1 / 20

Division of Economics

Diversity: Challenges, Opportunities and Successes in Teaching Economics Adelina Lees Karen Jackson. Division of Economics. Introduction and Aims. Economics teaching has a history of ‘chalk and talk’ out-lasting many other disciplines

cspence
Download Presentation

Division of Economics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Diversity: Challenges, Opportunities and Successes in Teaching EconomicsAdelina LeesKaren Jackson Division of Economics

  2. Introduction and Aims • Economics teaching has a history of ‘chalk and talk’ out-lasting many other disciplines • The ‘maths issue’ is also well documented alongside the general perception that an economics degree is ‘difficult’ • The education literature contains a vast number of studies regarding student performance • However there are very few published studies that specifically analyse the performance of economics students in UK Higher Education Division of Economics

  3. Introduction and Aims • Economics teaching at the University of Bradford provides an ideal case study given the diverse student body, in terms of the UK widening participation agenda as well as attractiveness for students coming to study from outside the UK. • Despite attempts to tailor provision for a diverse study body there continues to exist differences in performance • This study aims to provide a number of key conclusions that may prove helpful for economics departments/divisions with a more homogenous cohort but where they seek to support students from diverse backgrounds. Division of Economics

  4. Context • Sample size of 134 includes country of birth in the following proportions (with 37 countries of birth in the sample): • - 25%: England • - 23%: China • - 10%: Nigeria • - 9%: Lithuania • 4 cohorts beginning their studies between 2005-2008 • Gender breakdown: M: 70% F: 30% • Students who begin each academic year with exactly 120 credits Division of Economics

  5. Student Views Division of Economics

  6. Literature Review Division of Economics

  7. Brief survey of literature: factors which determine learning and performance • Student effort and study time does not always improve performance (Siegfried and Fels 1979) • Mathematics was the key school subject which influenced learning: (Attiyeh and Lumsden 1972) • Gender differences: (Siegfried 1979) • Physical environment: (Reid 1983) • Excessive absenteeism: (Romer 1993) • Cultural and institutional Settings: Tay 1994) • Pre university qualifications Durden and Ellis (1995) • Personality temperaments: (Zeigert 2000) • Attendance and excessive absenteeism (Durden and Ellis 2000) • Social class and family background (Smith and Naylor 2001 • Curriculum design of assessments (Krieg and Uyar 2001) • Class size: (Becker and Powers (2001) • Ethnicity and Race: (Marburger 2001) • Race and Gender: (Borg and Stranaham 2002) • Age and ethnicity and geographic background: (Barrow, Reilly and Woodfield (2009)

  8. Literature Review • UK studies typically use USR and HESA data • Few studies utilise institutional data • Very limited number of published studies focusing on studying economics Division of Economics

  9. Empirical Analysis Note: No issues regarding hetroscedascity A significant number of students born in Nigeria have attended UK schools/colleges Country 1: UK (base) Country 2: Nigeria Country 3: China Country 4: Lithuania Country 5: omitted Age1: 17/18/19 (base) Age2: 20/21/22 Age3: 22+ Gender: M=0 F=1 Division of Economics

  10. Empirical Analysis • Superior results when dependant variable is stage 2 average mark, rather than stage 1/3, or weighed average of stage averages • Use of dependant variable is sensible given settling in effect in stage 1 and stage 3 students do not have core modules across degree paths • Women perform significantly better than men • Students born in China or Nigeria perform less well than students born in the UK • Students born in Lithuania perform better that students born in the UK • Students aged 20-22 perform better than those aged 17-19 • Robust results when re-basing the data Division of Economics

  11. Empirical Analysis Division of Economics

  12. Empirical Analysis Division of Economics

  13. Key Findings • We have highlighted that there are very few published studies focussing on the determinants of performance of economics students in the UK • The literature highlights that language and communication skills, alongside social and learning environment as significant in enabling non-UK students to overcome barriers to learning • There have been attempts at the University of Bradford to assist non-UK economics students to overcome barriers to learning e.g. learner support dedicated to economics students, broader learner support (LDU), student mentoring scheme • Nevertheless, disparities in performance remain. These are particularly apparent with respect to students born in China, Nigeria and Lithuania. • We also find a gender bias in favour of stronger female performance Division of Economics

  14. Limitations and Further Research • These results are may be driven by the entry qualifications of the students studying at the University of Bradford • Further research could be undertaken: • considering students with a non-standard profile • to confirm the robustness of the findings across a range of institutions • widening sample to include non-economics students • considering students born in the UK by postcode/region Division of Economics

  15. Recommendations • Given the findings there needs to be further thought about the courses are delivered, presented and assessed. Particular note should be taken of designing a wide range of assessments to allow for gender, age, cultural and educational background differences • Most important is the delivery of learning materials, using ‘global’ examples to illustrate economic concepts, guiding the students to embrace different ways of learning and moving towards investigating and critically analysing ideas • Personal academic tutors best equipped to respond to international students’ concerns could be selected to guide international students. • Welcome activities to ensure cohesion of year group of new arrivals as well as peer mentoring from senior students Division of Economics

  16. References Agarwal ,R. and Day A.E. (1998) Impact of internet on Economic Education. The Journal of Economic Education. 29 (2) 99-110. Anderson G., Benjamin D., and Fuss, M.A. (1994) The Determinants of Success in University IntroductoryEconomics Courses. The Journal of Economic Education, 25 (4) 291-301. Arulampala, W., Naylor R.A. and Smith J. (2008) Am I Missing Something? The Effects of Absencefrom Class on Student Performance. Discussion Paper 3749 Study of Labor (IZA)[Online] Available at http://www.iza.org (accessed 1/9.2011). Attiyeh, R. and Lumsden K.G. (1972) Modern Myths in Teaching Economics. The American EconomicReview, 62 (1/2)429-433. Barrow,M., Reilly,B. and Woodfield,R. (2009) The determinants of undergraduate degree performance: how important is gender? British Educational Research Journal, 35, (4) 575-597. Becker, W.E. and Powers J.R. (2001) Student, attrition, and class size given missing student data. Economics of Education Review, 20 377-388. Division of Economics

  17. References Borg M.O.Malley and Stranahan H. (2002) The effect of gender and race on student performance in principles of economics: the importance of personality types. Applied Economics, 34, 589-598. Dolan M. and Macias I. (2009)MotivatingInternational students learning Economics in the UK: The Handbook for Economics Lecturers[online]http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/handbook.lectures. Durden, G.C. and Ellis, V.C. (1995)The attendance on Student Learning in Principles of Economics The American Economic Review, 85 (2) 343-346. Grace, S. and Gravestock, P. (2009) Inclusion and Diversity:Meeting the Needs of All Students. Oxford: Routledge. Jarvis, P., Holford J. and Griffin C. 2003)The theory and practice of learning. London: RougeledgeFalmer. Hansen W.L. (2001) Expected Proficiencies for UG Economics Majors. The Journal of Economic Education. 32 (3) 231-242. Division of Economics

  18. References Harvey, P. (1982) The Impact of outside Employment on Student Achievement in Macroeconomic Principles. The Journal of Economic Education. 13 (2) 51-56. Heath, J. (1989) Role of Gender in Economic Education. The American Economic Review. 79 (2) 226-230. Krieg, R.G. and Uyar B. (2001) Student Performance in Business and Economics Statistics: Does Exam Structure Matter? Journal of Economics and Finance . 25 (2) 229-240. Krohn., G.A. and O’Connor C.M. (2005) Student Effort and Performance over the Semester. The Journal of Economic Education. 36 (1) 3-28. Lage M.J. and Treglia M. (1996) The impact of Integrating Scholarship on Women into Introductory Economics: Evidence from One Institution. The Journal of Economic Education. 27 (1) 26-36. Lumsden K.G. and Scott A. (1983) The Efficacy of Innovative Teaching Techniques in Economics: The U.K. Experience. American Economic Association. 73 (2) 13-17. Division of Economics

  19. References Marburger D.R. (2001) Absenteeism and Undergraduate Exam Performance. The Journal of Economic Education. 32 (2) 99-109. Naylor, R. and Smith, J. (2004) Degree Performance of Economics Students in UK universities: absolute and relative performance in prior qualifications. Scottish Journal of Political Economy. 51 (2) 250-265. Rankin, E.L. and Hoaas, D.J. (2001) Does the use of computer generated slide presentation in the classroom affect student performance and interest? Eastern Economic Journal. 27 (3) 356-366. Reid, R. (1983) A Note on the Environment as a Factor Affecting Student Performance in Principles of Economics. The Journal of Economic Education. 14 (4)18-21. Romer, D. (1993) Do Students Go to Class? Should They? The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 7 (3) 167 174. Seiver, D.A. (1983) Evaluations and Grades: A Simultaneous Framework. The Journal of Economic Education. 14 (3) 32-38. Division of Economics

  20. References Siegfried, J.J. (1979) Male-Female Difference in Economic Education Survey. The Journal of Economic Education. 42 (2) 200-05. Simkins S.P. (1999) Promoting Active Student Learning Using the World Wide Webb in EconomicsCourses. The Journal of Economic Education. 30 (3) 278-287. Tay R.S. (1994) Students’ Performance in Economics: Does the Norm Hold across Cultural and Institutional Settings? The Journal of Economic Education. 25 (4) 291-301. Walstead W.B. (2001) Improving Assessment in University Economics. The Journal of Economic Education. 32 (3) 281-292. Ziegert A.L. (2000) The Role of Personality Temperament and Student Learning In Principles of Economics: Further Evidence. Research in Economic Education. 31 (4) 307-22. Division of Economics

More Related