
tends not to actively involve students in the learning process, a
number of scholars have advocated a range of alternative
methods that more actively engage students in core instructional
processes including the lecture plus method and collaborative
problem solving approaches. There is, however, mixed
empirical evidence on the effectiveness of alternative
approaches.
These conclusions suggest that poor student evaluation of economics
courses reflects a real, underlying problem with the adequacy of
university economics education and identify a range of measures that
might be implemented to remedy this deficiency. Many studies have
shown, for example, that teaching and learning would be more
effective if a variety of teaching techniques were used in combination
(Christoffersen, 2002; Hervani & Helms, 2004; McGoldrick, 1998;
Saunders & Christopher, 2003; Smith, 2002; Walstad, 2001). Other
studies suggest that certain personal attributes of economics
instructors are the main determinant of effective teaching and learning
and that the development of these attributes might need to be
encouraged to improve the quality of economics teaching (Boex,
2000; Finnegan & Siegfried, 1998, 2000; Saunders, 2001; Shu-Hai &
Goh, 2003).
Before concluding, however, it is worth reflecting on the extent to
which these conclusions simply reflect the way in which the studies
generating them were conducted. Consequently, discussion of these
findings will be centered on the research designs of the studies and
sources of the data used, and the reasons for the lack of innovative
teaching techniques in economics.
18 J. D. Ongeri

Starting with methodology, most of the studies included in this

survey used quantitative approaches to their empirical analyses. As
outlined earlier, the selection criteria for literature considered in the
survey included use of empirical analysis. But this criterion allowed
for both quantitative and qualitative approaches to such analysis. The
emphasis on quantitative analysis used in most of the studies
considered could lead to a bias in interpreting the reality they aim to
examine associated with difficulties in measuring the subjective nature
of the forces at work in the field of education. Researchers should
appreciate the fact that the outcomes of some dimensions of human
behaviour are difficult to quantify and the scales often assigned to
responses are not replicable in nature (Merriam, 1991). Thus using
quantitative methods in relation to some educational issues may not
yield accurate results. Other strategies of inquiry which recognize the
ambiguity of human behaviour and the importance of context in
whatever attributes one studies could also be used in this respect.
Qualitative methods have a strong capability to capture reality and the
everyday experiences of research subjects. Because the bulk of the
issues addressed in the literature reviewed involve perceptions and
attitudes, they would benefit from the use of such qualitative methods
of analysis. Without such an approach, a number of the attributes of
perception may not be adequately uncovered, and in some cases might
well be lost. This is a concern because it has been shown that
qualitative methods are more appropriate for socially constructed,
complex, and ever-changing situations such as those in the teaching
profession (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). Thus more research is required
that utilizes qualitative techniques to supplement and validate the
quantitative research findings already reported.
A second concern with the literature surveyed in this paper is with
the source and type of data used. Nearly half of the studies used
secondary data (not initially meant for the current study) from SETs
and from the TUCE III. Thus all of these studies are subject to the
pitfalls of using secondary data. It is difficult to put data collected for
a specific purpose into another use without adjustments. How these
studies adjusted these data to fit their individual purposes is not clear.
Moreover, the SET data that most studies relied on has its own
shortcomings. In most cases, when an instructors effectiveness is
assessed by student ratings it may reflect dimensions of the student
experience not directly related to the appropriateness of the
 Poor Evaluation of Teaching in Economics 19

educational methods used by the instructor. For example, while

student ratings may accurately reflect the amount of learning achieved
in a class, it is likely that student perceptions of learning effectiveness
are also affected by their expectations of the instructors effectiveness
developed by information available prior to their enrolling in the class,
as well as by the perceived difficulty of the course and the grading
standards (Anderson & Siegfried, 1997, p.347). Thus, collecting
primary data using appropriately designed methods would more
helpfully address issues that affect the teaching of economics.
A final issue concerns the alternative ways of approaching the
teaching of economics recommended by many of the studies
considered. It is not always clear from these studies whether the
recommended approaches have actually been implemented or trialed,
and thus whether they are really likely to be effective. Unless such
alternatives are put into use and tested for their effectiveness, it is
difficult to justify their general implementation. This calls for
comparative studies on a range of teaching techniques relevant to the
teaching of economics. Such studies would add further insight into the
relationship between the poor student perceptions of economics
teaching and the techniques of instruction used in economics courses.
These studies should, as suggested above, use a combination of
quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Such studies will be of
considerable importance precisely because the existing literature
points so strongly to the adoption of alternative teaching strategies as
one of the most important methods of addressing these poor student
evaluations. Others include encouraging improved instructor
organization and clarity in the class room, less reliance on traditional
texts, and greater use of assessment methods that encourage students
to show the depth of their understanding of material covered rather
than to develop superficial understandings of a wide range of
economic tools and issues.
There are, therefore, a number of ways in which research into
economics education could be enhanced including by making greater
use of qualitative data specially collected for the purpose of
investigating the impact of alternative teaching techniques to the
traditional lecture method. But problems with the adequacy of
university economics education suggested by poor student
evaluations, make this research, and potential measures to improve the
quality of this education, extremely important.
20 J. D. Ongeri

REFERENCES
Anderson, H., and Siegfried, J. J. (1997) Gender Differences in Rating the
Teaching of Economics, Eastern Economic Journal, 23(3), pp.347-357.
Bailey, J., Langdana, F. K., Rotonda, P. D. and Ryan, J. C. (1997) A
Factor Analytic Study of Teaching Method that Influences Retention
Among Alumni, Journal of Education for Business, 75(5), pp.297-302.
Bartlett, R., and King, P. G. (1990) Teaching Economics as a Laboratory
Science, Journal of Economic Education, 21(2), pp.181-193.
Baumol, W. (1988) Economic Education and the Critics of Mainstream
Economics, Journal of Economic Education, 19(4), pp.323-330.
Becker, E. W., and Watts, M. (1996) Chalk and Talk: A National Survey
on Teaching Undergraduate Economics, American Economic Review,
86(2), pp.448-53.
Becker, E. W. and Watts, M. (1998) Teaching Economics to
Undergraduates: Alternatives to Chalk & Talk, Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar.
Becker, E. W. and Watts, M. (1999) How Departments of Economics
Evaluate Teaching, American Economic Review, 89(2), pp.344-49.
Becker, E. W., and Watts, M. (2001a) Teaching Economics at the Start of
the 21st Century: Still Chalk and Talk, American Economic Review,
91(2), pp.446-450.
Becker, E. W., and Watts, M. (2001b) Teaching Methods in U.S.
Undergraduate Economics Courses, American Economic Review, 32(3),
pp.269-279.
Boex, J. F. L. (2000) Attributes of Effective Economics Instructors: An
Analysis of Student Evaluation, Journal of Economic Education, 31(3),
pp. 211-227.
Bosshardt, W. and Watts, M. (2001) Comparing Student and Instructor
Evaluations of Teaching, Journal of Economic Education, 32(1), pp.3-
17.
Caropreso, E. J., and Haggerty, M. (2000) Teaching Economics: A
Cooperative Learning Model, College Teaching, 48(2), pp.69-74.
Cashin, W. (1990) Students Do Rate Different Academic Fields
Differently, in Theall M. and Franklin, J. (eds.), Student Rating of
Instruction: Issues of Improving Practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Christoffersen, S. (2002) An Active Learning Tool for the Principles of
Economics: The Allocation Exercise, American Economist, 46(2),
pp.65-68.
Cohn, E., Cohn, S., Hult, R.E., Balch, D. C., and Bradley, J. Jr (1998) The
Effects of Mathematics Background on Learning in Principles of
Economics, Journal of Education for Business, 74(1), pp.18-22.
 Poor Evaluation of Teaching in Economics 21

Cohn, E., Cohn, S., Balch, D. C., and Bradley, J. Jr (2001) Do Graphs
Promote Learning in Principles of Economics?, Journal of Economic
Education, 32(4), pp.299-310.
Colander, D. (2000) Telling Better Stories in Introductory Macro,
American Economic Review, 90(2), pp.76-80.
Dynan, K. E., and Rouse, C. E. (1997) The Under Representation of
Women in Economics: A Study of Undergraduate Economics Students,
Journal of Economic Education, 28(4), pp.350-368.
Finegan, A. T., and Siegfried, J. J. (1998) Do Introductory Economics
Students Learn More if their Instructor has a Ph.D.?, American
Economist, 42(2), pp.34-46.
Finegan, A. T., and Siegfried, J. J. (2000) Are Student Ratings of
Teaching Effectiveness Influenced by Instructors English Language
Proficiency?, American Economist, 42(2), pp.34-46.
Freedman, T. (1985) Teaching Economics in Adult Education,
Economics, 89, pp.22-25.
Gardener, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences,
New York: Basic Books.
Gartner, M. (2001) Teaching Economics to Undergraduates in Europe:
Volume, Structure, and Contents, Journal of Economic Education,
32(3), pp.219-230.
Glesne, C. and Peshkin, A. (1992) Becoming Qualitative Researchers,
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Granello, D. H. (2001) Promoting Cognitive Complexity in Graduate
Written Work: Using Blooms Taxonomy as a Pedagogical Tool to
Improve Literature Reviews, Counselor Education & Supervision, 40,
pp.292-307.
Grimes, P. W., Millea, M. J., and Woodruff, T. W. (2004) Grades
Whos to Blame? Student Evaluation of Teaching and Locus of Control?
Journal of Economic Education, 35(2), pp.129-147.
Grimes, P. W. & Ray, M. A. (1993) Economics: Microcomputers in the
College Classroom: A Review of the Academic Literature, Social
Science Computer Review, 11, pp.452-63.
Hansen, W. L. (1982) Are Americans Economically Literate? An
Appraisal, in Peterson, W. H. (eds.), Economic Education: Investing in
the Future, Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
Hansen, W. L. (2001) Expected Proficiencies for Undergraduate
Economics Majors, Journal of Economic Education, 32(3), pp.231-242.
Hart, C. (1998) Doing a Literature Review, London: Sage.
Hervani, A., and Helms, M. M. (2004) Increasing Creativity in
Economics: The Service Learning Project, Journal of Education for
Business, 79(5), pp.267-274.
22 J. D. Ongeri

Johnston, C. G., James, R. H., Lye, J. N., and McDonald, I. M. (2000) An

Evaluation of Collaborative Problem Solving for Learning Economics,
Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), pp.13-29.
Johnston, C., McDonald, I., and Williams, R. (2001) The Scholarship of
Teaching Economics, Journal of Economic Education, 32(3), pp.95-
201.
Leeds, M., Stull, W., and Westbrook, J. (1998) Do Changes in Classroom
Techniques Matter? Teaching Strategies and Their Effects on Teaching
Evaluations, Journal of Education for Business, 74(2), pp.75-78.
Little, L. (1985) Resources Available for Teaching Economics from
Centers for Economic Education in California, Social Studies Review,
24(2), pp.56-63.
Loviscek, A. L., and Cloutier, N. R. (1997) Supplemental Instruction and
the Enhancement of Student Performance in Economics Principles,
American Economist, 41(2), pp.70-76.
Manning, L. M., and Riordan, C. A. (2000) Using Groupware Software to
Support Collaborative Learning in Economics, Journal of Economic
Education, 31(3), pp.244-252.
Marsh, H. W. (1987) Students Evaluations of University Teaching:
Research Findings, Methodological Issues, and Directions for Future
Research, International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), pp.
253-388.
McGoldrick, K. (1998) Service-learning in Economics: A Detailed
Application, Journal of Economic Education, 29(4), pp.365-376.
McGoldrick, K., Battle, A., and Gallagher, S. (2000) Service-learning and
the Economics Course: Theory and Practice, American Economist,
44(1), pp.43-51.
Merriam, S. B. (1991) How Research Produces Knowledge, in Peters, J.
M., Jarvis, P. and Associates (eds.), Adult Education: Evaluation and
Achievements in a Developing Field of Study, San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Merriam, S. B. and Brockett, R. G. (1997) The Profession and Practice of
Adult Education, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S., and Caffarella, R. (1999) Learning in Adulthood, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, M. M. (1987) Teaching Economics to the Gifted, Theory into
Practice, 26(3), pp.211-215.
Nettleship, J. (1992) Active Learning in Economics: Mind Maps and Wall
Charts, Economics, 28(2, 118), pp. 69-71.
Parkinson, D., Greene, W., Kim, Y., and Marioni, J. (2003) Emerging
Themes of Student Satisfaction in a Traditional Course and a Blended
Distance Course, TechTrends, 47(4), pp.22-28.
 Poor Evaluation of Teaching in Economics 23

Pereira-Ford, C. V. (1998) Multimedia Tools for Teaching Economics,

Inquiry, 2(1), pp.47- 51.
Post, G. V. (1985) Microcomputers in Teaching Economics, Journal of
Economic Education, 16(4), pp.309-312.
Pratt, D. D. and Associates (2002) Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult
& Higher Education, Malabar, FL: Krieger, Publishers.
Quddus, M. and Bussing-Burks, M. (1997) Learning Techniques in
Economics at the Principles Level, American Economist, 41(2), pp.54-
60.
Risinger, F. (2001) Teaching Economics and the Globalization Debate on
the World Wide Web, Social Education, 65(6), pp. 363-363.
Salemi, M. K., and Siegfried, J. J. (1999) The State of Economic
Education, American Economic Review, 89(2), pp.355-361.
Saunders, G., and Christopher, J. E. R. (2003) Teaching Outside the Box:
A Look at the Use of Some Nontraditional Teaching Models in
Accounting Principles Courses, Journal of American Academy of
Business, 3(1), pp.162-65.
Saunders, K. T. (2001) The Influence of Instructor Native Language on
Student Learning and Instructor Ratings, Eastern Economic Journal,
27(3), pp.345-353.
Sherry, R. L. (1989) Teaching Economics to Trade Unionists, Journal of
Economic Education, 20(2), pp.173-179.
Shu-Hui, L. and Goh, K. (2003) Evidence and Control of Biases in
Student Evaluations of Teaching, The International Journal of
Educational Management, 17(1), pp.37-43.
Siegfried, J. J. and Sanderson, A. R. (1998) Using Sports to Teach
Economics, in Becker, W. E. and Watts, M. (eds.), Teaching Economics
to Undergraduates: Alternatives to Chalk & Talk, Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar.
Siegfried, J. and Stock, W. (1999) The Labor Market for New Ph.D.
Economists, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), pp.115-134.
Smith, W. D. (2002) Applying Angelos Teachers Dozen to
Undergraduate Introductory Economics Classes: A Call for Greater
Interactive Learning, Eastern Economic Journal, 28(4), pp.539-549.
Spencer, R. W., and Van Eynde, D. F. (1986) Experiential Learning in
Economics, Journal of Economic Education, 17(4), pp.289-294.
Sosin, K. (1998) Using the Internet and Computer Technology to Teach
Economics, in Becker, W. E. and Watts, M. (eds.), Teaching Economics
to Undergraduates: Alternatives to Chalk and Talk, Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar.
Van Daele, J. (1988) Integrating the Use of Computers in Teaching
Economics - A Research Note, Economics, 24 (1,101), p.28.
24 J. D. Ongeri

Walstad, W. B. (2001) Improving Assessment in University Economics,

Journal of Economic Education, 32(3), pp.281-294.
Walstad, W. and Watts, M. (1985) Teaching Economics in the Schools: A
Review of Survey Findings, Journal of Economic Education, 16(2),
pp.135-146.
Watts, M. (1998) Using Literature and Drama in Undergraduate
Economics Courses, in Becker, W. E. and Watts, M. (eds.), Teaching
Economics to Undergraduates: Alternatives to Chalk and Talk,
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Wentland, D. (2004) A Guide for Determining which Teaching
Methodology to Utilize in Economic Education: Trying to Improve How
Economic Information is Communicated to Students, Education,
124(4), pp.640-648.