290 likes | 446 Views
An Investigation into the Application of Economics Threshold Concepts using WinEcon via a VLE for Business Students Economics Network Mini Project. Mike Walsh Keith Gray Coventry University ref: DEE winthresh3 sept 07 ver4 U/L/D. (1) Introduction.
E N D
An Investigation into the Application of Economics Threshold Concepts using WinEcon via a VLE for Business StudentsEconomics Network Mini Project Mike Walsh Keith Gray Coventry University ref: DEE winthresh3 sept 07 ver4 U/L/D
(1) Introduction • Builds upon two Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning 5 projects (FDTL5) • Embedding threshold concepts in first year undergraduate economics • Beyond dissemination strategies: Embedding computer based learning and effective use of WinEcon and VLEs • WinEcon extensively used at Coventry University, particularly on business degrees
Business students find certain threshold concepts relatively difficult. Consider: • Opportunity cost • Marginal analysis • Multiplier • Promote understanding and working knowledge (Salami 2005) • Mini project
(2) Project Aims • Investigate feasibility of embedding selected threshold concepts using WinEcon via a VLE for business students • Develop relevant teaching materials • Assess how students’ understanding of these concepts changes as a result of embedding • Investigate possibility of embedding a wider range of threshold concepts
(3) Methodology • 3 seminar groups, 1 being a control group • Introduce a threshold concept in lecture • 2 research groups undertake exercise with hyperlinks to WinEcon
(4) Implementation Stage I (week2) • The threshold concept of opportunity cost introduced in lectures
Stage II (week 4) • Baseline questions issued • To ensure completion • Concise • In labs • Three questions covered • a) a perceived understanding of the concept, • b) selecting a definition of the concept • c) an application of the concept.
Stage III (week eight) • All three groups covered material on opportunity cost in order to reinforce the lecture • Short case study considering the opportunity cost of examination revision • Two research groups undertook WinEcon activity; ‘Allocation of a health budget’ • Verbal and written feedback
Stage IV (week nine) • All three groups were given the baseline questions again • Process repeated for multiplier in term two
(5) Web-linking • Instructions on www.winecon.com • Using weblinks http://www.winecon.com/video/using_weblinks/ • Creating weblinks http://www.winecon.com/video/creating_weblinks/
(6) Implementation issues • Insufficient workshop time for marginal analysis • Problems with hyperlinks • Compliance • Non-attendance • ‘Matching’ • Motivation • Unanticipated benefits incl. • Move from unrealistic WinEcon pricing structure • Downloading to individual (registered) students pioneered at Coventry University
(7) Evaluation • Student’s understanding: • Opportunity cost & Multiplier • Baseline…3 questions (confidence / definition / application) • Given immediate feedback • 4 weeks later = winecon link (research groups) or alternative (control group) • Follow up on 3 baseline questions 1 week later • Data is for matched pairs only
Table 7.1: Percentage of Students Certain of Understanding (recording 4 or 5 on Likert scale): Opportunity Cost • Relative hubris among 2nd research group (age/ exp./ motivation?) • Notable that % change matched & highest for research groups
Table 7.2: % of Students giving correct definition: Opportunity Cost Controlgroup • Only research group 2 improved • Students found question easier than anticipated
Table 7.3: % of students giving correct application: Opportunity Cost • Notable 1st research group & control had same % gain • 2nd research group continued to be strongest in general
Table 7.4: Percentage of Students Certain of Understanding (recording 4 or 5 on Likert scale): Multiplier • Notably lower confidence re multiplier concept • Again hubris for 2nd research group (p/t) • Small numbers make % change difficult to interpret
Table 7.5: % of Students giving correct definition: Multiplier • Equivalent performance across groups at baseline • % change evidence mixed
Table 7.6: % of students giving correct application: Multiplier • Evidence inconclusive • 2nd research group did improve performance & stronger in general
(8) WinEcon survey • Indicates • Students find WinEcon a useful learning aid • Links relatively easy to use
Source: ‘Embedding computer based learning and effective use of WinEcon and VLEs’ FDTL5 project, ‘WinEcon Survey’ for Year 1 Business students at Coventry, May 2007.
(9) Conclusion • Feasible to embed threshold concepts using WinEcon • Students have improved access to WinEcon outside labs • Teaching materials developed • Students’ understanding of TCs inconclusive • Could extend using more groups and threshold concepts
Bibliography • Meyer J and Land R, (2002), ‘Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (1): linkages to ways of thinking and practicing within the disciplines’, ISL 2002 Conceptual Paper. • Salami M, (2003) ‘Teaching Economic Literacy: Why, What and How', International Review of Economics Education, vol 4, issue 2.