IV1ESI.J RETURNING MATERIALS:
PIace in book drop to
LJBRARJES remove this checkout from
.—_—. your record. FINES win

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A“)

A COMPARATIVE STUDY: SIMULATION METHOD AND
LECTURE/READING METHOD EFFECTS ON ECONOMIC
KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE IN TEACHER ECONOMIC EDUCATION

BY

David Anthony Dieterle

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1985

ABSTRACT

A COMPARATIVE STUDY: SIMULATION METHOD AND LECTURE/READING METHOD
ON ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE IN TEACHER ECONOMIC EDUCATION

By

David A. Dieterle

This experimental research studied the effectiveness of using
simulations in a professional development course for teaching economic
principles to K-12 school teachers. Using control and experimental
groups, the study investigated the typical characteristics of
participating teachers, any effect teaching methodology may have had
on teachers’ perception of the course, the course effects on teachers’
economic knowledge and attitude, any effect of teaching methodology or
teachers’ knowledge and attitude, and personal and professional
characteristics which affect a teacher’s economic knowledge, attitude,
and attitude sophistication. The major hypothesis was that the
simulation teaching methodology, Treatment Variable (X1), was positive
and significantly influenced economic knowledge and attitude. Several
minor hypotheses were stated on personal and professional
characteristics.

The hypotheses of the study were tested using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) to obtain multiple regression
models. T-test models were used to evaluate each independent variable
and F-tests on the overall equations. T-test models were also used to
evaluate the course evaluations. The statistical procedures used were
the Fisher’s F-test, pooled and separate variance t-test models,

multiple regression models for the pre- and post-course, and a

David A. Dieterle

multiple regression model to investigate the effects of the Treatment
Variable and learning style interactive terms.

The course evaluations were positive for all sections, but the
student course evaluations favored the use of simulations. All
sections, regardless of teaching methodology, were successful in
increasing economic knowledge, attitude, and attitude sophistication.
The major hypothesis was rejected, reporting no significant difference
between the studied teaching methods. Sex, general mental ability,
and hours of economic coursework were significant on pre-course
knowledge. Pre-course knowledge, previous economic coursework,
structured learning preference (negatively), and kinesthetic learning
preferences significantly influenced pre-course attitude
sophistication.

Post-course knowledge was significantly influenced by pre-course
knowledge, structured learning preference, and general mental
ability. Pre-course attitude, hours of economic coursework, tactile
learning preference, and course length (negatively) influenced post-
course attitude. Pre-course attitude sophistication was the only
influence on post-course sophistication. This study also found the
interactive terms (Treatment Variable and learning style variables)

insignficant.

To Mom and Dad,
you dedicated your life to me,
this small part of my life
is dedicated to you.

11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation is the result of the efforts of many people
in many ways. The credit for final completion of this research
actually belongs to two very special professionals, Dr. Banks Bradley
from Michigan State University and Dr. Michael Watts from Purdue
University. Without their continual efforts and words of encourage-
ment, I am certain the completion of this study would have been in
jeopardy. The completion of this research and my doctoral studies
were a long time in coming, yet Banks was a patient chairman and
advisor. I will be eternally grateful. Mike was an excellent
advisor as the research and dissertation developed.

I would also like to acknowledge the time and efforts of the
rest of my committee; Dr. Charles Blackman, Dr. Ken Harding, and Dr.
Roger Niemeyer. Their patience was also gratifying. Also Myrna
Kennedy who put up with me while typing and editing the final
editions. Finally, my family who gave up so much for me and
encouraged me along the way. My late wife Peggy for encouraging me
in the beginning, and my present wife Julie for supporting me during
the rigors of the final years. My children for their patience and
understanding. Of course, Wilbur and Marianne Dieterle, my parents,
who taught me about life and the rewards of hard work, dedication,

and persistence.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter

I 0 THE PROBLEM O O O O I O O O O O O O 0

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose and Importance of the Study
Background of the Study . . . . . .
Research Questions . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Study POpulation and Sample . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . .

IntrOduction C O I O O O O O O O O 0
Economic Education . . . . . . . . .
TeaChing Methads O O O O O O O O 0

Student Characteristics and Simulation

Inservice Education . . . . . . .

Economic Knowledge and Attitude .
Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inservice Education . . . . . . . .
Learning Style . . . . . . . . . . .
Adult Learning . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Procedures . . . . . . . .
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . .
Test of Economic Literacy (TEL) .
Survey of Economic Attitudes (SEA)
Personal Data Questionnaire (PD).

Quick Word Test, Level 2, Form Am (QWT)
Productivity Environmental Preference Survey

(PEPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statistical Hypotheses . . . . . . .
Statistical Procedures . . . . . . .

Homogeneity of Variances . . . . .
T-Test Models . . . . . . . . . .
Estimation Model Development . . .

Pre-Course Models . . . . . . .

Post-Course Models . . . . . . .

Interactive Model . . . . . . .

iv

Teaching

HOWQUIUIkNr—I

H

12
12
13
16
17
20
22
25
27
28
29

31

31
31
32
33
33
34
35
35

36
37
39
39
39
40
41
42
43

Multicollinearity . . . . .
Statistical Analysis . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . .
Review of Research Questions .
Data Collected . . . . . . . .
Group Characteristics . . . .
Course Evaluations . . . . . .
Course Results . . . . . . . .
Course Results by Experimental
Regression Model Data Estimates
Multicollinearity . . . . . .
Pre-Course Data . . . . . .
Post-Course Data . . . . . .
Interactive Equations . . . .
Joint-F Tests . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

Control Groups

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, REFLECTIONS .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . .
Reflection . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES O O O C O O O O O O 0 O O O

A.

COURSE SYLLABUS . . . . . . .

DATA INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . .

ECONOMIC EDUCATION COURSE EVALUATION FORM . . . .

PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

LIST OF CONCEPTS . . . . . . .

SIMULATION SUMMARY . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page
44
45
45

47

47
47
48
50
52
56
58
60
61
62
65
69
71
72

75
75
8O
82
84
87
87
88
102
103
104
105

108

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
I-A Study Variables and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 7
III-A Description of Variables Studied . . . . . . . . 38
IV-A Variable Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges,

Min/max scores 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 49

IV-B Variable Differences by Groups . . . . . . . . . 51
IV-C Course Evaluations Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 54
IV-D Results on Economic Knowledge Gain, Attitude, and
Economic Sophistication, for All Participants . 57
IV-E Course Results by Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
IV-F Pre-Course Regressions Coefficients . . . . . . 63
IV-G Post-Course Regressions . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
IV-H Post-Test Regressions with Interactive Variables 70
IV-I Joint-F Test for Interactive Variables . . . . . 72

Appendix D Pearson Correlation Coefficients Matrix . . . . 103

vi

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

This research investigated the effectiveness of using simulations
in a professional development graduate course for teaching economic
principles to K-12 school teachers. The experimental design of the
study involved a control group which was taught by using the lecture/
reading methodology. The experimental group was taught the identical
course content through the use of simulations.

The two groups were enrolled in a graduate-level course for
teachers in basic economic principles. The course was for four
quarter hours, offered by the Greater Cincinnati Center for Economic
Education at the University of Cincinnati. The first section was held
during the Winter Quarter, 1984, where the main teaching methodology
was the lecture/reading approach for the control group. The
experimental sections were organized to use simulations as the major
teaching methodology and were taught to two groups during the Spring
and Summer Quarters, 1984.

Both control and experimental groups were pre- and post-tested
for economic knowledge gain, attitude about economics, and attitude

1

2
sophistication about economics. The significance of any difference
was determined by using a t-test. To measure outside influences, a
variety of data on personal and professional characteristics was
collected to determine any significance of these characteristics.
This chapter will describe the problem, purpose, importance of
the study, research hypotheses, participants in the study, and

definition of terms.

Purpose and Importance of Study

The purpose of this study was to assess and evaluate the use of
simulations in an inservice teacher education course designed to teach
basic economic principles. This study investigated the use of
simulations to teach knowledge of economic principles with analysis of
data completed using accepted statistical procedures and research
design. Williams’ model of a traditional discipline-centered model1
was accepted by having the course taught as a graduate-level
university course. An additional dimension of the research was the
analysis of the impact on the economic attitudes of the participants
and their attitude sophistication as a result of learning the economic
principles. Economic literacy and attitude differences were also
investigated.

The study focus included the use of simulations and economic know-
ledge gain via a professional development graduate course in economics.

It was hypothesized that the participants would increase their

1 Elmer D. Williams, "Teacher Education: The Continuous
Process," Chapter 6, NCSS Bulletin No. 65, Economic Education:
Links to the Social Studies, ed., Stowell Symmes, NCSS
(Washington, D.C., 1981), p. 69.

 

 

3

personal economic knowledge, attitude, and attitude sophistication.

The importance of this research is demonstrated by the minimal
work done in previous studies to highlight the relationships between
the three areas studied in this research. In this study, simulations
were used as the main teaching methodology during a graduate-level
professional development course for teachers to teach economic
principles. The relationship between economics and simulations was
reported by Wilson and Schug as disappointing.2 Lewis and
Wentworth, commenting on simulation research in social studies, stated
that, ”Most of the research which has been accomplished in the field
is suspect because of inadequate testing procedures and research
design, use of unsophisticated statistics, and inability to determine

important variables."3

The research provided:

1. empirical data on the effectiveness of simulations compared to
the traditional lecture/reading method, and data about the
influence of student characteristics on economic literacy,
attitude toward economics, and attitude sophistication;

2. a professional course where the primary teaching methodology was

the use of simulations.

2 Cathy R. Wilson and Mark C. Schug, "The Evaluation of
Instructional Games and Simulations," A Guide to Games and

Simulations for Teaching Economics, 3rd ed., Joint Council on
Economic Education, (New York, I979), p. 22.

3

 

 

Ibid, p. 22.

4
Background of the Study

The training of teachers in economic education has essentially
been a role reserved for inservice teacher education. Williams
stated, ”... one will find little or no economic preparation of most
prospective teachers. Considerably more activity in economic
education takes place in graduate or inservice teacher education
programs."4 Walstad and Watts reported that many teachers who had
previous economic training felt it was deficient.5

Many activities in economic education are designed to assist
teachers during the inservice phase of teacher education. As Williams
noted, "Traditionally, the model of economic education for teachers

has been the discipline-centered ’Principles’ courses."6

Yet, much
of the economic education research has been concerned with teaching
economic principles courses at the college level.

Two types of simulations are widely used in economic education:
1) vocational/consumer, and 2) conceptual. The vocational/consumer
type refers to such activities as Mini-Society, Kinder-Economy, the
Stock Market Game, or other business-related simulations. These are
simulations where economic concepts are taught and learned as an
independent function of the activity. The amount of economics taught
by using the vocational/consumer type is much more dependent upon the
teaching objectives and training of the teacher. These simulations
4 Williams, op. cit., p. 69.
5 William Walstad and Michael Watts, "Teaching Economics in

the Schools: Analysis of Survey Findings," delivered at Midwest
Economic Association, 1983.

6 Williams, 0p. cit., p. 69.

5
can be worthwhile learning experiences for other subjects such as math
or social skills without any economics being introduced.

The conceptual type of simulation, however, has as the main goal
the learning of an economic concept(s). Included in this group would
be the Baseball Game (supply and demand), Cut the Budget (taxes), or
Landosa (inflation). Unless the economic concept is introduced, the
conceptual type simulation will not be an effective learning tool.

The economic concept must be the focus of the activity.

Research Questions

This study has investigated the following questions:

1. What are the typical characteristics of participating teachers?

2. Do participants evaluate the value of a graduate-level course
differently when simulations are the primary teaching methodology?

3. What is the effect of a graduate-level course in economics on the
participants’ economic knowledge, attitudes, and attitude
sophistication?

4. What is the effect of the use of simulations as the methodology
to teach economic knowledge?

5. Are there personal and/or professional characteristics which
affect the economic knowledge, attitudes, and attitude

sophistication?

Hypothesis
The major hypothesis of this study was that the coefficient on
the Treatment Variable (X1) in the regression, representing the use of

simulations, would be positive and significantly larger than zero in

6
equations measuring economic literacy and attitude change. The null
hypothesis that the Treatment Variable was not significant was tested
using the t-test and customary significance levels (.05 and .01).

For each independent variable there was a subhypothesis. The
null hypothesis that the effect of each independent variable is not
significant on the dependent variables was tested using the t-test.
Significance was determined at the customary significance levels (.05
and .01).

Table I-A summarizes the hypotheses as they pertain to the study.

7

TABLE I-A7

Study Variables and Hypotheses

Regressions
Y1 - Post TEL
Y2 - Post ATE
Y3 - Post EAS
X1 - Treatment Variable
X2 ~ Pre TEL
X3 - Pre ATE
X4 - Pre EAS
X5 - Age
X6 - Sex
X7 - General Mental Ability

 

X8 - Hours Economic Coursework

X9 - Highest Degree

X10 - Teaching Experience

X11 - Auditory Learning Preference
X12 - Visual Learning Preference

X13 - Tactile Learning Preference

X14 - Kinesthetic Learning Preference
X15 - Structured Learning Preference
X16 - Course Length

X17 - Years Since Last Course

Notes:
0 - Variable omitted
+ - Positive and significant at .05
? - Unsure of sign and significance
- - Negative and significant at .05

7

Dependent Variables & Equations
TEL - EQl ATE - EQ2 EAS - EQ3

 

 

4- c: c> + + <3 <3 c:
o o + o + O O +
«9 + O O + O O +

I
«3
‘9

a + + +
- + + +
9 + +

‘3
0‘3
Q

9 9 9
9 ? ?
9 9 9
9 9 9

Based on a table of similar format used by William Walstad and

John Soper, "A Model of Economic Learning in the High School," The
Journal of Economic Education, vol. 13, no. 1, (Winter, 1982), p. 45.

 

8
Study Papulation and Sample

The population of this study were certified teachers in K-12
schools from the eligible population in the greater Cincinnati area.
The exact number for the population was not relevant to the research
design because the study accepted as a sample all eligible teachers
who chose to enroll in an advertised university course.

The sample for the study was determined by the registration
system for published graduate courses by the Greater Cincinnati Center
for Economic Education and the University of Cincinnati. Forty-two
teachers successfully completed the control section of the course.

The experimental group consisted of two separate sections. Twenty-six
teachers successfully completed the first experimental section using
simulations, and nineteen teachers completed the second section for a

combined total of forty-five in the experimental group.

Limitations

This research is intended as a policy statement relative to the
usefulness of simulations and the effect of student characteristics
on adult learners in developing economic literacy and supporting
attitude change towards economics. As such, the research does not
investigate relationships between the independent variables of post-
course knowledge gain, attitudes, and attitude sophistication. Based
on assumptions of earlier research, the conclusions drawn from this
study are important only as they relate to the dependent variables.

It was not feasible to randomize the composition of the control

and experimental groups. Thus, the two groups’ composition was

9

described by collecting personal and professional data about the parti-
cipants and assessing these data using a multiple regression model.

To control the instructor variable, a conscious effort was made
to utilize the same instructor for both the control and experimental
sections. The instructor had an extensive background in teaching
economic education workshops, courses, and principles courses at the
college level since 1980. However, caution must be taken with regards

to possible bias by the instructor on a preferred teaching methodology.

Definition of Terms

Participants: these are adults who were teachers with a minimum
B.A. degree, and who were taking coursework for graduate credit.

Simulation: Livingston and Stoll’s (1973) definition of an
instructional social simulation game is accepted for this research:
any interaction game that represents a situation for the purpose of
teaching a subject or skill.8

Economics: Hansen’s, et a1. (1983), definition has been
accepted. They said, "Economics is the study of how our scarce produc-
tive resources are used to satisfy human wants ..., thus, we must
’economize’ our resources, or use them as efficiently as possible."9

Economic Attitudes: these are measures of the participants’

feelings toward economics as a science and field of study.

8 Samuel A. Livingston and Clairice Stacz Stoll, Simulation
Games: An Introduction for the Social Studies Teacher, Free
Press, (New York, 1973), p. 1.

 

9 Lee W. Hansen, et al., Part I: A Framework for Teaching
Economic Basic Concepts, Joint Council on Economic Education, (New
York, 1977), p. 3.

 

 

10

Economic Attitude Sophistication: these are measures of the
participants’ congruent attitudes with most professional members of
the economic education discipline on knowledge of current economic
policy issues.

Inservice Education: these are professional development programs
designed to increase the professional capabilities of teachers. For this
research, the term included teachers of all experience and grade level.

Learning Style: the definition given by Rita Dunn was accepted.

She stated that learning style, "is the way an individual responds to
environmental, sociological, and physical stimuli to achieve and learn
to their fullest potential."10

Auditory Learning Preference: according to Dunn, Dunn, and
Price, this is a learning preference where listening skills are
preferred. This includes the use of tapes, videotapes, records,
radio, television, and oral directions.11

Visual Learning Preferences: according to Dunn, Dunn, and Price,
this is a learning preference where eye contact skills are preferred.
This includes the use of pictures, filmstrips, films, graphs, books,
drawings, etc.12

Tactile Learning Preference: according to Dunn, Dunn, and Price,

this is a learning preference where hands-on activities are

preferred. These would include resources that are touchable, movable,

10 Rita Dunn, "Teaching in a Purple Fog: What We Don’t Know
About Learning Style," NASSP Bulletin, vol. 65, (March, 1981), p. 33.

 

11 Gary Price, Rita Dunn, Kenneth Dunn, Productivity
Environmental Preference Survey: PEPS Manual, (Lawrence, KS:
Price Systems, 1982), p. 12.

 

 

12 Ibid, p. 12.

11
readable, and can be manipulated.13
Kinesthetic Learning Preference: according to Dunn, Dunn, and

Price, this is a learning preference where active experiences are

preferred. These include site visits, action projects, and being
physically involved.14

Structured Learning Preference: according to Dunn, Dunn, and
Price, this is‘a learning preference where all phases of an assignment
are detailed. This would include clearly stated objectives, time

requirements, and required tasks.15

Overview

Chapter I described the problem, purpose, importance of the
study, research hypotheses, participants in the study, limitations,
and definition of terms.

In Chapter II, the related literature is reviewed. The
literature is reviewed in five categories: economic education,
simulations, inservice education, learning style, and adult learning.

In Chapter III, the design and procedure of the study is
presented. This chapter includes a description of the reliability and
validity data for the collection instruments.

In Chapter IV, the data are described.

In Chapter V, the hypotheses are tested and the study is
summarized. The conclusions and recommendations from the research are
presented and possibilities for future research are identified.

13 Ibid, p. 13.

1‘ Ibid, p. 13.

15 Ibid, p. 9.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

The focus of this study is on the impact of a teaching method-
ology, simulations, and personal and professional characteristics on
the knowledge, attitude, and sophistication gain of teachers toward
economics as the result of a graduate inservice economic education
course. The research questions focused on simulations, inservice
education, and those personal and professional characteristics that
contributed to learning and attitude change. This chapter presents a
review of the educational literature for each of these topics.

In each section, several of the closely related educational
literature are reviewed followed by the significant economic education
literature on the topic. The literature on adult learning, economic

knowledge and attitude, and learning style are also reviewed.

Economic Education

The National Survey of Economic Education - 1981, conducted by

 

Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, noted that 8 out of 10 teachers of
economics have had a college or graduate-level course in economics.

12

13
However, of those who were not economics teachers, 81 percent felt
they needed more materials, and a significant number also wanted
better training to teach economics.1 Williams supported this idea

stating, ... economics has been a largely neglected content area in
teacher preparation programs." He also noted the model for such
training has normally been the disciplined-centered "principles"
course.2

Much of the research in economic education has focused on the
college "principles" courses. In 1979, Siegfield and Fels published a
very comprehensive survey of research on economic education at the
college level.3 However, little attention was given to the
simulation method of teaching. The following review specifically
focuses the economic education literature in four areas: Teaching
Methods, Student Characteristics and Simulation Teaching, Inservice

Education, and Economic Knowledge and Attitude.

Teaching Methods

 

As economic education focused on the "principles" courses for its
research population, the evaluation of teaching methods in the
economic education literature also appears narrowly focused. Becker,

along with Siegfield and Fels, has stated that most economic education

1 Yankelovich, et al., National Survey of Economic Education,
1981, (New York: Phillips Petroleum Co., 1981), p. 26.

 

2 Elmer D. Williams, "Teacher Education: The Continuous
Process," Chapter 6, NCSS Bulletin No. 65, Economic Education:
Links to the Social Studies, ed., Stowell Symmes. NCSS,
(Washington, D.C., 1981), p. 67.

 

 

3 John J. Siegfield and Rendigs Fels, "Research on Teaching
College Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature,
vol. 17, (September, 1979), p. 925.

 

14
literature and research evaluated teaching methods using production
function models. Davisson and Bonello identified three categories of
inputs for the popular models. The categories and examples are: 1)
human capital (SAT, GPA, and Pretest), 2) utilization rate (study and
class time), and 3) technology (lecture, simulations, and work-

books).4 Recent articles in the Journal of Economic Education

 

focused on ... finding the effects of alternative student and

instructor inputs on student learning in a college-level introductory
economics course."5
The method of presentation and content of inservice training has
also been investigated. Lowell and Harter recommend an inservice
training organized where an economics instructor teaches approximately
two-thirds of the classroom time and classroom teachers handle the

6 The instructional

other one-third in smaller group sessions.
techniques recommended included lecturing, transparencies, films, and
quizzes. Karstensson emphasized the lecture/reading and teaching

material demonstrations methodology and content in teaching economics

to teachers.7 Dale Davis suggested inservice workshops "will be

more helpful to teachers if they include practical as well as

4 William E. Becker, "Economic Education Research: Part I,
Issues and Questions,” Journal of Economic Education, vol. 14,
(Winter, 1983), p. 10.

 

5 Ibid, p. 10.

6 Hugh Lowell and Charlotte Harter, An Economic Course for
Elementary School Teachers, 2nd ed., (New York: Joint Council on
Economic Education,1975), p. 2.

7 Lewis Karstensson, An Analysis of Short-Term Learning in
Economics: The Case of Participant Performance in a F?ée Enterprise
System Seminar, (Dentonj—TX: North Texas State Center for
Economic Education, 1979), p. 3.

 

 

 

 

 

15

theoretical economic content."8 In a 1966 NDEA Advanced Study
Institute in Economics, Reese and Darcy related the uses of a
combination of lectures, guest speakers, and study groups "to present
a theoretical framework for the analysis of economic problems."9

The uniqueness of Economic Education, Simulation/Gaming, and
Inservice Teacher Education in combination with each other was support-
ed when an ERIC literature research matrixing these areas revealed
zero citations. When Inservice Teacher Education was replaced with
Teacher Education, only two citations appeared. The first was a
Rafeld and Fraas study on the relationship of cognitive learning
styles with teaching style (simulation/gaming versus lecture/
discussion and the student effectiveness in a college-level
introductory economics course. They proposed that a relationship
should exist between learning and teaching style.10 The second
study by Zelmer and Zelmer reviewed eleven lectures at a Western

Canada symposium on simulation and gaming.11

When the descriptor
Student Characteristics was substituted for Teacher Education in the

ERIC search, seven citations were revealed, with one by John Fraas

8 Dale Davis, Economic Education in the Curriculum,

 

(ERI :
6 Jim E. Reese and Robert L. Darcy, Report on the 1966 NDEA

Advanced Study Institute in Economics, (Consortium of Professional

Associations for the Study of Special Teacher Improvement Programs,

1966), p. 13.

10 John Fraas and Frederick Rafeld, Simulation Activities and
Student Learning Characteristics in a College Economics Survey
Course, (Paperpresented at Annual Meetingvbf the Eastern
Educational Research Association: Norfolk, VA, 1980), p. 15.

11 A. C. Lynn Zelmer and Amy M. Zelmer, ”Proceedings of the
Western Regional Symposium on Instructional Simulations," ed.
054608, 1971.

 

 

 

 

16
emphasizing the relationships between student characteristics and
simulation teaching.12
Student Characteristics and Simulation Teachipg_

John Fraas authored or co-authored all seven of the citations
relating to "student characteristics.” The population and setting for
each of Fraas’ articles was an undergraduate college-level ”survey,"
"principles," or ”introductory” course. The closest related of these
studies investigated any superiority of simulations over lecture-
discussion.13 Using a college-level introductory course as his
sample, the two primary questions investigated were:

"Is the simulation/gaming technique superior to the lecture dis-
cussion technique in increasing the economic knowledge, interests
in economics, and retention of economic knowledge of the college

students enrolled in an introductory economics course?"

Also,

”Do the instructors’ and the students’ pre-course economic
knowledge, scholastic abilities, pre-course interests in
economics, and previous economic training influence the
relative effectiveness of the two methods of instruction to
increase the students’ economic knowledge, retenizon of
economic knowledge, and interests in economics?”

Fraas designed multiple linear regressional models to analyze the
methods of instruction on students’ post-course scores for economic
knowledge, retention, and interests in economics. He concluded

neither method "... could be declared superior."15 This agreed with

12 John W. Fraas, ”The Use of Seven Simulation Games in a
College Economics Course,” Journal of Experimental Education, vol.
48, (Summer, 1980).

13

 

Ibid, p. 264.
14 Ibid, pp. 264 - 265.

15 Ibid, p. 279.

17

Wilson and Schug who summed up the research on the simulation teaching
method in economics as disappointing. They stated that, "Any answers
we have are quite tentative and lack sufficient empirical support."16

The Fraas study did show a relation between certain student
characteristics that were investigated. While using simulations,
higher post-course scores were achieved by students who had a low pre-
course knowledge, no previous training, and low SAT scores. Higher
post-course scores were achieved with the lecture method by those
students who had high pre-course knowledge, previous economic
training, and high SAT scores.17

Inservice Education

 

An effort to further link economic education, simulations,
and inservice education research was attempted with a final ERIC
search. This last search linked the descriptor Economic Education
and Inservice Education since 1966. A preview of the first 5 of 61
citations showed Home Economics as the major area of study. Removing
Home Economics reduced the number of citations to 36. The focus of
the references to Inservice Education and Economic Education was
quite diverse. They ranged from promotional articles for the
Joint Council on Economic Education to testing students.

Several studies investigated the effects of inservice training
on increasing the economic knowledge of teachers. An early study by

Girgis and MacDowell (1972) reported on the success of an inservice

16 Cathy R. Wilson and Mark C. Schug, ”Chapter 3 - The
Evaluation of Instructional Games and Simulations,” A Guide to Games
and Simulations for Teaching Economics, 3rd ed., Joint Council on
Economic Education, (New York, 1979), p. 22.

17

 

 

John W. Fraas, op. cit., p. 279.

18
institute and the factors of those teachers who had the most gain.
They reported that those teachers with the most knowledge increase
"... were recently graduated from college, had a high grade point
average, had taught for a few years, had taken a moderate number of
courses in social science, and had more than two courses in

economics."18

In response to a 1973 Texas law mandating "Free
Enterprise" education, David Armstrong studied the understanding of
teachers in a one-month summer inservice teacher training institute
held at Texas A & M in 1977. The average mean score of the 38
participants on a 105-item test increased from 67.8 on the pre-test to
84.8 on the post-test. They also showed significant gain in all the
concept areas except "alternative economic systems."19

Three published studies in 1979 reported the success of teacher
inservice training in economics.

Lewis Karstensson investigated elementary and secondary teachers
during a 10-day seminar using primarily the lecture/reading teaching
method. Using the Test of Understanding College Economics (TUCE),
Part II A, as a pre- and post-test, Karstensson concluded, "...

greater economic understanding was increased in the areas of the

operation of competitive markets, the theory of the firm together with

18 Maurice A. Girgis and Michael A. MacDowell, "A Quantitative
Analysis of the Effectiveness of an Inservice Institute on Teaching
Economics," Indiana Social Studies Quarterly, vol. 25, (Winter,
1972-73), p. 72.

 

19 David G. Armstrong, DeveIOpment of Behaviorial Objectives
Test Items or "Free Enterprise" and Asseggmgnt of "Free Enterprise"
Training’s Impact on Understanding of (1) Teachers Taking the
Training and (2) Secondary Students in Those Classes: Phase II,
(College Statren, Texas: College of Education, Texas A 8 M, 1977),
pp. 20 - 21.

 

 

 

 

19
the Operation of non-competitive markets, and governmental activity in
the economy.”20 The mean scores rose to 15.95 from 13.17 with a
decrease in the standard deviation from 4.22 to 3.79, the mean
increase significant at the .05 level.

In another 1979 study, William Walstad reported substantial
benefits were achieved by the program participants of an economics
inservice providing economics instruction as part of the Unified
Sciences and Mathematics for Elementary School Program (USMES).

With a sample of 17, the inservice variable in a regression model

21

was significant at the .05 level. The post-test scores had an

average 7.03 gain over pre-test scores. Also in 1979, Dennis Murphy
reported that a twoeweek economics inservice at Emory University
for high school teachers had positive effects on economic under-
standing. His results were significant at the .01 level with a
sample of 28 and 29 participants for the pre-test and post-test,
respectively.22

Reese and Darcy, and Karstensson also reported on other factors
and outcomes of inservice training in economics. They note the skill
and personality of the instructor is a factor in the success or
failure of an institute as well as a clear definition of objectives, a

homogeneous composition of the participants, and attention given to

20 Karstensson, 0p. cit., p. 12.

21 William Walstad, "Effectiveness of A USMES Inservice
Economic Education Program for Elementary School Teachers," Journal
of Economic Education, 3rd ed., no. 1, (Fall, 1979), p. 9.

22 Dennis Murphy, "Learning and Intensive Instruction,"
Journal of Economic Education, (Fall, 1979), p. 35.

 

 

20

23 Karstensson

classroom use of their economic understanding.
reported the participants moved away ”from unsophisticated agreement
with popular opinion concerning the economy to sophisticated

disagreement."24

He also noted their interest in the subject
increased.

Economic Knowledge and Attitude

 

In a 1983 essay, George Stigler asked why people need to be
economically literate and not musically, historically, or chemically

literate?25

His criteria for answering the question relied on
two questions: 1) Is the knowledge needed as a means of communica-
tion?, and 2) Is it a type of knowledge frequently needed? He answered

yes to both questions, thus concluding that, ”... every American

”26 The forementioned research litera-

must be his own economist ...
ture points quite definitely to the positive effects of increasing a
teacher’s economic knowledge through professional deve10pment.

Harry Greenfield suggested that problems still exist in economic
education at the inservice level. He contended that teacher training
institutions do not emphasize economic education enough at the pre-
service level, economists are too specialized, and resources go to
specialized fields.27 He further suggested that three tasks need to

23 Reese and Darcy, 0p. cit., p. 14.

24 Karstensson, op. cit., p. 18.

25 George Stigler, "The Case, If Any, for Economic Literacy,"
Journal of Economic Education, vol. 14, (Summer, 1983), p. 60.

26

 

Ibid., p. 64

27 Harry Greenfield, "Economics in Secondary Schools: Some
Problems of Inservice Teaching," The Social Studies, vol. 73,
(Sept./Oct., 1982), no. 3, p. 217.

 

21
be completed to remedy the perceived problems: 1) teacher training
institutions need to strengthen their economics curricula, 2) the
economics profession "as a whole" needs to aid in increasing the
economic literacy of elementary and secondary teachers, and 3) the
economics profession needs to allocate more time and resources to
economic education. Greenfield’s first assertions are supported by

28 In

Weidenaar in a study of social studies methods educators.
general, Greenfield was addressing the need for a more positive
attitude towards economics and economic education.

Mark Schug studied the economic attitude of 171 public school
teachers because attitudes influence their teaching patterns and
content.29 He used Riddles Survey of Opinions on Economic Issues to
distinguish attitude differences between elementary, secondary, and
preservice teachers. He concluded differences did exist between these
teacher classifications.

Measuring economic attitude and development using an instrument
with documented reliability and validity has become an important
issue. Wetzel, Potter, and O’Toole used a self-made Likert scale

questionnaire in 1978 to study the influence of learning and teaching

style on economic attitude and achievement.30 The questionnaire

28 Dennis J. Weidenaar, "Economics: A Little Known Discipline
Among Social Studies Methods Teachers," Peabody Journal of
Education, vol. 57, (April, 1980), pp. 197 - 203.

29 Mark C. Schug, "Elementary Teachers’ Views on Economic
Issues," Theory and Research in Social Education, vol. XI,
(Spring, 1983), p. 55.

 

30 James N. Wetzel, W. James Potter, Dennis M. O’Toole, "The
Influence of Learning and Teaching Styles on Student Attitudes and
Achievement in the Introductory Economic Course: Case Study,"
Journal of Economic Education, vol. 13, (Winter, 1982), p. 35.

 

22
reliability and validity were not documented, however, thus making it
suspect.

Jerry Monahan statistically analyzed attitude by using a learning
model with 168 students. The model used attitude as the dependent
variable and was a function of achievement, ability, effort,
socioeconomic variables, and quality of instruction. He concluded
attitude changed little during a college principles course.31

The latest attitude measurement instrument with documented reli-
ability and validity was presented by Walstad and Soper in 1983. They
surmised the neglect of studying attitude except in a few instances
was partially the result of instruments not available or poorly

developed without any reliability or validity.32

The Survey of
Economic Attitude was developed to fill the void. Walstad and Soper
present documented reliability and validity findings for both parts of
their instrument: Attitude Toward Economics (ATE) and Economic

Attitude Sophistication (EAS).33 These instruments were used in

this study because of their established reliability and validity.

Simulations
Most of the literature on simulations appeared to be definitional

and somewhat generic. Livingston and Stoll’s definition of

31 Jerry Monahan, ”An Educational Production Function for
Principles of Economics," Journal of Economic Education, vol. 14,
(Spring, 1983), p. 16.

32 William C. Walstad and John C. Soper, "Measuring Economic
Attitudes in High School,” Theory and Research in Social Education,
vol. XI, (Spring, 1983), p. 41.

33

 

 

Ibid., pp. 53 - 54.

23
simulations was selected as the appropriate definition for this
research. They defined a simulation as, "A situation involving human

interaction intended to represent some other situation intended to

34

teach a subject or skill." Livingston and Stoll also stated that

simulations have two instructional purposes: 1) to raise the student’s

ability to perform, and 2) to raise the student’s knowledge and under-

35

standing of the situation." This perception of simulations was also

stated by McKilbin, Weil, and Joyce in their 1977 Association of Teacher

Education article. They asserted that the "principle of simulation is

that people learn from the dynamic consequences of their own actions."36

A purpose for the action is one of the two classifications of

simulations given by Maidment and Bronstein, with mode of operation as

37

the second. Mode of operation is also known as "man simulations"

where there is an interaction of players with rules and structure as

38 This research emphasized mode of

opposed to computer simulations.
operation simulations.
Some literature on simulations is more descriptive than defini-

tional. Mark Heyman described simulation games as, "... instructional

34 Samuel A. Livingston and Clairice Stacz Stoll, Simulation
Games: An Introduction for the Social Studies Teacher, Free
Press, (New York, 1973), p. 1.

 

 

35 Ibid., p. 6.

36 Michael McKilbin, Marsha Weil, Bruce Joyce, Teaching and
Learningii Demonstrations of Alternatives, (Washington, D.C.:
ATE, 1977), p. 45.

37 Robert Maidment and Russell H. Bronstein, Simulation Games:
Designand Implementation, (Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Pub.,
1973), pp. 13 - 14.

 

 

 

 

 

33 Ibid., p. 15.

24
techniques which create a social environment in which participants be-
come involved with whatever resources they have."39 Robert Birnbaum
differentiated "some" experience with "right" experiences when describ-
ing games and simulations in a 1980-81 study on their use in higher
education. He identified ”right" experiences as job training, intern—-

40

ships, and simulations. John Pager focused on the feedback of

simulations when he identified them as a learning experience while
providing feedback to the participants.41
The literature dealing with the effectiveness of simulations is not
overly enthusiastic. For a pre-college level population, Cherryholmes
concluded that learning and attitudinal changes due to simulations may

42 However, the Fraas study concluded

not be as great as claimed.
that higher post-course scores were achieved by students who had low
pre-course knowledge, no previous training, and low SAT scores when
taught economics using simulations."3 As previously noted, Wilson
and Schug summed up the research on simulations in relation to
economics as disappointing. They concluded, ”Any answers we have are

quite tentative and lack sufficient empirical support.”44

39 Mark Heyman, ”What are Simulation Games?" Environmental
Education Report, vol. 10, (August/Sept., 1982), p. 2.

 

 

40 Robert Birnbaum, "Games and Simulations in Higher
Education," Simulations and Games, vol. 13, (March, 1982), p. 4.

 

41 John M. Pager, Jr., "Simulations - A Valuable Learning Techni-

que,” Environmental Education Report, vol. 10, (Aug./Sept.,1982), p. 1.

 

42 Cleo H. Cherryholmes, "Some Current Research in Effectiveness
of Educational Simulations: Implications for Alternative Strategies,"
The American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 6, (Oct., 1966), p. 4.

 

43 Fraas, op. cit., p. 279.

44 Wilson and Schug, op. cit., p. 22.

25
Inservice Education
In his preface for a review of some of the research relating to
inservice education, Donald Orlich wrote that 9,200 documents are

45 The focus in this section

listed on the subject in ERIC alone.
on inservice will center on the strengths and weaknesses of structure,
emphasis on inservice models, and how some of the previously presented
research studies in economic education used inservice education.
Robert Byrne, in a 1983 essay, concluded that what has been miss-
ing in inservice education is a "consistent, uniform approach to staff

46

inservice.“ Orlich agreed with Byrne, while also stressing the

importance of inadequate funding, domination by school administrators,

lack of direction, and lack of relevance to the needs of teachers.47

Both Byrne and Orlich presented generalized actions to improve
inservice education. They included: teacher-orientation,
flexibility, sequential, and specific. Byrne also emphasized personal

48

and professional growth in place of improvement. Orlich added

feedback to Byrne’s proposals. Sally Mertens summarized the
comprehensive Rand Study which concluded inservices needed voluntary

participation and opportunities for interaction."9

45 Donald C. Orlich, ”Inservice Education: A Problem or a
Solution?" Science and Children, vol. 21, (Feb., 1984), p. 33.

 

46 Robert Byrne, "Inservice Programs - What are the Essentials
for Making Them Effective?" NASSP Bulletin, vol. 67, (March,
1983), p. 1.

 

‘7 Orlich, op. cit., p. 34.

48 Byrne, op. cit., pp. 2 - 3.

49 Sally Mertens, "Basics in Inservice Education: Findings
from Rand and Teacher Center Studies," Action in Teacher Education:
__.._—— ‘ Z,
Role of Research in Education, vol. 4, (Spring/Summer, 1982): P- 6

 

 

26
Two models in the literature with specific components were very

similar. Wilsey and Killian identified three components for
successful programs: 1) new knowledge acquisition, 2) knowledge of
new instruction methods, and 3) knowledge of clinical supervision.50
Hall, Benninga, and Clark identified almost exactly the same three
components with special emphasis for the importance of one and three.

Regarding new knowledge acquisition, they said, ”Most educators
would agree that a knowledge base is important for a teacher to create
a learning environment that is appropriate for exceptional children in
the regular class."51

For knowledge of clinical supervision, they concluded that,
”Change in attitude will occur only after the teacher receives the
necessary information and skills to interact successfully with all
students in the classroom."52

Most inservice programs in economic education are developed to
accomplish the acquisition of new knowledge. The Girgis-MacDowell,
Armstrong, Karstensson, Walstad, and Murphy studies previously mention
were implemented to study the improvement of teachers during the first

stage of inservice. Walstad’s study emphasized skill in using the new

knowledge with a new program.53 The skill and knowledge of how to

50 Cathy Wilsey and Joellen Killian, "Making Staff Develop-
ment Programs Work," Educational Leadership, vol. 40, (Oct., 1982),
p. 36.

51 John Hall, Jacques Benninga, Charlotte Clark, "A 3 Part
Model: A Comprehensive Approach to the Inservice Training of
Teachers," NASSP Bulletin, vol. 67, (March, 1983), p. 18.

 

 

52 Ibid., p. 19.

53 Walstad, op. cit., pp. 1 - 12.

27
use the new knowledge acquired is stressed in the Reese, Darcy, and

Karstensson studies.

Learning Style
One purpose of this study was to investigate the significance of

the learning style of teachers as related to the use of simulations
and the lecture/reading approach. The authors are not in agreement
about the definition and components of what identifies learning
style. Rita Dunn made a distinction between learning style and
cognitive style in one of her 1981 essays. She identified learning
style as the way an individual responds to environmental, social,

and physical stimuli. Cognitive style referred to how the brain

processed information.54

She considered the difference extremely
important since the two terms are often used interchangeably when, in
her opinion, they should not. David Hunt supported Rita Dunn by
defining learning style in terms of educational conditions under which
they are most likely to learn.55 The definition of learning style
must be carefully considered when reviewing learning style studies.

A study by Robert Stensrud and Kay Stensrud investigated the
learning style of 95 public school teachers. Using the Barbe-Swassing

Checklist of Observable Modality, they had the teachers complete the

form twice, once as a learner and once as the teacher. The most

54 Rita Dunn, "Teaching in a Purple Fog: What We Don’t Know
About Learning Style," NASSP Bulletin, vol. 65, (March, 1981),
ppo 33 " 360

55 David Hunt, ”Learning Style and the Interdependence of
Practice and Theory," Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 62, (May, 1982),
p. 647.

 

 

28

56 The Wetzel, Potter, O’Toole study

preferred modality was visual.
examined the learning style preference of students and its possible
affect on economic attitude and achievement. They concluded that the
learning style variables were not significant in either model.57
The previously cited economic education study by Rafeld and Fraas
suggested that the relationship between learning and teaching style

should be considered when matching students and teachers.58

Adult Learning
The education of teachers at the inservice level differs from
educating prospective teachers at the preservice level. Inservice
teachers are mature adults and "... educators need to be acutely aware
that the adult learner is not just a grown-up child student."59
Willey and Howey identified four inservice needs of adult profession-
als: 1) keep up with new knowledge, 2) master new concepts, 3) study

60

basic disciplines, and 4) to grow as persons. The first need

coincides with new knowledge acquisition of the inservice models

described earlier (see page 22).

56 Robert Stensrud and Kay Stensrud, "Teaching Styles and
Learning Styles of Public School Teachers,” Perceptual and Motor
Skills, vol. 56, (April, 1983), p. 414.

57

 

Wetzel, Potter, O’Toole, Op. cit., p. 38.
58 Rafeld and Fraas, 0p. cit., p. 26.

59 Lynn B. Burnham, ”Adults: Not Grown Up Children,”
Community and Junior Collegg Journal, vol. 53, (Nov., 1982), p. 26.

60 Reynold Willey and Kenneth R. Howey, "Chapter 3 - Reflec-
tions on Adult Development: Implications for Inservice Teacher
Education," Staff Development and Educational Change, ed. W.

Robert Houston and Rober Panteratz, (Reston, VA: ATE, 1980), p. 25.

 

 

29
A research study by Andrews, Houston, and Bryant supports
Burnham’s quote in the previous paragraph by quoting Malcolm Knowles:
”Adults as learners are different from children as learners in self-
concept, in their experience, in orientation to learning, and in

«61

readiness to learn. Seider suggested adults retain better with

62

action-oriented environments. In discussing adult achievement,

Houston stated that, ... what is known about adult learning and
instruction is meager."63 He accepted Seider’s view and teaching
methodology became an important element of investigation in inservice
education research for him. His "action-oriented environments"
suggests that simulations would be more acceptable and effective to
adult learners. A statement by Lawrence Dolan in a study on the
affective characteristics of adult learners probably best summarizes
present thinking on adult learning: "the laizze faire approach to

instructional concerns (of the adult learner) is no longer valid."64

Summary

The National Survey of Economics Education - 1981 noted that 8

 

out of 10 teachers of economics have had a college or graduate-level

61 Theodor E. Andrews, W. Robert Houston, Brenda L. Bryant, Adult
Learners (A Research Study), (Washington, D.C.: ATE, 1981),p. 56.

 

62 C. J. Seider, "Teaching with Simulations and Games," In
N. L. Gage (ed.), The Psychology of TeachingvMethods - The Seventy:
Fifth Yearbook of the National Society of Education, Par£_l, The
National Society for the Study of Education, (Chicago, 1976).

63

 

 

Andrews, Houston, Bryant, op. cit., p. 69.

64 Lawrence Dolan, "Affective Characteristics of the Adult
Learner: A Study of Mastery Based Instruction," Community/Junior
College Quarterly of Research and Practice, vol. 7, (July - Sept.,
1983): p. 368.

 

 

30
course in economics. Yet, 81 percent wanted better training to teach
economics.65 Much of the research in economic education has focused
on undergraduate college principles courses and evaluating teaching
methods using production function models.

An ERIC search matrixing Economic Education, Simulation/Gaming,
and Inservice Education produced two citations, and substituting
Student Characteristics for Inservice Teacher Education produced 7,
all authored or co-authored by John Fraas. In one study he concluded,
"... neither (lecture or simulation) to be declared superior,"66 yet
a relation with student characteristics was shown.

The literature was quite definite that inservice teacher training
in economics improved their economic understanding. Studies of the
teaching methodology and content, however, were minimal.

The need for instructors of adult learners to use simulations is
supported by Seider and the need for adults to "learn in action-
oriented environments." The literature on simulations in economic
education is generally limited but that which is available is not
overly enthusiastic about the use of simulations. If simulations
should be the mode for adult learners, the literature is not
enthusiastic about their effectiveness in accomplishing new knowledge

acquisition and knowledge of new instruction methods.

65 Yankelovich, et al., Op. cit., p. 9.

66 John W. Fraas, 0p. cit., p. 279.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Introduction
This chapter presents the research plan. The course sections
used for the control and experimental groups are presented. The
process of identifying the simulations for the experimental group is
explained. The reliability and validity for the data collection
instruments are given. A review of the hypotheses and the statistical

analyses applied to the data is presented.

Research Procedures

The research procedure involved three sections of a graduate
basic economics course for teachers entitled, Basic Economics for
Everyday Life (see syllabus, Appendix A). The four graduate credit
hours course was offered by the Greater Cincinnati Center for Economic
Education at the University of Cincinnati. The first section (Winter
Quarter, 1984) was the control group where the major teaching
methodology was the lecture/reading approach. The experimental
sections used simulations as the major teaching methodology and were

offered in the Spring and Summer Quarters, 1984.

31

32

The textbook used in the course was, Teaching Economics:

 

Contents and Strategies, written by Ronald A. Banaszak and Dennis

 

C. Brennan (Addison/Wesley, 1983).1 The textbook format was the
basis of the schedules for the three sections. In the control
section, the textbook was also the primary source of material used.
In the experimental sections, the textbook was reduced to a
supplementary role. Simulations were implemented to correlate with

the Joint Council on Economic Education’s Master Curriculum Guide -

 

Part I: A Framework for Teaching Economics: Basic Concgpts.2
They replaced the textbook as the major source of teaching material in

the experimental sections.

Sample
The sample consisted of those teachers in the greater Cincinnati
area who registered for the 3 sections. In the Winter Quarter control
section, 42 teachers registered and completed the course. In the
Spring Quarter experimental section 26 teachers registered and
completed the section; 19 teachers registered and completed the second
experimental section, bringing the experimental sample total to 45

with a total sample for the 2 formats of 87.

1 Ronald A. Banaszak and Dennis G. Brennan, Teaching Economics -

Content and Strategies, (Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1983).

 

 

2 W. Lee Hansen, Chairman, et al., Part I - A Fgamework for
Teaching Economig Basic Concepts, Joint Council on Economic
Education, (New York, 1977), p. 9.

 

 

33
Instrumentation

The following data on each participant were collected: age, sex,
education, previous economic coursework, latest date of economics
coursework, teaching experience, economic teaching materials used,
learning style, pre- and post-test economic literacy, I.Q.
(approximate), and attitude and sophistication toward economics. (See
Appendix B).

These data were important because randomization was not feasible
in selecting the control and experimental groups. They were used to
help identify specific student characteristics that might have
significance on the dependent variables (post-test economic literacy
score, post-test economic attitude and sophistication scores), and on
the use of simulations as a teaching method.

The following tests, or measurement instruments, were used to

collect the data:

Test of Economic Literacy - Form B (TEL)

 

The test is published by the Joint Council on Economic
Education. The content categories for the TEL are identical to those
used to accumulate conceptual simulations (see Appendix B). The
reliability of the TEL, Form B, as measured with a Cronbach Alpha
correlation has a coefficient of .872.3

The validity of the test has not been completely determined. A

review by the National Advisory Committee concluded that the test had

3 John C. Soper, Test of Economic Literacy: Discussion Guide
and Rationale, (New York: Joint Council on Economic Education,
1979), p. 11.

 

 

34

"face validity.’ There also was some evidence of "concurrent
validity," or the test’s correlation with other measures. "Content
validity" was termed acceptable in relation to the "Basic Concepts,"
yet a potential problem may be the "weighting of content-cognitive

level matrix."4

Survey on Economic Attitudes (SEA)

 

The Survey on Economic Attitudes has two parts: Attitudes Toward
Economics (ATE) and Economic Attitude Sophistication (EAS) (see
Appendix B). It was developed by a working committee under commission
of the Joint Council on Economic Education.5 The committee measured
attitudes as individual responses to economics as a field of study.
Attitude Sophistication was defined as, "the consistency of agreement
with a current body of economic knowledge (policy issues) with which
most members of the discipline agree."6

A reliability coefficient was established for each part of the
SEA. The internal consistency of the ATE was considered good with a
Cronbach Alpha coefficient of .887 and the EAS coefficient at .66.8

According to Soper and Walstad, the EAS is the more critical

4 William Walstad and Stephen Buckles, "The New Economic
Tests for the College and Pre-College Levels: A Comment,” Journal
of Economic Eduation, vol. 14, (Spring, 1983), pp. 17 - 22.

 

5 William Walstad and John Soper, ”On Measuring Economic
Attitudes," The Journal of Economic Education, vol. 14, no. 4,
(Fall, 1983), p. 5.

 

6 Ibid., p. 6.
7 Ibid., p. 7.
8

Ibid., p. 7.

35
component of the SEA, consequently the added importance to the content
validity process.9 All of the Joint Council network Council and
Center Directors (n - 231) were sent a twenty-item questionnaire (four-
teen normal EAS items and six distractors). The fourteen items
accepted received seventy percent agreement or disagreement, while the
six distractors could not get a concensus. It was also determined the
SEA was relatively independent of cognitive economic knowledge.
"Neither (ATE or EAS) of these is particularly sensitive to student
I.Q. measures" and "... that the ATE and EAS are measuring essentially

different things."10

Personal Data Questionnaire (PD)

 

Reliability testing for the questionnaire was completed by asking
five teachers to complete the form on two different occasions, several
weeks apart. A comparison of the responses by the five teachers
showed they responded the same both times with a reliability of .78.
Content validity was established by the approval of the questionnaire

by the members of the doctoral guidance committee.

Quick Word Test, Level 2, Form Am (QWT)

 

The Quick Word Test can assess general mental abilities in a time-
saving instrument. Level 2 (QWT) is appropriate for college-level and

professional groups. The reliability of the Level 2 (QWT) test based

9 Ibid., p. 7.

10 Ibid., p. 11.

36
on a Kuder-Richardson was .89.11 Concurrent validity for the Level
2 (QWT) was measured at .80. This was determined through a comparison

with the ACE Linguistic Test.12

Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS)

 

The PEPS is a learning style assessment instrument developed by
Dunn, Dunn, and Price. They stated that, "The Productivity
Environment Preference Survey (PEPS) is the first comprehensive

approach to the diagnosis of an adult’s individual productivity and

13

learning style." PEPS is designed to analyze individual adults’

personal preference for 21 different elements through content and

factor analysis. The areas of most interest for this research were

"Structure, Auditory Preference, Visual Preference,” "Tactile

Preference, and "Kinesthetic Preference." Except for Kinesthetic,
the use of Hoyt reliability coefficients show that some discrimination
exists for the instrument. While the Kinesthetic coefficient was .38,
Structure, Auditory, Visual, and Tactile had Hoyt reliability
coefficients of .47, .87, .56, and .63, respectively.14
The authors of the test were not definitive on the survey’s

validity. However, using the subsets, they noted in earlier

True/False forms of the instrument that the survey validity was weak

11 Edgar F. Borgatta and Raymond J. Corsini, Quick Word Test
Manual, (U.S.A.: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1964), p. 14.

 

12 Ibid., p. 14.

13 Gary E. Price, et al., Productizity Environmental Prefer-
ence Survey: PEPS Manual, (Lawrence, KS: Price Systems, 1982),
p. 1.

l4

 

 

Ibid., p. 39.

37

in the subsets of Structure and Kinesthetic Preferences.
improve the discriminating power of the weakest subsets, they have
changed the format to the S-point Likert Scale. The discriminatory

ability "of the new survey should improve validity."16

Statistical Hypotheses

The major hypothesis of the study was that the coefficient on the
Treatment Variable (X1) in the regression representing use of
simulations, is positive and significantly larger than zero in
equations measuring literacy and attitude change. The null hypothesis
that the treatment variable will not be significant was tested using
the t-test and customary significance levels of .05 and .01.

For each independent variable there is a subhypothesis. The null
hypothesis that the effect of each independent variable is not
significant on the dependent variables was tested using the t-test.
Significance was determined at the customary significance levels (.05
and .01) (see Table I-A on page 6, Chapter I). Table III-A describes

the variables investigated in the study.

15 Ibid., p. 21.

16 Ibid., p. 21.

Y1

Y2

Y3

X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

X10

X11

X12

X13

X14

X15

X16

X17

38

TABLE III-A

Description of the Variables Studied

Post-Test for Economic Literacy

Post-course Attitude Toward Economics

'Post-course Attitude Sophistication

Treatment Variable

Pre-Test for Economic Literacy

Pre-course Attitude Toward Economics

Pre-course Economic Attitude
Sophistication

Age

Sex

General Mental Ability

Hours of Economic Coursework
Highest Degree

Teaching Experience

Auditory Learning Preference
Visual Learning Preference
Tactile Learning Preference
Kinesthetic Learning Preference
Structured Learning Preference
Course Length

Years Since Last Economics Course

(Post-TEL score, 0-46)
(Post-ATE score, 0-70)
(Post-EAS score, 0-70)
(Yes - 1, No - 0)
(Pre-TEL score, 0-46)

(Pre-ATE score, 0-70)

(Pre-AES score, 0-70)

(Female . 1, Male - 0)
(QWT proxy, 0 - 100)
(Undergrad and grad hrs)
(BA-0, MA-l)

(Years completed)

(PEPS scale 0-70)

(PEPS scale 0-70)

(PEPS scale 0-70)

(PEPS scale 0-70)

(PEPS scale 0-70)

(8 days - 0, 10 wks - I)

39
Statistical Procedures

Homogeneity of Variances

 

The statistical significance of the data involved two processes:
determining the homogeneity of the variances and the t-test. For the
homogeneity of the variances, it was assumed that they were not equal,

so the Fisher’s F-test was used to determine the variances.17 The

2

a over the smaller 32b, creating

Fisher’s F-test placed the larger 8
s
the ratio, F - -33, so the F value is always greater than one. If the
s
b
calculated F is larger than the F value in the tables (df is n -l, n -1),

the variances are considered homogeneous. Once the homogeneity of the

variances is determined, the proper t-test model can be selected.18

T-Test Models

 

Two t-models are available, the pooled variance formula when the
variances are homogeneous (equal), or the separate variance formula
when the variances are not homogeneous. The formula for pooled

variance, assuming homogeneous variances, 13:19

x1 ’ x2

 

 

t - (n1 - 1) 921 + (u2 - 1) 822 1

I H

 

n1+n2-2 n1 112

17 Joseph E. Hill and August Kerber, ”Chapter 27 - Parametric
Statistical Tests - 1,” Models, Methods, and Analytical Procedures

in Educational Research, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1967), p. 344.

 

 

13 Ibid., p. 344.

19 W. James Popham and Kenneth A. Sirotnik, ”Chapter 10 - The
T-Test - Comuputation Procedures," Educational_Statistics: Use and
Interpretation, 2nd ed., (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. IEIT

 

 

40

The formula for the separate variance is:

 

 

x1 ‘ x2
2 2
t " 8 8
--l + ..2
n1 n2

Since n1 and n2 are not equal in this study, the t-model
applied is determined by the homogeneity of the variances as
determined by the Fisher’s F-test, with 821 - 322 using the

pooled variance formula and 821 l 822 the separate variance

formula.20

Estimation Model Development

 

Davisson and Bonello propose a taxonomy model of inputs for
empirical production function research.21 The models developed for
this study had three categories of inputs: personal, which includes
age, sex, general mental ability, learning preference, and pre-test
scores on the TEL, ATE, and EAS; education, which includes degrees
held, hours of economic coursework, and time from last economic
course; and professional, which includes years of teaching experience.

The outputs in both the cognitive (knowledge) and affective
(attitude and sophistication) domains were measured. The dependent
variables were tested using ordinary least squares regression to

estimate the influence of personal, education, and professional data

20 Ibid., p. 139.

21 William I. Davisson and Frank J. Bonello, ComputereAssisted
InsEructipn injEconomics: A Case Study, (South Bend: University
of Notre Dame Press,41976).

 

 

41
along with teaching methodology on each of the dependent variables.
This follows a previous model developed by Walstad and Soper.22 The
significance of the independent variables in the regression models
were tested using the t-test.
Pre-Course Models. The pre-test model for knowledge gain is:
x2 'f Pixi +51 23

where X2 was students’ pre-course TEL score, X1 was the vector

 

of exogeneous variables selected to define pre-economic knowledge, and
61 the error term.
Using the Davisson-Bonello taxonomy, the general pre-course

models would be:

Student Pre-TEL (Test of Economic Literacy) or
PreeATE (Attitude Toward Economics) or

Pre-EAS (Economic Attitude Sophistication) -

f(Personal , Educational , Professional , U)
age degrees held years of teaching
sex hours in economics experience
mental ability time from last
learning preference economics course

The pre-test equation for economic attitude and attitude
sophistication take the same form as knowledge gain, except for the
substitution of X3 and X4, respectively, as the dependent vari-
ables. Also, X2 becomes an exogenous variable on both X3 and X4.

A one-way relationship between the three pre-test dependent
variables was noted by Brickell and Scott:

General education research indicates that attitudes tend to

change as knowledge increases. For example, attitudes towards

23 Ibid., p. 42.

42
a field of study usually change as students learn more about
it. Or, to take another example, students develop more
sophisticated insights into their problems as their knowledge
increases with the result that their opinions about solutions
shift. Thus, high school students who learn economics will
tend to develop views about economic polfigies even if no
policies are advocated in their courses.
Walstad found that economic knowledge influenced attitude, but

25 Walstad and Soper concluded that there has been

not the reverse.
less empirical relationship research on economic knowledge and
sophistication, but that the available evidence supports the positive
hypothesis that economic knowledge does positively influence attitude
sophistication. They stated, ”The relationship between attitude and
attitude sophistication is difficult to find."26 Walstad and Soper
intuitively expected a stronger effect of attitude sophistication than
the reverse.

Their research employed a recursive set of equations and provided
support for hypothesis that knowledge gain will influence attitude and
sophistication, but not the reverse. The pre- and post-course models

used in this research reflect that conclusion.

Post-Test Models. The post-test models mirror the pre-test

 

models with two noted exceptions. First, the pre-course scores were
added as exogenous variables for each of their related dependent vari-

ables. Second, Course Length (X17) and the Treatment Variable (X1)

24 H. M. Brickell and M. C. W. Scott, The Effectiveness of
Economic Education in Senior High Schools, (New York, Policy
Studies in Education, 1976), ERIC, No. 143571.

 

 

25 William Walstad, "Effectiveness of USMES Inservice Economic
Education Programs for Elementary School Teachers," The Journal on
Economic Education, 3rd ed., no. 1, (Fall, 1979), p. 9.

26

 

 

Walstad and Soper, 0p. cit., p. 47.

43

were included so the models had the following forms:
Y1 'iPixi +€i
Y2 "(1‘41 +€Pixi +62
Y3 'riYi +€Pixi +53 27
One research question this study attempted to answer was the
effect of a graduate-level course in economics on a teacher’s economic
knowledge, attitude, and attitude sophistication. The pre-course equa-
tions show a stock picture of how the characteristics influence the
dependent variables. The post-course equations show a flow picture
because they are taking into account the effects of the course over
time, and control for pre-tested knowledge or attitude. Two variables
added to the post-course model, Course Length (X17) and Treatment

Variable (X1), allowed investigation of this question using this model.

Interactive Model. In an effort to study the combined effect of

 

the treatment variable and learning preferences on economic knowledge,
attitude, and sophistication, the post-test regression models were
tested again including interaction terms. In an interaction term,
(X11, X12), the ”effect of X1 on Y1 depends on the level of

”28

X2, and similarly for X2. "Hence, the effects are no longer

additive,” and take the following form:
. 29
Yi Po + Plxil + ”12 + Paxilxiz +51
To test the total contribution of variables which were also

expected to have an interactive effect on the dependent variables, a

27 Ibid., p. 49.

28 John Neter, et al., "Chapter 20 - Mu1tiple Regression,"
Applied Statistics, (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1978), p. 506.

 

29 Ibid., p. 506.

44

3O

hierarchical or joint-F test was employed. The joint F’s were

calculated using the following formula:

 

AR2
m
Joint F -
1-R2
N-k-l

where m is the number of independent variables in the subset, and k is
the total number of independent variables. The degrees of freedom for

the F ratio are m and (N - k - 1).31

Multicollinearity

 

A major objective of this research was to measure the separate
effects of independent variables on the dependent variables. These
effects cannot usually be accurately measured when the independent
variables themselves are highly correlated. According to Neter,
Wasserman, and Whitmore, ”Multicollinearity is present in a regression
analysis when the sample observations of the independent variables, or
linear combinations of them, are highly correlated."32

To study the correlations of the variables, a Pearson Product
Moment Correlation Coefficients matrix was created. Kennedy stated
that the ”... off-diagonal elements contain the simple correlation
coefficients for the given data set; the diagonal elements are all
unity since each variable is perfectly correlated to itself. A high
value (about 0.8 or 0.9 in absolute value) of one of these correlation
coefficients indicates high correlation between the two independent

variables to which it refers."33

33 Peter Kennedy, "Chapter 9 - Assumption Five: Multicollinear-
ity,” A Guide to Econometrics, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1979), p. 132.

 

45
Statistical Analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences X (SPSS-X) was
used to obtain the multiple regression model of independent variables
for the three dependent variables. The dependent variables were the
Post-course TEL score, Post-course ATE, and Post-course EAS scores.
The independent variables measured personal, educational, and
professional characteristics and one variable was added to show

participation in the simulation teaching methodology.

Summary
This study examined the use of simulations as a methodology to
teach basic economic principles in two sections of Basic Economics in
Everyday Life with 45 participants. A control group of 42
participants was taught by the lecture/reading method with the text,

TeachinggEconomics: Content and Strategies, as a basis of reading.

Instrumentation to obtain data for analysis included:

1. Test for Economic Literacy - Form B (TEL)

2. Attitude Toward Economics (ATE) - (from Survey on Economic
Attitude)

3. Economic Attitude Sophistication (EAS) - (from SEA)

4. Quick Word Test of Mental Ability (QWT)

5. Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS)

6. Personal Data Questionnaire (PD)

The following statistical procedures were outlined:

1. Fisher’s F-test for homogeneity of variances

46
2. Pooled variance and separate variance t-test model formulas
3. Multiple regression pre- and post-course models
4. Multiple regression model for investigating the effects of
interactive terms

5. Multicollinearity measurement of the independent variables

The hypotheses of the study were tested using a Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-XY) to obtain a multiple
regression model. Significant levels of .05 and .01 were used to test
the independent variables on the dependent variables of simulations,
post-test Attitude of Teaching Economics, and Economic Attitude
Sophistication scores. The hypotheses were tested using the t-test on

each independent variable and F-test on the overall equations.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

The data comparing the effectiveness of using simulations as a

teaching method versus using instructor lecture/reading for a graduate-

level economic course for teachers are reported in this chapter. The

effects resulting from the method of teaching and the personal and

professional characteristics of teachers are examined as related to

the acquisition of knowledge of economics and the teacher’s attitude

toward economics as a field of study.

Review of Research Questions

The following research questions were asked:

1.

2.

What are the typical characteristics of participating teachers?

Do participants evaluate the value of a graduate-level course
differently when simulations are the primary teaching methodology?
What is the effect of a graduate-level course in economics on the
participants’ economic knowledge, attitudes, and attitude
sophistication?

What is the effect of the use of simulations as the methodology

47

48
to teach economic knowledge?
5. Are there personal and/or professional characteristics which
affect the economic knowledge, attitudes, and attitude
sophistication and changes in these variables during the course

of a graduate credit inservice course on economic education?

Data Collected
Data were collected for 17 variables. Table IV-A reports the

means, standard deviations, and ranges which were calculated to insure

the reasonableness of the data.

49

TABLE IV-A

Variable Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, Min/Max Scores

Variable

 

Post TEL (Y1)
Post ATE (Y2)
Post EAS (Y3)

Treatment (X1)
0 - Lec./Dis.
l - Simulation

Pre TEL (X2)

Pre ATE (X3)

Pre EAS (X4)

Age (X5)

Sex (X6) O-M, l-F

General Mental Ability (X7)
Hrs. Econ. Coursework (X8)

Highest Degree (X9)
0 - B.A.
l - M.A. or higher

Teaching Experience (X10)
Auditory Lrn. Pref. (X11)
Visual Lrn. Pref. (X12)
Tactile Lrn. Pref. (X13)
Kinesthetic Lrn. Pref. (X14)
Structured Lrn. Pref. (X15)

Course Length (X16)
0 - 8 days (Sum.)
1 - 10 weeks (Quarter)

Yrs. Since Last Course (X17)

§'
52.267

54.360
.517

31.471
47.943
52.690
40.345
.621
55.153
5.713
.488

12.644

50.437*
51.103*
51.552*
51.943*
51.241*

.782

9.082

* Standard scores (X - 50, s - 10)

 

s R
5.798 0-46
7.435 0-70
6.770 0-70

.503 0-1
6.548 0-46
6.757 0-70
6.641 0-70
8.430 N/A

.488 0-1

15.205 0-100
6.232 N/A
.503 0-1
6.258 N/A
10.298 20-80
8.801 20-80
9.493 20-80
6.433 20-80
8.525 20-80

.416 0-1

9.993

Min/Max

20-45

29-67

40-70
N/A

14-45
33-68
40-69
23-60
N/A
24-86
0-30
N/A

1-32
31—77
23-69
26-69
20-64
25-67

N/A

0-36

50
In response to Research Question 1, the typical participant was
approximately 40 years of age with 12-1/2 years teaching experience.
This teacher had almost 6 credit hours in economics, with the last
course taken 9 years ago. The teacher had a slight preference toward
the kinesthetic learning style. The pre-course attitude was slightly
positive and exibited a slight agreement in economic attitude

sophistication.

Group Characteristics
The characteristics of the two groups were calculated to
investigate their mix. The means and standard deviations of each
characteristic for each group were tested using the t-test. Table
IV-B reports the variable differences by groups. Except for X8 (Hours
of Economic Coursework), the pooled variance t-test model was used

signifying homogeneity of the variances.

X
i

H

51

TABLE IV-B
Variable Differences by Groups

 

Variable
Pre TEL
(12) 45
Post TEL 41
(Y1) 45
Pre ATE 42
(KB) 45
Post ATE 41
(Y2) 45
Pre EAS 42
(x4) 45
Post EAS 41
(Y3) 45
Age 42
(x5) 45
Sex 42
(X6) 45
General Mental Ability 42
(x7) 43
Hours Econ. Coursework 42
(X8) 45
Highest Degree 42
(X9) 44
Teaching Experience 42
(x10) 45
Auditory Lrn. Pref. 42
(X11) 45
Visual Lrn. Pref. 42
(x12) 45
Tactile Lrn. Pref. 42
(X13) 45
Kinesthetic Lrn. Pref. 42
(114) 45
Structured Lrn. Pref. 42
(X15) 45
Course Length 42
(116) 45
Years Since Last Course 42
(X17) 43
Notes:

n Grou
42 1=L7D

2:81" o

N4 N4 N—fi N4 N4 N-‘- [\3—s NA NANA N4 N4 N4 N-fi N4 N4 N4 N4

Separate variance model t-test
Significant at .05
Significant at .01

X

31.0952

31.8222

36.1707
37.2222

49.2381
46.7333

52.9756
51.6222

53.4048
52.0222

54.7317
54.0222

39.4762
41.1556

.6667
.5778

52.8571
57.3953

7.5000
4-0444
.5238
.4545

12.9048
12.4000

50.5476
50.3333

51.5238
50.7111

51.1667
50.9778

53.2619
50.7111

51.6429
50.8667

1.0000
.5778

5.8571
12.2326

6.917

6.242

6.332
5.287

6.655
6.699

7.705
7.206

6.750
6.542

60265
7.253

9.505
7.302

.477
-499

13.598
16.475

7.062
4.852
.505
.504

6.566
6.020

10.650
10.077

9.696
7.968

8.154
10.653

5.964
6.673

8.213
8.882

.000
.499

8.020
10.788

-.52
-.84
1.75*
.84
.97
.48
-.93
.85
-1.38

2.64x*

.64
~37

.10

.58
1.88*

.42
5.48**

-3.09**

52

Course Length (X16) was the only variable where the result was
highly predictable. The significance of the others, Pre-ATE (X5),
Hours of Economic Coursework (X8), Kinesthetic Learning Preference
(X14), and Years Since Last Course (X17), demonstrated the differences
that existed between the two groups. Tests revealed several
significant differences which were present between the two samples.

The Pre-ATE (X3) and Hours of Economic Coursework (X8)
significance revealed that the control group’s attitude and background
was greater than the experimental group’s. The control group also
significantly preferred the Kinesthetic Learning Preference (X14).

The Years Since Last Course (X17) difference signals that the
experimental group is probably more aware of economics. Yet the Pre-
TEL (X2) and Pre-EAS (X4) were not significant, and Pre-ATE (X3) was
significant only for the control group.

To account for these differences, the use of a parametric
statistical analysis was necessary. The parametric test used was the
ordinary least squares multiple regression analysis calculating t-scores
on coefficients to note those responsible for any significant change

of economic knowledge gain, attitude, or attitude sophistication.

Course Evaluations
Each of the sections was evaluated at its conclusion for
effectiveness and worthiness for possible future offering. Every
course offered by the Greater Cincinnati Center for Economic Education
must be evaluated as a matter of policy. These evaluations allowed
for examination of differences among the courses as perceived by the

participants. The evaluation form (see Appendix C) stressed three

53
major areas: the course format, the instructor, and the materials
used. The data from these surveys addressed Research Question Two:
Do participants evaluate the value of a graduate-level course
differently when simulations are the primary teaching methodology?
Determining the statistical significance of these data involved
two processes. The variances were not assumed equal, so the Fisher’s

F-test was used to determine homogeneity.1 The Fisher’s F-test

2

a over the smaller 82b, creating the ratio

placeg the larger s
8 a
F - -§-, so the F value is always greater than 1. If the calculated
F isslgrger than the F value in the tables (df is n -1, n -1), the
variances are considered homogeneous. Once the homogeneity of the
variances is determined, the proper t-test model can be selected.2
Two t-models are available, the pooled variance formula when the
variances are homogeneous (equal), or the separate variance formula
when the variances are not homogeneous. Since n1 and n2 are not
equal in this study, the t-model applied is determined by the
homogeneity of the variances as determined by Fisher’s F-test, with
s21 - 822 using the pooled variance formula 821 i 822
the separate variance formula.3

Table IV-C reports the results of the evaluations from the

control and experimental sections.

1 Joseph E. Hill and August Kerber, Chapter 27 - Parametric
Statistical Tests - I," Models, Methods, and Analytical Procedures
in Educational Research, (Detroit: Wayne State UniversityPress,
1967), p. 344.

2 W. James Popham and Kenneth A. Sirotnik, ”Chapter 10 - The
T-Test - Computation Procedures," Educational Statistics: Use and
Interpretation, 2nd ed., (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 141.

3

 

 

 

 

Ibid., p. 141.

54
TABLE IV-C
Course Evaluations Summary

Control Experimental (F)

 

 

 

 

x s x s t-model t-value
1. Course content 4.44 .77 4.73 .45 s 2.44x
(2.926)
2. Course organization 4.32. .85 4.77 .42 a 3.102*
(4.107)
3. Instructor’s 4.44 .60 4.84 .43 p .574
presentation (1.945)
4. General attitude and 4.12 .81 4.75 .70 p 3.829**
rapport among parti- (1.342)
cipants
5. Instructor’s general 4.56 .63 4.95 .30 a 3.606**
attitude & willingness (4.418)
to help
6. Textbook 4.34 .76 4.64 .61 p .336
(1.545)
7. Handouts & supple- 4.19 .95 4.61 .62 s 2.331x
mental materials (2.382)

 

E’s derived from Likert scale -- 5 (high), 1 (low) F40,44 (2.06)

 

Notes:

a - separate variance t-test model

p - pooled variance t-test model

x -- significance at .05 (two-tailed)
* -- significance at .01 (two-tailed)
**

- significance at .001 (two-tailed)

55

The course content and organization were evaluated significantly
higher by the experimental group, though both groups rated content and
organization very high. The standard deviations of the experimental
group were almost half of those for the control group. This provided
much more consistency of scores around the mean for the experimental
group. As previously stated, the homogeneity of the variances was not
assumed equal and the Fisher’s F-test was utilized.‘ The Fisher’s F
scores (2.926 and 4.107) had significant differences in the variances
and led to using the separate variance t-test model to determine

t-values.5

The statistically significant higher mean and low
standard deviations suggested the course content and organization were
better received by the teachers when simulations were used.

Items 3, 4, and 5 on the evaluation form referred to the course
instructor, attitude, and rapport of the participants. The experi-
mental group definitely felt a better rapport among the teachers and a
willingness to help on the part of the instructor. The use of simu-
lations could explain these significant differences. Simulations
required active participation by the entire group, including a helping
relationship by the instructor. Thus, a social stimulus that gener-
ated interaction was a part of the experimental group which did not
occur in the control group. The increased social interaction created
a class for the experimental group with fewer inhibitions and the
participants felt better about the usefulness of the class as a whole.

The increased perception of the instructor’s willingness to help
4 Hill and Kerber, op. cit., p. 344.

Popham and Sirotnik, op. cit., p. 141.

56
could very well be a follow-up response to the increased social
interaction in the experimental group. The instructor presented
the simulations, which created the social interaction and good
feelings toward the group. Thus, the instructor’s role was perceived
as extremely important by the experimental group as noted by the
high mean (4.95) and low standard deviation (.3). The merit of this
role model notion increased when the "instructor’s presentation"
evaluations were assessed. Both groups gave relatively high marks
(4.44 and 4.83), and there was no statistical significance between
them.

The final items, 6 and 7, evaluated the textbook and handout
materials used in the courses. Several observations need attention.
First, even though the textbook had entirely different roles, it was
evaluated by both groups. With the control group, the text was the
focus of the course content. In the experimental group, it was
relegated to strictly a resource.

Secondly, many of the handouts given the experimental groups were
copies of the simulations for use in their own teaching. These were
not made available, obviously, to the control group. News articles
and other subject items used as handouts to the control group were
also made available to the experimental group. Consequently, the
significant difference in the evaluation means must be attributed to

the simulation handouts.

Course Results
Table IV-D reports the results of the analysis of the impact of

the sections, regardless of teaching methodology, on the teacher’s

57

economic knowledge (TEL), attitude (ATE), and sophistication of the

attitude (EAS).

TABLE IV-D

Results on Economic Knowledge Gain, Attitude,
and Economic Sophistication for All Participants

 

 

 

 

TEL
Pre- n - 85 Post- Difference
3’ 31.471 §’ 36.721 5.250
8 6.548 8 5.798 (5.432)**
ATE
Pre- n - 86 Post- Difference
§’ 47.943 §’ 52.267 4.324
3 6.757 8 7.435 (3.927)**
EAS
Pre- n . 86 Post- Difference
E“ 52.690 §' 54.360 1.670
6.641 8 6.770 (1.607)x
Notes:

x significance at .l (one-tailed)
** significance at .01 (one-tailed)

The analysis demonstrated the success of the control and
experimental sections in increasing the teacher’s knowledge, as well
as improving his/her attitude toward economics as a subject (both were
significant at .01). Attitude sophistication gain (significant at .1)
was not as large as the preceding two variables. These data answer
Research Question Three: What is the effect of a graduate-level
course in economics on the participants’ economic knowledge,
attitudes, and attitude sophistication?

The standard deviations remained relatively constant throughout,

which signified total group improvement. However, the TEL was the

58
only one where dispersion was reduced on the post-test. This suggests
that the economic knowledge level became more consistent among the
teachers who participated in all the sections. The course seemed to

result in a somewhat wider dispersion of attitude and sophistication.

Course Results by Experimental and Control Groups
Table IV-E has the pre- and post-course comparisons of both
groups for economic literacy (TEL), attitude (ATE), and sophistication

of the attitude (EAS).

59
TABLE IV-E

Course Results by Groups

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEL
nc - 42, ne - 45
Pre-course Post-course
C E Difference C E Difference
3' 31.0952 31.8222 -0.727 '; 36.1707 37.2222 -1.0515
8 6.917 6.242 a 6.332 5.287
(-.52) (-.84)
ATE
nc - 42, ne - 45
Pre-course Post-course
C E Difference C E Difference
E‘ 49.2381 46.7333 2.505 §’ 52.9756 51.6222 1.3534
3 6.655 6.699 8 7.705 7.206
(1.75)* (.84)

EAS

nc - 42, ne - 45

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-course Post:course
C E7 Difference C E Difference
E’ 53.4048 52.0222 1.3826 E” 54.7317 54.0222 .7095
a 6.750 6.542 8 6.265 7.253
(.97) (.48)
Notes:

; significant at .05 (one-tailed)

60

The only significant pre-test difference involved the groups pre-
course attitude toward economics. The standard deviation data for the
pre-tests revealed very similar dispersion around the mean for both
groups. The pre-test significant difference of attitude showed the
control group having a better attitude toward economics coming into
the course.

The lack of significance of the post-test t-values on the three
dependent variables does not support greater positive effects for
simulations as compared to the lecture/reading teaching methodology.
The use of simulations seemed to have more effect on the teachers’
attitude toward economics. The significant difference between the
groups on the pre-test was not evident on the post-test. This was the
result of a greater gain by the experimental group. The greater atti-
tude gain of the experimental group seemed to be related to teachers
having a different attitude about the course and the instructor’s role
when simulations are used (See Table IV-C and discussion). It

appeared this also was applicable for teachers’ attitude.

Regression Model Data Estimates
The models developed for this study had three categories of inputs:
A) Personal, which included age, sex, general mental ability,
learning preference, and pre-test scores on the TEL, ATE, and EAS;
B) Educational, which included degrees held, hours of economic
coursework, last economic course; and
C) Professional, which included teaching level and years of

teaching experience.

61
The outputs in both the cognitive (knowledge) and affective (atti-
tude and sophistication) were measured and tested. The dependent
variables were tested using ordinary least squares regression to
estimate the influence of personal, educational, and professional data
along with teaching methodology on each of the dependent variables.

This follows a previous model developed by Walstad and Soper.6

The
significance of the independent variables in the regression models was

tested using the t-test.

Multicollinearity

A major objective of this research was to measure the separate
effects of independent variables on the dependent variables. These
effects cannot be measured accurately when the independent variables
themselves are highly correlated. ”Multicollinearity is presented in
a regression analysis when the sample observations of the independent
variables, or linear combinations of them, are highly correlated."7

To study the correlations of the variables, a Pearson Product
Moment Correlation Coefficients matrix was created. This is reported
in Appendix D.

The variables and correlations for Age (X5) and Highest Degree
(X9) were both highly correlated to Teaching Experience (X10). To a-

void the risk of multicollinearity, Teaching Experience (X10) was used

in the models, while Age and Highest Degree were deleted from the models.

6 William Walstad and John Soper, "A Model of Economic
Learning in the High School,” The Journal of Economic Education,
vol. 13, no. 1, (Winter, 1982), p. 42.

7 John Neter et al., "Chapter 20 - Multiple Regression,”
Applied Statistics, (Boston: Allyne and Bacon, 1978), p. 512.

 

62
Pre-course Data
Table IV-F reports the pre-course equations using ordinary least

squares, the obtained estimator, and t-value (parenthesis).

63

TABLE IV-F

Pre-Course Regressions Coefficients

(t-statistics are given in parentheses)

Dependent Variables and Equations

 

 

Regressors TEL - EQl ATE - EQ2 EAS - EQ3
X2 - Pre-TEL --- .13774 .37387
(.989) (2.778)**
X6 - Sex -3.80844 -.82635 2.24191
(-2.711)** (-.487) (1.366)
X7 - General Mental Ability .19531 -.03044 .02883
X8 - Hours Economic Coursework .25299 .49210 .35597
(1.997)* (3.288)** (2.461)*
X10 - Teaching Experience .13620 .03753 .21193
(1.234) (.293) (1.711)x
X11 - Auditory Learning Pref. .05049 .00692 -.04789
(.806) (.096) (-.686)
X12 - Visual Learning Pref. .04738 .00181 -.11947
(.624) (.021) (-1.4l4)
X13 - Tactile Learning Pref. .11632 .06037 -.06818
(1.535) (.682) (-.797)
X14 - Kinesthetic Learning Pref. -.02676 .01413 .23640
(-.241) (.111) (1.919)x
X15 - Structured Learning Pref. -.02645 -.14440 -.20952
(-.328) (-1.560) (-2.342)*
Adjusted R2 .36207 .16252 .26037
Total Equation F 5.85598** 2.49421* 3.71054**
N 87 87 87
Notes:

 

** - Significant at .01 (two-tailed)
* - Significant at .05 (two-tailed)
x - Significant at .1 (two-tailed)

 

64

The F statistics for all three equations were significant at .01.
These equations identified the variables that significantly affected
the long-term stock of the three dependent variables. The equations
helped answer Research Question 5: Are there personal and/or profes-
sional characteristics which affect the economic knowledge, attitudes,
and attitude sophistication?

Equation One (see Table IV-F) with TEL as the dependent variable
related to the teacher’s pre-course economic literacy. Sex (X6),
General Mental Ability (X7), and Hours of Economic Coursework (X8)
were significant variables to the teacher’s pre-course knowledge.
Teaching Experience (X10) and the Learning Preference variables, X11
to X15, were not significant, suggesting their influence on economic
knowledge was negligible.

Equation Two (See Table IV-F) with ATE as the dependent variable
relates to the teacher’s attitude toward economics. The only signifi-
cant predictor for EQ 2 was Hours of Economic Coursework (X8). Sex
(X6) and General Mental Ability (X7), which were highly significant
predictors of TEL, were not significant and were both negative. Pre-
Economic Literacy (X2) was positive but not significant.

Attitude Sophistication was the dependent variable for Equation
Three (see Table IV-F). The most significant positive predictor on
EAS was Pre-course Economic Literacy (X2) at .01. Other significant
predictors for EAS were Hours of Economic Coursework (X8) and
Structured Learning Preference (X15) at .05, and Teaching Experience
(X10) and Kinesthetic Learning Preference (X14) at .1. General Mental

Ability (X7) has very little influence on EAS.62

65
Post-Course Data
Table IV-G reports the post-course equations using ordinary least

squares, estimate of the coefficient, and t-values (in parentheses).

66

TABLE IV-G

Post-Course Regressions

Re essors

Y1 - Post-TEL

X1 - Treatment Variable

X2 - Pre-TEL

X3 - Pre-ATE

X4 - Pre-EAS

X6 - Sex

X7 - General Mental Ability

X8 - Hours Economic Coursework
X10 - Teaching Experience

X11 — Auditory Learning Pref.
X12 - Visual Learning Pref.

X13 - Tactile Learning Pref.
X14 - Kinesthetic Learning Pref.
X15 - Structured Learning Pref.
X16 - Course Length

Adjusted R2

Total Equation F

N

Notes:

TEL - £91

.34928
(.337)

.57056
(6.775)**

‘044900
(--448)

.08999
(2.319)*

.01359
(.150)

.00741
(.099)

-005795
(“10365)

-.00412
(-.081)

-000538
'(-O100)

.02114
(.281)

.11600
(2.127)*

“1.19714
(-0886)

.68932
12.01824**
87

F; a Significant at .01 (two-tailed)

* 8 Significant at .05 (two-tailed)
x a Significant at .1 (two-tailed)

Dependent Variables and 1
ATE - §92

007387
(.433)

-1.18274
(-.630)

.38712
(2.994)**

1.8229
(1.033)

.10616
(1.489)

.28469
(1.669)x

.07228
(.579)

“001766
(-0232)

-002899
(-0318)

.18121x
(1.904)

-007290
(-0562)

-007722
(-0765)

-4-42339
(-1.819)x

.27548
3.25211**
87

Bguations

 

7—1-

(1.133)

1.35529
(.841)

.49710
(4.397)**

053694
(.353)

.07285
(1.173)

.0384}
(.266)

-004862
(-.411)

.00966
(.147)

-002294
(.288)

.05270
(.647)

-006523
(-0550)

-005726
(‘0642)

2.54172
(1.194)

.3086?
3.64453**
87

67

As with the pre-tests, all equation F statistics were significant
at .01. The post-course estimators were used for two purposes. The
primary reason was to test the Treatment Variable (XI). The second
purpose was to compare the pre-course "stock" equations with the flow
of learning and attitude change that occured on the exogenous
variables as a result of the course. The pre-course equations were a
"stock" model reporting on understanding at a point in time. The post-
course equations are "learning flows" reporting on changes in
knowledge and attitude over the treatment period.

Several major changes occurred to Equation One (see Table IV-G).
The Treatment Variable (X1) relating to course structure or method-
ology was not significant, it was a positive estimator. Sex (X6) was
no longer a significant predictor and the significance of General
Mental Ability (X7) was reduced to .05 from .01. Structured Learning
Preference (X15) was significant at .05, now as a positive predictor.
The variable with the strongest predictive influence was Pre-course
Economic Knowledge (X2).

A teacher’s Pre-course Economic Knowledge, General Mental
Ability, and Preference for a Structured Learning style are
significant, positive predictors of post-course literacy. Sex (X6)
continues to be a negative predictor. Auditory, Visual, and Tactile
Learning Preferences were non-influential, negative estimators.

Course Length (X16) was not significant.

In Equation Two (see Table IV-G), Pre-course Attitude (X3) was
the most significant predictor (.01) of Post-course Attitude (Y2).
Hours of Economic Coursework (X8) was significant as in the pre-course

regression, but only at .05.

68

Tactile Learning Preference (X13) was also significant (.5),
although it was not significant in the pre-course regression. This
supported the notion that the course had a positive effect on
teacher’s attitude and especially on those teachers who prefer to
learn by tactile methods. The other learning preference estimators
were negative.

Course Length (X16) was significant and negative on Post-course
Attitude at .05. Since Course Length (X16) was a dummy variable, 0 -
1 evening/week for 10 weeks and l - 8 consecutive weekdays (hours of
instruction were equal), the negative sign suggested that more intense
courses may have a negative effect on teacher’s attitude.

Post-course Literacy (Y1), Sex (X6), General Mental Ability (X7),
and Teaching Experience (X10) were positive predictors, but were not
at a significant level. The Treatment Variable (X1) was a negative
coefficient and not significant, suggesting the simulations were less
effective in contributing to teacher attitude when holding other
variables in the equation constant.

In Equation Three (see Table IV-G), Pre-course EAS (X4) had the
most significant influence on Post-course EAS (Y3). This was
consistent with Post Equation Two where Pre-course ATE was the most
significant variable of Post-course ATE. The exogenous variables that
significantly influenced pre-course EAS were not significant in the
post-course model. Course Length (X16) and Treatment Variable (X1)
were not significant. The nature of this endogenous variable makes it

a conceptually difficult concept to predict.

69
Interactive Equations
In an effort to study the combined effect of the treatment
variable and learning preferences on economic knowledge, attitude, and
sophistication, the post-course regression models were tested again
including interaction terms. Table IV-H reports the post-course

results with the interaction terms.

TABLE IV-H
Post-Course Regressions With Interactive Variables

Depgndent Variables & Eguations

 

Regressors
Y1 - Post-TEL
X1 - Treatment Variable
X2 - Pre-TEL
X3 - Pre-ATE
X4 - Pre-EAS
X6 - Sex
X7 - General Mental Ability
X8 - Hours Economic Coursework
X10 - Teaching Experience
X11 - Auditory Learning Pref.
X12 - Visual Learning Pref.
X13 - Tactile Learning Pref.
X14 - Kinesthetic Learning Pref.
X15 - Structured Learning Pref. .
X16 - Course Length
X19 - Interaction Term (X1 ‘ X12)
X20 - Interaction Term (X1 ' X13)
X21 - Interaction Term (X1 ‘ X14)
X22 - Interaction Term (X1 ° X15)
X23 - Interaction Term (X1 ' X16)
Adjusted R2
Total Equation F
N
Notes:

TEL - §g1 ATE - £92 EAS - 3
.15373 .21663
‘ (.870) (1.401)
(-.753) (.560) (-1.222)
(6.700)M
.37505
(2.692)**
.48450
(4.333)**
-.26900 2.61808 .61469
(-.273) (1 .472) (.404)
.05813 .08559 .06598
(1.558) (1.256) (1.130)
.01516 .2915} .03364
(.190) (1.777)x (.255)
.01754 .02738 -.08416
(.247) (.210) (-.743)
-.14156 .03004 -.02395
(-2.480)* (.274) (-.255)
-.O1418 .02004 -.09351
(-.231) (.175) (-.954)
.02516 .14312 .01280
(.334) (1.021) (.107)
-.05791 .03492 -.09521
(-.539) (.171) (.107)
.16163 -.07330 -.o9173
(20243)* (-0521) (-0782)
-.26009 -4.05878 1.31589
.21244 -.02632 .04924
(2.468)* (-.159) (.346)
.04861 -.03901 .27455
(.457) (-.199) (1.625)
-.04504 .09088 .04759
005795 " 022299 - 008709
(.385) (-.763) (-.364)
-011354 “003277 010191
(-1.o79) (-.167) (.617)
.63952 .25626 .30185
9.66169** 2.58880** 2.99360**

87

‘3 = Significant at .01 (two-tailed)
* - Significant at .05 (two-tailed)

x = Significant at .1 (two-tailed)

87

87

71

The regression model, including the interactive terms, resulted
in numerous positive/negative direction changes among the learning
preference variables. These direction changes suggested multicol-
linearity among these variables. The possibility of multicollinearity
created a need to refer to the correlation matrix which confirmed the
multicollinearity of the interactions (.9617, .9759, .9829, .9705)
(see Appendix D) and the learning preference variables. Multi-
collinearity was the result of a data problem quite possibly related
to the size of this set. Even so, it is possible to judge the overall
impact of the treatment and learning [reference variables on the
various independent variables by use of a hierarchical or "Joint-F"
test. It is not appropriate, however, to rely on the coefficients or
t-tests for the individual independent variables which are affected by

multicollinearity in these equations.

Joint F Tests
In an effort to discern any significant differences the
interaction terms and their component variables had on the overall

model, the Joint F was calculated. The calculated F’s are reported in

Table IV-I.

 

 

 

tn
em

81;

gr

31

at

Th

 

72

TABLE IV-I

Joint F Test for Interactive Variables

 

 

X19 - X1 ’ X 12

X20 - X1 ' X 13

X21 - X1 ' X 14

X22 - X1 ' X 15

X23 - X1 ' X 16
Dependent Variable R2 R2 CHG Joint F
Y1 - Post TEL Test .71335 .03098 1.2434
Y2 - Post ATE Test .41755 .01310 .2545
Y3 - Post EAS Test .45325 .03266 .6766

None of the Joint F’s were significant, suggesting that the
treatment and learning preference variables do not jointly affect the
economic learning or attitudinal variables measured here at customary

significance levels.

Summary
This chapter presented the data from the control and experimental
group and analyzed the effectiveness of simulations as a teaching
methodology. Teacher personal and professional characteristics were
also tested for their significance in estimating economic knowledge,

attitudes, and attitude sophistication.

The test results suggested the following:
1. Sample differences identified by testing the two groups
separately provided evidence for the use of parametric testing.
2. The course evaluations were positive for all sections.
3. Course evaluations favored the use of simulations as a teaching

method.

10.

11.

12.

13.

73
All sections, regardless of teaching methodology, were successful
in increasing the economic knowledge, attitude, and attitude
sophistication of the teachers.
Experimental and control group effects were not significantly
different on the three variables (TEL, ATE, EAS) tested with
regression analysis. This suggested that, after controlling for
other key variables, no difference exists on the effects gained
by using simulations rather than lecture/reading.
Using OLS model on Pre-course Knowledge, Sex, General Mental
Ability, and Hours of Economic Coursework were significant.
Only Pre-course Knowledge significantly influenced Pre-course
Attitude.
Pre-course knowledge, previous economic coursework, structured
learning preference (negatively), and kinesthetic learning
preference were significant compared to pre-course attitude
sophistication.
Pre-course knowledge, structured learning preference, and
general mental ability significantly influenced pre-course
knowledge.
Pre-course attitude, hours of economic coursework, tactile
learning preference, and course length, influenced post-course
attitude toward economics.
Pre-course attitude sophistication significantly influenced post-
course sophistication.
Multicollinearity restricted study of the effects of interactive
terms on the dependent variables.

The addition of interactive terms did not show a combined impact

74
of the simulation treatment and learning styles on the overall
post-course models. This was determined by the Joint-F values,

which were not significant.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, REFLECTIONS

Summary

This research investigated the effectiveness of using simulations
in a professional deve10pment graduate course for teaching economic
principles to K-12 school teachers. The experimental design of the
study involved a control group which was taught by using the
lecture/reading methodology. The experimental group was taught the
identical course content through the use of simulations.

The two groups were enrolled in a graduate-level course for
teachers in basic economic principles. The course was for four
quarter hours, offered by the Greater Cincinnati Center for Economic
Education at the University of Cincinnati. The first section met
during the Winter Quarter, 1984, where the main teaching methodology
was the lecture/reading approach for the control group. The
experimental sections were organized to use simulations as the major
teaching methodology and were taught to two groups during the Spring

and Summer Quarters, 1984.

75

76

The following questions were investigated:

1. What are the typical characteristics of participating teachers?

2. Do participants evaluate the value of a graduate-level course
differently when simulations are the primary teaching methodology?

3. What is the effect of a graduate-level course in economics on the
participants’ economic knowledge, attitudes, and attitude
sophistication?

4. What is the effect of the use of simulations as the methodology
to teach economic knowledge?

5. Are there personal and/or professional characteristics which
affect the economic knowledge, attitudes, and attitude

sophistication?

The major hypothesis of this study was that the coefficient on
the Treatment Variable (X1) in the regression, representing the use of
simulations, was positive and significantly larger than zero in
regression equations measuring economic knowledge and attitude
change. The null hypothesis that the Treatment Variable (X1) was not
significant was tested using t-tests and customary significance levels
(.05 and .01).

For each independent variable other than the treatment variable,
there was a subhypothesis. The null hypothesis that the effect of
each independent variable was not significant on the dependent
variables was tested using the t-test. Significance was determined at
the customary significance levels (.05 and .01).

The sample for the study was determined by the registration

system for published graduate courses by the Greater Cincinnati Center

77
for Economic Education at the University of Cincinnati. Forty-two
teachers registered and successfully completed the control section.
The experimental group consisted of two separate sections. Twenty-six
teachers successfully completed the first experimental course using
simulations, and nineteen teachers completed the second section for a
total of forty-five in the experimental group.

This research was intended as an attempt to provide a policy
statement relative to the usefulness of simulations and the effect of
student characteristics on economic literacy and attitude change
towards economics. As such, the research did not investigate relation-
ships between the independent variables of post-course knowledge gain,
attitudes, and attitude sophistication. The conclusions drawn from
this study were as they related to the dependent variables of post-
test and attitude scores.

The National Survey of Economic Education - 1981 noted that eight

 

out of ten teachers of economics have had a college or graduate-level
course in economics. Yet, 81 percent wanted better training to teach
economics. Much of the research in economic education has focused on
undergraduate college principles courses using production function
models.

The literature was quite definitive that inservice teacher
training in economics improved the economic understanding of the
teachers. Studies of the teaching methodology and content, however,
were minimal. The need for adult learners to use simulations was
supported by Seider and the need for adults to ”... learn in action-
oriented environments." The literature on simulations in economic

education was not overly positive.

78
The following instruments were used to obtain data for analysis:
1. Test for Economic Literacy - Form B (TEL)
2. Attitude Toward Economics (ATE) - (from Survey on Economic
Attitude)
3. Economic Attitude Sophistication (EAS) - (from SEA)
4. Quick Word Test of Mental Ability (QWT)
5. Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS)

6. Personal Data Questionnaire (PD)

The following statistical procedures were used to analyze the data:

1. Fisher’s F-test for homogeneity of variances.

2. Pooled variance and separate variance t-test model formulas.

3. Multiple regression pre- and post-course models.

4. Multiple regression model for investigating the effects of
interactive terms.

5. Multicollinearity measurement of the independent variables.

The hypotheses of the study were tested using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) to obtain multiple regression
models. The significance levels of .05 and .01 were used to test the
independent variables on the dependent variables of Post-course Test
for Economic Literacy, Attitude Toward Economics, and Economic
Attitude Sophistication scores. The hypotheses were tested using the
t-test on each independent variable and F-test on the overall

equations.

As a result of the data analysis, the researcher found that:

10.

11.

79
Sample differences identified by testing the two groups
separately provided evidence for the use of parametric testing.
The course evaluations were positive for all sections.
Student course evaluations favored the use of simulations as a
teaching style.
All sections, regardless of teaching methodology, were successful
in increasing the economic knowledge, attitude, and attitude
sophistication of the teachers.
Experimental and control group results were not significantly
different on the three variables (TEL, ATE, EAS) tested with
regression analysis. This suggested that no difference exists on
the effects gained by using simulations rather than
lecture/reading.
Using OLS model on Pre-course Knowledge, Sex, General Mental
Ability, and Hours of Economic Coursework were significant.
Only Pre-course Knowledge significantly influenced Pre-course
Attitude.
Pre-course Knowledge, Previous Economic Coursework, Structured
Learning Preference (negatively), and Kinesthetic Learning
Preference were significant compared to Pre-course Attitude
Sophistication.
Pre-course Knowledge, Structured Learning Preference, and General
Mental Ability significantly influenced Post-course Knowledge.
Pre-course Attitude, Hours of Economic Coursework, Tactile
Learning Preference, and Course Length (negatively), influenced
Post-course Attitude Toward Economics.

Pre-course Attitude Sophistication significantly influenced

80
Post-course Sophistication.
12. Multicollinearity restricted study of the effects of interactive
terms on the dependent variables.
13. The interactive terms did not have a significant effect on the
overall post-course models. This was determined when the Joint-F

values were not significant.

Conclusions

The first research question was, "What are the typical
characteristics of participating teachers?" The conclusions supported
from the data are summarized as follows.

The typical participant identified had some previous economics
experience, even though it was some time ago. The participant had
approximately twelve and one-half years teaching experience, yet may
or may not have had an advanced degree. This teacher had almost six
credit hours in economics, with the last course taken nine years ago.
The teacher had a slight preference for Kinesthetic Learning which may
have had a bearing toward the Course Evaluation preferences toward
simulations that were revealed. The Pre-course Attitude was slightly
positive and slight agreement in Economic Attitude Sophistication.

Items 3, 4, and 5 on the Course Evaluation Form referred to the
course instructor, attitude, and rapport of the participants. The
experimental group definitely felt a better rapport among the teachers
and a willingness to help on the part of the instructor. These data
support an affirmative answer for Research Question Two, "Do
participants evaluate the value of a graduate-level course differently

when simulations are the primary teaching methodology?" The use of

81
simulations could explain these significant differences. Simulations
required active participation by the entire group. This social
stimulus generated interaction of the experimental group which did not
occur in the control group. The increased social interaction created
a class for the experimental group with fewer inhibitions, and the
participants felt better about the usefulness of the class as a whole.

The increased perception of the instructor’s willingness to help
could very well be a follow-up response to the increased social
interaction in the experimental group. The instructor presented the
simulations, which created the social interaction and good feelings
toward the group. Thus, the instructor’s role was perceived as
extremely important by the experimental group.

The analysis of the teachers’ post-course knowledge, attitude,
and attitude sophistication gain demonstrated the success of the
control and experimental sections. These data confirmed a positive
effect for participants relative to Research Question Three, "What is
the effect of a graduate-level course in economics on the
participants’ economic knowledge, attitudes, and attitude
sophistication?"

The major hypothesis of the study predicted that the use of
simulations would result in a statistically significant difference
between the control and experimental groups. The course evaluations
for both groups were favorable with the experimental group’s
(simulations) evaluations in a more positive direction than the
control group. However, the regression analyses did not show any
significance between the two groups on the three dependent variables.

The major hypothesis was therefore rejected.

82

Though not significant, the evidence from the course evaluation
does support that the use of simulations had a positive effect in
teaching economic knowledge. These data are significant for
conclusions regarding Research Question Four, ”What is the effect of
the use of simulations as the methodology to teach economic
knowledge?" The positive direction of the data from the experimental
group as compared to the control group does support a qualified
conclusion that simulations were more effective with inservice

teachers as a means to teach economic knowledge.

The following subhypotheses were accepted:

1. Equation One (Post-course knowledge) - Pre-course Knowledge,
Structured Learning Preference, General Mental Ability;

2. Equation Two (Post-course attitude) - Pre-course Attitude, Hours
of Economic Coursework, Tactile Learning Preference, Course
Length (negatively);

3. Equation Three (Post-course attitude sophistication) - Pre-course

Attitude Sophistication.

Accepting these subhypotheses answered Research Question Five,
"Are there presonal and/or professional characteristics which affect

the economic knowledge, attitudes, and attitude sophistication?"

Recommendations
Based on the study findings, the researcher recommends that
further research be conducted in the following areas:

1. Although the major hypothesis was rejected, there was limited

83
evidence that simulations were more effective in doing some
things. Therefore, more research is urged on the effectiveness
of simulations as a teaching methodology in teacher education.
In Chapter I, this researcher made a distinction between
different types of simulations. Research should be completed to
investigate the effectiveness of different types of simulations
or if the distinction itself is valid.
Simulations are often used as a teaching methodology to relate to
the real world. Future research that finds simulations effective
should pursue student perceptions as to why they might be more
effective.
Although simulations were not identified as statistically
significant as a methodology, the role of the instructor seemed
to be perceived as different when simulations were used. Further
research should explore the students’ perceptions of an
instructor’s role as a function of the teaching methodology
employed.
Research should be completed on identifying any instructor
difference that may have affected outcomes. Since the
experimental sections were taught after the control, this
research could be replicated with the sections reversed so as to
investigate whether any Hawthorne effect occurred related to the
instructor, regardless of the teaching methodology used.
Instructor differences could also be studied by replicating this
research using different instructors.
Further research is needed to investigate possible relationships

between economic knowledge gain and economic attitude with

84
learning styles. This would also include studying interactive
terms using larger sample sizes.

7. Further research should investigate any relationships between
learning styles and the methodology of simulations. Is a
particular learning style a factor on the effectiveness of
simulations?

8. If the simulations are used as course handouts, any course
evaluations conducted at the conclusion should differentiate

' between topical handouts (newspaper articles) and professional
handouts (simulations). This would assist evaluations of the
handouts as to quality and/or quantity.

9. A follow-up study of the participants several years from now to
investigate any possible long-range differences that may exist as
a result of their participation and expoSure to an economic
education course using a specific teaching methodology.

10. One of the costs involved in using simulations is the extra
course preparation time required. The cost is incurred in
researching for simulations that are applicable to specific
concepts to be taught, and familiarizing oneself with the
substance and procedure. In an effort to reduce these costs for
other instructors who wish to use simulations, it is recommended
that a syllabus or manual be developed for inservice use

categorizing simulations with the concepts.

Reflections
As this study draws to its conclusion, there are several

observations and feelings that need to be addressed. One is the

85
instructor’s perception of using the different teaching
methodologies. A second is an observation of the costs and benefits

of using simulations. Finally, an overall reflection of the research

in it’s entirety.

This researcher, being the instructor for all the sections, had
some strong feelings on which particular teaching methodology was best
suited for his teaching strengths and personality. The instructor
felt a pre-research preference for the lecture/discussion method.
Consequently, if a bias was present, it was probably toward that
methodology. At one point during a simulation section, this
instructor had felt a loss of control of the class and inwardly
expressed some concerns regarding the effectiveness of any kind in
these sections. The results of this research, however, showed the
concerns were without merit.

The second observation was the noticeable costs and benefits
associated with using simulations. The primary benefit was the
interaction experienced by the participation. The participants in
both experimental sections were noticeably more at ease and willing to
verbally participate. The forced interactions created by using the
simulations seemed at least partially responsible for this
difference. Two costs were evident. The first was the extra time
needed by the instructor preparing for class. This involved finding
the proper simulation, studying its method and implementation, and
understanding the full educational scope of the exercise. The
recommendation for a manual of simulations would be an effort to
reduce this cost for other teachers who wish to use simulations. The

second cost involved the deleting of certain topics because a

86
simulation was not appropriate. The most obvious case was the
lecture/discussion section on the history of money. Although general
information, it is interesting enough to be included in a course
discussion. Yet the lack of a simulation made this impossible for the
experimental sections.

While it will contribute to the existing body of knowledge in
teacher education, this research study also proved to be a valuable
learning experience. The knowledge gained and received will be
effectively used in the future by this researcher, and hopefully, the

profession.

APPENDIX A

87

APPENDIX A

S Y L L A B U S

Basic Economics in Everyday Life

Objectives

 

1.

To assist teachers in gaining an understanding and appreciation
for the science of economics.

2. To expose the teachers to the diversified approaches of economics
in the classroom.

3. To provide the teachers a pool of resources for incorporating
economics into the classroom as ”the business of everyday life."

4. To create an atmosphere of continued cooperation between the
course participants and the Greater Cincinnati Center for
Economic Education.

Materials

Textbook: Teaching Economics: Contents & Strategies
Films: Give & Take, Trade-Offs

 

 

 

Setting

1. Follow textbook "Contents” (see schedule)

2. Simulations/discussion/question

3. Relate textbook material to current events and teaching
4. Use A-V and speakers when appropriate

Grade Criteria

 

1.
2.
3.
4.

Attendance - maximum of two absences
Review Tests (2)

Outside readings

Class Participation

APPENDIX B

88

APPENDIX B

TEST OF ECONOMIC LITERACY
Form B

1. Every economic system must make choices. Which of the following

choices do all economic systems face?

A. To balance the government’s budget by reducing spending.
B. To save money and thus reduce the national debt.

C. To dispense with the production of luxuries.

D. To make the best use of scarce resources.

When a nation’s human and material resources are being fully and
efficiently used, more of any one product

A. cannot be produced.

B. can be produced only if there is a general decrease in
prices.

C. can be produced only if there is less production in some
other products.

D. cannot be produced unless private enterprise rather than
government does so.

Newspaper headline: "SCHOOL REFERENDUM DEFEATED.” In many
recent votes on school budgets, citizens have defeated school tax
proposals and forced schools to eliminate extracurricular
activities because of a lack of funds. What, if any, are the
opportunity costs of such decisions?

A. Whatever benefits there might have been from the extra-
curricular activities.

B. Since less money will be spent there are no opportunity
costs.

C. The costs of what taxpayers will now buy with what they
saved.

D. The opportunity to use school facilities fully.

Of the following, the principle of diminishing returns is best
illustrated by

A. any decline in the average rate of profit.

B. the decline in personal income as workers age.

C. small firms being driven out of business by large firms.

D. a slowing rate of increase in output as farmers add increasing
amounts of fertilizer to their land.

The best definition of profit is

A. total assets minus total liabilities.
B. total revenues minus total costs.

C. total sales minus all taxes.

D. total sales minus wages.

10.

11.

12.

89

Most of the money that American businesses receive by selling
their products or services is paid as

A. profits to the owners of the businesses.
B. wages and salaries to employees.

C. rent to property owners.

D. interest on debts.

Specialization and division of labor by nations followed by
increasing international trade probably would

A. increase total world production of wanted goods and services.
B. eliminate differences in standards of living among nations.
C. increase the likelihood of worldwide unemployment.

D. lower living standards in the wealthy nations.

The specialization of labor results in

A. increased price inflation.

B. less output per hour worked.

C. more economic interdependence.

D. more equal distribution of income.

Within a market economy a northern state produces a great
quantity of cheese; a southern state grows many oranges. If
exchanges of cheese and oranges take place between these states

A. both states lose.

B. both states gain.

C. one state gains at the expense of the other.

D. one cannot determine gains or losses from the given
information.

Which tax is likely to alter most the pattern of consumer choice
among various products?

A. A general sales tax.

B. A personal income tax.
C. A specific excise tax.
D. A business profits tax.

"Economic demand" for a product refers to how much of the
product

A. the poeple are willing and able to buy at each price.
B. the people want, whether they can buy it or not.

C. the government orders to be made.

D. is available for sale.

Initially, the price system in a market economy reacts to a
shortage of a product by

A. raising the price and producer profits.

B. lowering the price and producer profits.

C. raising the price, but lowering producer profits.

D. lowering the price, but increasing producer profits.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

90

UNITED STATES INCOME DISTRIBUTION

Per Cent 301-—
of
Income 30 "-

  

 

Poorest Richest
20m 209'

Using the chart above, the poorest 202 of the U.S. population
received about what percentage of the nations income?

A. 40%
B. 20%
C. 152
D. 5%

You read the following headline: ”ORANGE GROWERS FORM MONOPOLY."
How will the new orange monopoly most likely differ from a
highly competitive orange growing industry?

A. Profits in the orange industry will now be certain.

B. The orange growers will increase their use of capital goods.

C. The orange monopoly will hire more workers and increase
output.

D. There will be less incentive for the orange monopoly to be
efficient.

A rise in the price of which product would be likely to increase
the demand for butter?

A. Margarine.
B. Butter.
C. Cheese.
D. Bread.

If U.S. farm output remains the same how will several years of
bad weather in Europe and the Soviet Union affect American food
prices?

A. Raise them.

B. Decrease them.

C. Make no change.

D. Cannot be determined.

As more sewage processing plants are built and put into
Operation, more fer-tilizer may be produced as a by-product. If
this happens, fertilizer will be

A. increasingly scarce.
B. more expensive.

C. less expensive.

D. wanted less.

91

18. If the government were to levy a tax of one dollar on every pair
of pants sold, which of the following would most likely result?

A. Suppliers would sell more and charge a higher price.
B. Consumers would pay a higher price for pants and probably

buy a smaller quantity.
C. Consumers would pay a higher price and as a result suppliers

would make larger profits.
D. Suppliers would increase the quantity sold in order to make
up for the taxes paid to the government.

19. Business firms wish to sell their products at high prices.
Households wish to buy products a low prices. In a market
economy this conflict of interests

A. is resolved by competitive markets.

B. is resolved by government intervention.

C. is resolved in favor of business since all household heads are
members of firms.

D. does not exist; there is really no conflict of interest
between households and firms.

20. Assuming the supply of a product remains constant as the demand
for it increases, its price will normally

A. fall.

B. rise.

C. stay the same.

D. either rise or fall.

21. "Americans are a mixed up pe0ple. Everyone knows that baseball
is far less necessary than food and steel. Yet they pay ball
players a lot more than farmers and steelworkers.” Why?

A. The employers of the ball players are monopolists.

B. Ball players are really entertainers rather than producers.

C. There are fewer professional ball players than farmers or
steelworkers.

D. Good ball players are scarce compared to the demand for their
services.

Questions 23 and 23 are based on the following news story:

"ANOTHER SHIP WRECKED -- For the fourth time in six years. Rocky point
claims more victims. Millions of dollars in ships and cargo lost.
Ships heading into the nearby port must come dangerously close to this
well known hazard. Citizens are concerned that no lighthouse protects
shipping into our ports."

22. Private businesses are not likely to build a lighthouse because

A. the cost of building the lighthouse is too high.

B. the risk of loss to shipowners is eliminated by insurance.

C. a private business would have great difficulty collecting fees
from shipowners.

D. it would cost more for a private firm to build the lighthouse
than for the government to do so.

92

23. Suppose that the state decides to build and operate a lighthouse
to prevent shipwrecks. What would be the fairest way to pay for
the project?

A. An income tax on all shipowners.

B. A docking tax on all ships using the seaport.

C. A general sales tax on all goods sold in the state.
D. A general sales tax on all goods sold in the seaport.

24. Unexpected inflation is most likely to benefit

A. persons living on fixed pensions.
B. life insurance policy holders.

C. savings bank depositors.

D. people who owe money.

25. Gross National Product is a measure of

A. the price level of goods and services sold.

B. that part of production which is used by the government.

C. the market value of a nation’s output of final goods and
services.

D. the quantity of goods and services produced by private
businesses.

26. When comparing Gross National Product over several years, it is
necessary to adjust for

A. changes in technology.

B. changes in the price level.

C. product quality improvement.

D. new products that enhance our wealth.

27. The commercial banking system creates money when

A. business firms extend credit to customers.
B. individuals deposit currency in banks.

C. the nation’s gold holdings increase.

D. banks make loans and investments.

Questions 28, 29, and 30 are based on the following graphs.

Real Gross Consumer
National Product Price Index
54 (billions of dollars) (Year 1 = 100) “mph-"me“
.. 0 I30 Rate (Q )
240 IZS
I I
230 120 I0
9
220 I IS 8
4 7
.10 l 10 0
5
200 IOS 4
3
I90 I00 2
I
O

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

93

The rate of inflation was greatest during which period.

A. Years 1-2.
B. Years 2-3.
G. Years 3-4.
D. Years 4-5.

During what period was Econoland in a recession.

A. Years 1-2.
B. Years 2-3.
G. Years 3-4.
D. Years 4-5.

What is the economic situation and the most appropriate monetary
and fiscal policy during years 5 - 6?

A. It is a period of inflation; a budget surplus and/or tight
money policy is needed.

B. It is a period of recession; a budget surplus and/or easy
money policy is needed.

C. It is a period of recession; a budget deficit and/or easy
money policy is needed.

D. It is a period of inflation; a budget deficit and/or easy
money policy is needed.

Which of the following makes up the major portion of the money
supply in the United States.

A. Federal Reserve notes.
B. National Bank notes.
C. Currency and coins.

D. Checking accounts.

A government budget deficit exists

A. whenever taxes are reduced.

B. whenever the national debt is decreasing.

C. whenever government expenditures are increased.
D. when total government spending exceeds revenues.

The maximum gross national product a nation can produce in any
one year is set by

A. its natural resources.

B. its productive resources.

C. the amount of money people have to spend.
D. demand for goods and services by families.

Which one of the following would usually reduce consumer spending?

A. A decline in consumer incomes.

B. A reduction in personal income tax rates.

C. An expectation that prices will soon rise.

D. Increased government payments to individuals.

When commercial banks increase their loans to businesses and
consumers, the result is

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

94

A. a decrease in the spending power of consumers and businesses.
B. an increase in government control over the economy.

C. an increase in the banks’ excess reserves.

D. an increase in the nation’s money supply.

In a market economy high wages depend largely upon

A. minimum wage laws.

B. actions of government.

C. high output per worker.

D. socially responsible business leaders.

If your annual money income rises 50% while prices of the things
you buy rise by 1002, then your

A. real income is unaffected.
B. money income has fallen.
C. real income has fallen.

D. real income has risen.

One of the reasons a government might reduce taxes is to

A. slow down the rate of inflation.

B. slow down the rapid rise in interest rates.

C. increase consumer spending and stimulate the economy.
D. help finance space exploration and trips to the moon.

When the economy begins a rapid downturn, the part of total
spending that changes by the largpst percent is

 

A. business spending on factories, machinery, and inventories.
B. state and local government spending on all activities.

C. spending by families on consumer goods and services.

D. business spending on wages and salaries.

If from time to time total spending falls short of productive capa-
city, the rate of growth of the economy over a long period will be

A. higher because production will be concentrated on necessary
goods rather than luxuries.

B. lower because of a heavier reliance on the raw materials of
foreign countries.

C. higher because inefficient plants, equipment, and labor no
longer need be employed.

D. lower because some productive resources will not be fully
employed.

Rapidly growing economies always have

A. a slow rate of inflation.

B. a high rate of investment.

C. a low rate of population growth.
D. a rapid rate of population growth.

Which of the following statements about tariffs is true?

A. Tariffs decrease employment in domestic industries whose
products they protect.

43.

44.

45.

46.

95

B. Tariffs benefit some groups at the expense of the national
level of living.

C. Tariffs increase the market for our exports by reducing our
imports.

D. Tariffs encourage the growth of our most efficient industries.

The right to join a union and elect representatives to negotiate
with the employer is referred to as

A. a closed shop.

B. a seniority system.

C. collective bargaining.

D. right to work legislation.

Common stocks, limited liability, and unlimited life are
characteristics bf

A. pr0prietarships.
B. corportions.

C. partnerships.

D. cartels.

Those who believe that people should be taxed according to their
ability to pay would be most likely to favor

A. an excise tax.

B. a general sales tax.

C. a progressive income tax.
D. a residential property tax.

A national program of free housing for the aged poor is
established. The program is paid for by an increase in the
income tax. These actions promote one economic goal, but work
against another. Specifically, these actions are likely to

A. reduce freedom but promote equity.

B. reduce equity but promote efficiency.
C. reduce stability but promote growth.

D. reduce security but promote efficiency.

Source: Test of Economic Literacy - Form B. Joint Council on

 

Economic Education, 1978.

96

SURVEY OF ECONOMIC ATTITUDES
ATTITUDES TOWARD ECONOMICS

 

Circle the most appropriate response.
1-strongly agree 2=agree . 3=undecided 4-disagree
5-strong1y disagree
1. I enjoy reading articles
about economic topics. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I hate economics. 1 2 3 4 5

3. Economics is easy for me to

understand. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Economics is dull. l 2 3 4 5
5. I enjoy economics. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Studying economics is a waste of time. 1 2 3 4 5

7. Economics is one of my most dreaded
subjects. 1 2 3 4 5

8. On occasion I read an unassigned book
in economics. 1 2 3 4 5

9. I would be willing to attend a lecture

by an economist. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Economics is a very difficult subject

for me. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Economics is one of my favorite

subjects. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I use economic concepts to analyze

situations. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Economics is practical. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Economic ideas are dumb. l 2 3 4 5

Source: Soper, John C. and William B. Walstad. "On Measuring Economic
Attitudes"

97

SURVEY OF ECONOMIC ATTITUDES
ECONOMIC ATTITUDE SOPHISTICATION

 

Circle the most appropriate response.
1-strongly agree 2-agree 3-undecided 4-disagree
5-strongly disagree
1. Government should control the price of

gasoline. 1 2 3

2. Inflation is caused by greedy business

and union leaders. 1 2 3
3. Business makes too much profit. 1 2 3
4. People should not have to pay taxes. 1 2 3

5. Free medical care should not be provided
for all Americans. 1 2 3

6. Banks should not charge interest on
loans to customers. 1 2 3

7. Most poeple who don’t have jobs are too
lazy to work. 1 2 3

8. When a business gets big, it should be
controlled by the government. 1 2 3

9. New factories are not needed. 1 2 3

10. People should not be told how to spend
their money. 1 2 3

11. If everybody had more money, we’d all
be better off. 1 2 3

12. Profits should not be regulated by
government. 1 2 3

13. Most unemployed people are lazy. 1 2 3
14. When a strike occurs, government should

step in and settle the dispute. 1 2 3

Source: SOper, John C. and William B. Walstad. "On Measuring
Economic Attitudes”

98

S/E

Name

Age Sex (l-Female, O-Male)

 

 

 

EDUCATION
Highest Degree earned (B.A.-0, M.A.-1, Ed.S.-2, Other-3)

 

Total course hours of Economics
undergraduate
graduate

 

 

 

Describe Economic courses taken (course title, institution, year; use
back of page if necessary)

 

 

 

Date of last Economics course (date of completion; mo./yr.)
(check one) course workshop

 

 

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

 

Teaching experience in years

 

Previous teaching experience (assignments and number of years taught)

 

 

Economic teaching experience, if any (years and grade)

 

Amount of time presently used teaching economics, if any (hours/week)

 

Economic teaching materials used, if any

 

 

Teaching Level (grades K-3-0, 4-6-1, 7-9-2, 10-12-3, Other-4)

How would you describe your prominent teaching style? (check ONLY ONE)
Auditory (lecture) Visual (films, etc.)
Tactile (hands-on) Kinesthetic (experiential)

How would you describe your preferred learning style? (check ONLY ONE)

Auditory (listening) Visual (films, etc.)
Tactile (touch) Kinesthetic (whole body)

SCHOOL DISTRICT

 

(check one) Urban Suburban Rural

Approximate enrollment

 

99

~57. 8a
#00. wraop

O—inx («Ra—:0 .H—wma." F000— N I mac—.5 >5

mun—«0.. n... wean-:0 5530:: ._. 003::

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eamon-689 ...... .0 .70 030.». 600.0 .0. 3.2.5.0: :0 0.. m. 0.00000» 10:21.5... :2... H0... Ute—.20: 3:.
.70 (000 .70. 5250 .70 0050 00 :00 0.3. 2050 >n0
(0:... = 03: 00 :0. root. OCMmm. (<2:
gunmasnofiuna Pfiznhfiufizflx 0.8. 08.... m:
. . I Us? — :
. 0020. 10.3.: 000. 00.0. 0000000 1:0. 3000—50 0:0,0 0.0.0000 0.0.00 ‘0. 00: ‘00 0000.00 00.00 00030.0: 000..
. .083 08. 0:... 8: 8.3 30.8.. .8. 40.0. =3. 8.... 08.0. .8. 810...: ......x :35. 88...: 3.000..
0000— [is :1. 0:3 036 000330 2:0 2: 280 020 2.018. RE :8. 010 .00 0008‘: :00 023 110 026
0:00: ...0..0.. 000.000.}? .0000. :0. {0.0-50:00,: 89000 000.0 0000000053 0000000 00.001.005.535
.20. $000080... ..nu. 8.05 08.20.5005 ...-5 8350.028... 0.008.. «5888 8.85.-
.080‘ 851.00.005.80: 00005 E25053... 0050: {0030:0300 00.000» 5030013000.
...—8. 88...: 830.80 0.8... 08.8.0415... ...-...: 5088058.. In... 883003.080
0:0-0. 0.00:0:00:001 00:08: 00000000108000. 0000:: 00005—009356 8:005 00000050100003
00:0: 030300015300 00005. 00009500000000 00—0..- 005‘033-00‘0 0.00:0 00008-0?! 0.0.0:
00.000 08.00.05.008. sax. 880850.08 8.08. 80.410.01.001... :08. Eases-00...:
.3500 0000 E,» 00.. 2:0 0090:. E 0000 :01. 0.0.30 0.0—0.0 0.5 .5 :0 1.0.: 000000.. 0:0. 3:0. :0: 0000
. .0 .0000 0000 ...: :5... 0000 00 000.0 0.0: 00,0 :00 :00. 00 00000 0.0: 3: .000 E00 00 030:0 E0. :00. 200 0.0.0.:
00003 000.0 0.130000 0:00 80.00: 500010. 30:0:00‘ 00.0000 00,0. E... .000 ::0 8:300 00:. 000:: 0.0.0 :50
«0:080 0000000000: E: 000.000 .000—00:00:00: 00:00: 000::005:sb:n§: 0003.30 3000030003 0.00.0
. .0 00:0 00:. 0.00.0 :00... 00... 0- 0000: .0: .00. 00.0. :00: 00 0E0 000. 000.: 1:0 0‘: 0- 000.0. :000 :‘0 :..0—.0 080
000500 0500005000: 00.000. 33:00-00:85 00.0000 500 003 00.0,0‘0 0095: 0:80-0:50}:
000000: En: 0:00 0‘. 00:0 00:02... 0.00: 0.0.00 0.0. 0.0.0 00080.. 00:. 8.30005 0000 000:000 «80:51.00!—
80.00. 000003800: 000: 000000. 0050...... 0.0.0... 0.0.0. 0000.00 00: 0000005000: 000000.. 000.051.000.003:
.8300- ‘00 10: 00.0.5200 000:0: 00.0 000 00,0 3*: 50.00 30:0. .000 30.0 0.00.0 .000: 00:05 00:0 0.0—03.0 00:
..E [0012‘ 0.030 000.6:— 0050000000—03000 00:05 :50 :5... 0:0, 00: 000.00. 000— 3:02—30
00.8... 0508.080... .0. :83 08.05.804.80 85.... .8. 5.1 e... a... 85.0. 83.802: 3....

Test Division. All rights reserved.

Copyright © I978. l957. by F. E. Peacock Publishers, Int.

Reprinted with permission by Dr. Raymond J. Corsini, Author, and F. E.

Peacock, Publishers, Inc., June, 1985.

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. ... M: H
.n a
" ... .. 0.. 3 .. .. . -
n M ’0 . ..
a R mm0.00.00J.>.0._0_£0000.0030)00
Wm EO:0:0.0_0000.0.0...0000.0.0»0000
D z>lmmrflcpnnnnn.n.fln00.0...0.00.0.2“.
M. 72:3 WIN/0,0 o 0.0 0.0 o_ a 0.0.0.... 0 0.6.0.0.
m c............2.0....i...0...0._.3...0.
m: 0.30.30 0 0 102...... 0.0.0.0...
V. «T..03.0.0.00000.00.03.0p3000.0..
W ISL. ”7:311:09. 3.2.0.. .1.. x x. x va : C... x 1.2..
w W Z—Q.C . ....C»....... ...:U.a...u.. 7.2.
5 "My Cu 0 C. .. ...; .. CV . C. 0 ...... 0 f: .. f3 0 CV .. ...
"v.— ” :5 0 5v 0 Cc 0 ..0. 0 C0 0 CC 0 .0. 0 iv 0 ...O 0 .0
N D .5 p 6 0 AC . a. p 2U . e p .7 p ..C; AC 0 :0
.m. m _C.I®:?¢£.0.t.@¢n&ti.£»®l:§8?.
n T 5:0»00fi60A303V:.Lafitvttb 0 00:
”0 m .3 o 2...: o a: o a. o .0 o 3 0 Am: 0 3.. .0. 0 F3
P m ..WV 041.. 0 A3 0 6 0 F1. 040. 0 fl 0 00.: 0 .1 0 .04
IA.— . .0.®V0.0..0r®0fi50»803.03.02.60.30.0
T m 0 to 0 a: 0 :3 0 0V 0 ...: 0 A... 0 0. 0 cc $2.01..
W. N .o .5 0 n0: 0 .0. 0 0.. 0 «0v 0 C. 0 ..0. 0 A0 0 A0. 0:0
M n .. r0.» 0 A1. 3.. .2. :4 . A1. 3V0C_. .1.»:
m M .~_5:AS..»€ 0500c... c.50.£c.c.c.$:?~
R N 3.30.0 <CUOCC¢ 0 0:50:90}! 0.303;
W n. A Z 3:! 00.0026146005 00:10:1«1.¢0251.!..00.00
m m. w. ...,-.....0.0..30A0J0.,:0.0»0.0 0.09:...30 0
w m. .0x0:0:0v0.0.0\0q0:30.000.03.01,...0
I m .0.F:~»C~.~ ~.30.;0C.~.~.V~:.~»C~_~.
W m 1mm. 00.. as»: 2...: 6020.080052rcxama
C m :2... 0.002000J10wmn.>p 8000 . .
W m 3030 0.00.802....Hj MIA—11 1 1 4 .1
O 7 0.0.0003. .0.000.0.000.30_0_0.0,0
Mm .2..."..........3....L...Z...
n ~.0.0.~...~00-.0.0~0000.30.50.00
m 0.....3..0.......u..0.0.0..0_0.0:.0
m. 0 .0. 0 .0... 0 0 .0. 0 .0... :0. . 20.0....0A0. 0.0V 0
a 0 3:0 Snaamyrgo.0.0.0.7..050.301032030RW.0.
W 0 3.0.12.0 330;: 0.30.0504..r&.0.GY0R0.V.0.W0V.0_
o .... 0 3.0.1.... 0.;0.0:..0V0Qv0A300..
.W; 0.00.0..00000.0.000000500000
M 0.0.0.00000.0.00000_.0..0.0000
L! ILT. h

 

 

In“ «0030 00:0 :00. .o¢~. a».

50:0 <0:- 3030. 00... 0:0 32:00.0 ... 2.0 00000 030.000.
200:0: 2.0 95200 :05! 000: 0. 2.0 :0000 <0: ....00 0....

 

2000 000: 0.0-030:. 0:0 000.00 .0 «0:0. 00.00.. <0: .2050 00000 0. 3.000000 00:: .70. 000.030... = <0: :00
00302.50 0.000 00 0.3.0:: .0 .00.: ’00.: as. .0 <0: 0.00:0; 0.000000. 00 .9. 3.000000. 00 .5. 6:00:05. 0. .3.
00.00, 0. 5).. 020302 00000. :0 .30 300.930 2.0. :00. 00002300 :0! <0: .00. 300. 0. 00.0 :30. 900 <9:
5.30520 0. :00. 0.00:0: .0 000: 0:00:03. 1.0000 030.00. 0: .30 9:03.030.

_
w
u
b
v
m
a
a

c
.O
2
.~
.9

.3.

.w
.a
:
.w
3.

Ne.

w.
-
nu
~0

wm,

No
Nu

0w

. 0:02: 003.....5 .: 65...: .5...

_ ....0 .o 0.5... 0.9.0

: ... 0...... .c. .0... 3 03:00:20... .3... ... :20...

_ ....0 .o 0.03. o. :00 0.00336 0070: . to...

. :20... ...-<0 3 :0 33.330: ... 09.5.0.0 0.2.0.: ......5 c. 0005:5212
3.0 0:0 .0: _ ....0 30:5 Wow.» _ no 00:: 0: 0.602 ... 30 :06 .......
_ 2.: ......r 60:0. :5: .500: 2.0.. 7.2.3:

. 0.0.0. 000. 33.00.3500 0030: _ 3000 .o 8:002:20 .....
. 3.. Eco: on. 30.10 a. 19:... 000.0: . 00...:

1050.0 0000 003505: 30 .o 30 35:0 .....
: ... 9:5»... .0. 30 .c 8:00....20 00:0: . 03 5.0::

2.0 2.0 .o: . ....0 0050 610.01.. . 0° 5...: :00 o. 30.0 0020.0.
. 2.0: 1c... 5 0: 0.0... 0030.0 .30 .630 0.0 .000

52.0: _ 8:003:20 _ ....0 .o 0.. o: 0 «a: 030: o. 0000:.

_ 500.... ...:m: 0030. _ 0.0:

«:0 .3500 . 00303:! :00. 0.0 50 5:50 30. . :00.

. a.._0< Svrm .30. 0:00.. 30 5 .000 3.0.0.5.

. 00: to... 30.0 0:02.00; ... .70 0:03.00: .30: 5 50 30350 ......
. ..re .0 0:00.... 0030.. . 3 90:00:20.5:

.230: . .00.: :000 0 .o. o. to... .0 00 _ ....0 .o 90. 3 00:0 00:: 0000.0. 3:000:00
2200 o. 00.2.3095 25:3 5:00.; .30.? 30 .55 09.00:.3205

_ 0:0: .050. .o 00 2.0 5:50 ..00 00.0 . 0000.0 00

. 3...: $5.53: 00:: 3< 30:30

. ....0 .o 000... 0. 000.000 0: 0006330... 02:. 0.630. 50.0.9.0.
. 2.0.00 95. 330020.500 00:0... ...: 55.5.5

:5 0:0 .0: . ....0 00:5 clam. . 00 00:: 0000.0. 0000.0. .............
. £500.50; :00. ... :5 .51 320.55:

1.0 .3500 _ 0030370. :00. 0.0 .30 530.. 30. . 000 o- 0000,
. 5.8.? 02:00.20 .0000 .30. . 0...:

_ 5:... :00. 2:50 0: .....
. ....0 .c .303 c. to... 00:: ...: 0.60:

_ 009: :00. 00:< 5 50 302.5:

. :0. 0 .... 30:0 00:0: . 00°... .5 3< of:
(<30: . 0000: . 2.3 0: 30 .530 an.

. 2.0.0. .30. 0.703 0.8.0 .or—.c..v;._.._< .3. e ...»... 5.0.2.. 00...:

_ .00.; 0:..0< 00.00.05:

_ ..rc 5.5.5 0000.3. ... 0:30.053; 00.5: _ ..ccc .... ......:._..:: :7... .o 2.25.0.0
. ....0 .o 0.. o: 0 0:053:00: 0:0: 00:03 . 00:00::03

_ to... c. v...3< :00. :< 350.:

. 00.. 3303300 3:50 :00. 00:0: . 0.:0< .703 5 .30 0002::

3... ......cv. _ 0032.50. :00. 0.0 .30 5:5... ...... . 000 5 0 300.0. coo... 30.00050. 0.303 0. 0.0903

. 0.0005,. :30: .00.; .30. . 20.... ..........................

: . .....00 .o .005 53.0....30 :02. . 9.0.0. .o .003 0:9: 0 :< 300.5: 0 .0090. 0 3:0. 0. 0 .0250
. 03 300. 0.0: ... .30 0002::

..................................

s O C ’ 3’
93 . 9 C 3. Cl
IQ O C , I)

0.28.5300

0.0 0 c 0 a)
Emergidfiz
0° 0 c 0 0)
00 0 c .30...
00 c c 0 0)

00.015220»
:9 O c D n,
0:020:30:
:- o C D a)
00.0 c «5::
:3 O c D .00)
00.8.5.2:
.09 e c 0 0)
MOCUE. 0.:
500.0. c 0 g
0035:2000
a O. C D .:
00.mon.pm.00

.80C).’

@034 0 0 g
00.0 c 0 0)
GOG-0231).:
09 0 c 0 00
8@E@®
00 0 c 0 00
4.3.0 0 0.:
00 0 c 0 0)
0.3.0 0 0.:
00 0 c 0 0p
0.0.0:...r0.0>
00 0 c 0 00
:83. c 0.3).
00 0 c 0 00
90 0 c 0 02
m0 0 C D h,
03.0.:5 0 00

00 0 c 0 00
00.0.1500)
00 0 c 0 00

:.8.e€®

{:3'3'3'3'8'3'8'3'8'338'8'8'838'3'8'8'8'8'8'8'3'3'8'8'8'-8'3'8'3'3'8'338'3'8'8.8'8'3'8'3'3'8'8'8'3'3'8'8'8'8'333'3‘

E
J

54
SS
56
57
58
53
50
at

62.

64.

65
66

67

69
7O
72
73
74
75
76
77

78,

80
BI

82.

83
84
85
86
87
88
89

90.

91

92.

93

94.

95

96.

97
98

100.

Reprinted with permission, Price Systems, Inc., June, 1985.

101

The one vb .me (Jo-"g toe—st '09 wt!- 3 grooo of people

I am uncomfortable when . worn or try to study In a warm room I . . . . . . . . . . . ............
prefer to have deadlhes when work

I Irke to eat whlle l m concentratlhg

: ovetet complet ng one thvng before I star' somethlng else

Itrsdumcultformetogetstartedonanewtask. ....... .. . ............

I really ehIOy mOwes .

I have to be remmded to do thrngs I've sard I muld do. .......... . .. ........... . . . . . . . .......

I work best when the Ilghts are low , . . . .

When I have a great deal of work to do I prefer that suoennsors stay away untrl my work has been completed

. keen frylfig '0 accoma' 9" 3 task even If It appears that I may net Succeed

I I:ke to learn about somethmg new by hearth a tape or a lecture. ....... . . . . ...... . _ . . .....

l fee- ' at“ self motyated

The one lob I late (10an M- I prefer do-ng alone ............................

632 r; r-.-.otr~ vg «curd atstract me when l m workmg

My oerfOrmahce Improves If I know my work wnll be checked. . , ....................

”ore'e' 'f- wort wlth MUSIC playlng

I stay at a task until It IS flnlshed . ..... . . .. .. .. . .............. . . .............
learr‘ best by dorhg on the too.

I 9am a great deal of satrsfactIOn from dolng the best I can. ................................

'. remember haw to do a new tast when I learn It step by step

Iohenreaolndomlrght. .. ..... . . . ............. . ..........

If . have to earn Somethlfig new ' lune to learn ab0ut It by seems; a ‘Ilmstrlp photographs or dlagrams

I hire others to Outlune very carefully what they want me to do. .....................

i w0uld rather Sta'? worl- ,n the mornlng than -n the evenrng

I censtantly change oosmons no my chalr

7w th-hgs I remember best are the Y'lmgs that I hear

I him my Instructorlsl 0' Supervrsorls‘ to recogntze my efforts,

I earn bette' by readlng than by I-stemng to someone

I get more done .n the afternoon than n the morn‘ng. . . . . . , . . . . ......

l can block but most scund when I work.

I really lake to bulld thmgs. ..... . . . ........ . ..................... . . . ..............

I prefer to work ander a shaded lamp wrth the rest of the room arm

I choose to eat. drrnk. smoke or chew only after I frnrsh working, ...................

I 'eMemoer thlngs bette' when I study In the evenlng

If I have to learn somethlng new. I hire to learn ab0ut It by seemg a moyle. ............................

I tee' good when my secuse. colleague or Superv-sor pralses me for dolng well at my lob

loreferacoolenwronmentwhenItrytostudy. ........ .. ......

It s O-"lCu" ‘or me to blocu Out saund Imu5rc, T V tallungl when I work

I would rather learn by experience then by readrng ...... . _ ........................... . . . . , . ...........

llme belhg oralsed for 3 “;ob well done "

It‘sdIchultéormetos-t.noneplaceforalongtrme. .. .. ., ,,. .. .. ..............

I work bes' .r coffee Is ayallable

I enloy dolng eloenments . . . . . . . . ....... .~, ............................. . . .....

If a task becomes very a-“Icwt I tend to lose Interst In It

I enyoy learnmg new thrngs ab0ut my work. . . . . . . . . . .. . .................................

I can slt In one place for a long tlme . : . ,

I can concentrate best In the evemng . . .....................

I prefer to study wlth someOne who really knows the maternal

I often ihenge my oosutron when I work. .................................. - ...................................

I wOuId won: more effectwely If I COuld eat whrle I'm workmg

If I can go thrown eech step of a task. I usually remember what I leern. ..........................................

' learn better when I read the -nstructlons than when someone tells me what to do .....

I only begun to feel wlde awake after 10.00 AM. ......

. often complete unfrmShed work on a bed or cauch . , . . . ........
' often wear a sweater or racket Indoors. . . . . . .

so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so

IOIO‘O)°\°)°-r.910‘°)°t°[ o.to)o(o)o o o‘o)o(o,o o.o(o):olo DID clayo o ogo o o o olo

o o O-O)O\O o o alert:

0 IO!

0 O O]

(c)cu:nc.(::)c(CIC‘clc(c;c{cIclc)c c c(c)c(clctc.c\c)ctc,c clclc)c c r. c)c(glc c'c(c;c(c\c‘C‘cthCIc‘lck‘c c ctclc

elme'et.e\>ler_>;e\e.hopelele e e Heb)» e ) e)>(>:e e elelpve e retire» e

(e) e to one)

e(e)e e. or») ep-eal pol

5‘-
“-
SA-

“-
IA-
se-
95-
SA-
53-
se-
se-
SA-
se-
sa-
sl-
SA-
ss-
SA-
in.
u.
s?-
ss-
ste-
se-
s3-
SA-
:3-
SA-
@-
s.-
“-
SA-
sl-
fe-
se-
@-
sa-
v

ss-
“-
sa-

{5-

nan-nu

“an“

APPENDIX C

102

APPENDIX C

ECONOMIC EDUCATION COURSE FOR TEACHERS

Evaluation Form

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High Low
5 4 3 2 1
I I I I I I I
I 1. Course Content I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I 2. Course Organization I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I 3. Instructor’s Presentations I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I 4. General attitude and rapport among I I I I I I
I participants I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I 5. The instructor’s general attitude and I I I I I I
I willingness to assist I I I I I I
I -; I I I I I I
I 6. Textbook I I I I I I
I I I I If If I
I 7. Handouts and supplemental materials { I I I I I
I I I I I
I 8. Lesson plans and teaching assignments I I I I I I
1. What was the strongest element of the course? Why?
2. What was the weakest element of the course? Why?
3. How much has your interest in the subject area been stimulated by
this course?
a great deal some little very little
nothing
4. Would you recommend this course to a friend? Yes No
5. Other comments:

APPENDIX D

103

So... 88. 38. 98. 88. 88. $2... 81- 23. on..- .88. :3.- omno. :8.- ovoi own..- Ror. o8.- Soo. 9.3- Q...- 982 03.- tbf 83.
8o; 38. at. 88. $8. $8. 3..- RS. o8: e8.- 88. RS. .8.- Bo: 89...- Rfi. 9.3.- $8. «9.- 8~.- :8. Re.- 8..- $8.
80.. 33. 38. «on... 33. m2.- 88. .2.- 89. Bo.- 8o.- 5...- noof oz“.- Xs... .2..- nno. <3.- 3..- 8:. one: one: 89.

$535

8°... mg. 008. gm. Dov: OZ..- wwr: «NO: 986. Onc: 0pc: 0nc.- 3N: 03p. .nNO... Nae. n8: «rm: 2.3. n2..- Ncw: '8'.
009' spa. «vow. sh“.- NNno. EB.- ono: §.- 55'. .§.- 08: 0pm: unnr. §.- 3. 89- Vow: shoe. 0no.- she.- Sn... a:
80; San. ppm; 03..- mo...- n8: 0:..- pro: :0.- ms... 2N.- ronw. 80: 98... mg..- 8...- 008. as; §.- :8. _.-
86; «re..- 05: GQ~.- Ow~.- 33. N8.- 08'. R3. one; En. Row. 52.0. g. “V..- Nps. n03. '8; gr. tn

80.9 Nnnp. 83. Sun. 3... 2...- nnoo. c1..- nsvo. 39. 33. 8.3- §.- 89- 009- 0000. «k..- 0no.- 05

8°; n0nn. VNnn. v0nr. ops-r. 88. R3. gr. 0000. 0:0. 08: 2.9.- 08: nwpp. Ono: 88. Saw. a:

89. w 05:. vwnw. v8: 80; 93.- 33. '3.- 89. 3..- has. §.- '8; :0.- nno: 01..- v:

80; amp. ao.- '8; §.- 80¢. 80'. 8.3- vac: Sac. amp. EN. Sup. 8“. anN. n:

coo-p vnw: 53'. «war. 020.- vnww. 2.0M. 5N8. mac: :0.- 8rp. '08. 88. v'0o. N:

89; «Na; 1:.- E. «Np: 88. n8.- N3... ans. :8. wn0.- *8. v8: 9:

8°; 00nv. map. can. 3. 030. N93. $8. awn. n08. a0... . ran. a:

80; :Nw. «Na. are; *3. g. «8... 0nnn. '03. '00... hrs. an

8.... -~.- «$.- r8.- «an. 28. 88. n2... Son. 39. 8
8a.. 38. 88. 8:. 8o.- uz... 3R. 8!. SR. 2
08.. 89. 88... 88: «2.....- 53. R9..- St.- on

8c; Sr... 88. one... open. 8:. 33. an

8a.. «8.. Son. 83. 03'. 33. 3

8o. . St... E... 83. 8t. 0

8a.. 8%. 88. 82.. -

08; Ron. Son. C

E: 5:. ...»

88...:
Afilflq own lam-Iflul-Jufl. o: data-Aqdmt-dflm-lmflm-IfiI-fl4 on .Inmlldm-rlfluII-muII-fiIIEI-IRI

 

 

 

Enuga nor—.3888 I?

u wanna;

APPENDIX E

104

APPENDIX E

LIST OF CONCEPTS

Basic Economic Concepts

The Basic Economic Problem

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Economic Wants

Productive Resources

Scarcity and Choices

Opportunity Costs and Trade-Offs
Marginallism and Equilibrium

Economic Systems

6.
7.
8.
9.
IO.
11.

Nature and Types of Economic Systems

Economic Incentives

Specialization, Comparative Advantage, and Division of Labor
Voluntary Exchange

Interdependence

Government Intervention and Regulations

Microeconomics: Resource Allocation and Income Distribution

12.
13.
14.
15.

16.

Markets, Supply and Demand

The Price Mechanism

Competition and Market Structure

"Market Failures”: Information Costs, Resource Immobility,
Externalties, etc.

Income Distribution and Government Redistribution

Macroeconomics: Economic Stability and Growth

17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

Aggregate Supply and Productive Growth

Aggregate Demand: Unemployment and Inflation

Price Level Changes

Money and Monetary Policy

Fiscal Policy: Taxes, Expenditures, and Transfer Payments
Economic Growth

Savings, Investment, and Productivity

The World Economy

24.

International Economics (uses the concepts above)

Broad Social Goals

Freedom, Economic Efficiency, Equity, Full Employment, Price
Stability, Security, Growth, Other Goals

Source:

Hansen, Lee W., et a1. Part I: A Framework for Teaching

 

Economics: Basic Concepts. Joint Council onIEconomic

 

Education, New York: 1977.

APPENDIX F

Concept

Basic Economic Problem

 

Economic wants

Productive Resources
Scarcity and Choices

Opportunity Costs
and Trade-offs

Marginalism and
Equilibrium

Economic Systems

 

Nature and Types of
Economic Systems

Economic Incentives

Specialization,
Comparative Advan-
tage, and Division
of Labor

Voluntary Exchange

Government Interven-

tion and Regulation

Microeconomics:

Markets, Supply and
Demand

The Price Mechanism

105

APPENDIX F

SIMULATION SUMMARY

Simulation

All in the Family
Money

Growth and Production
Sevier Prom

Choices

Basic Economic Problem

To Sell or Not to Sell

Barter Activity

Specialized Trade

Galactica

Returnable or Non-
Returnable

Crawfish Game

How Much?

Dollar Voting

Source

Choice, p. 92

American Enterprise

Teaching Notes

(9710. ’77)

Gaming and Simula-
tions in Economics,
Dale, p. 49

Choice, p. 81

 

 

Choice, p. 48

Activities That
Teach Economics
AT:TN (Spring ’78)

 

 

Analyzing Govern-

 

ment Re lation
IJCEE, EISS

Resource Allocation and Income Distribution

Economics: Intro to

 

World Around You
(’76)

Gaming and Simula-

 

 

:1333, (Dale,
p. 106)

Competition and
Market Structure

"Market Failures” -
Externalties,
Informal Costs

Macroeconomics:

106

Competing Soft-Drink
Stands

Gold Rush

Economic Stability and Growth

Pt. III Strategies
at Intermediate
Level (JCEE} ’78)

Strategigs, JCEE,

 

 

 

 

Aggregate Supply
and Productive
Capacity

Aggregate Demand:
Unemployment and
Inflation

Price Level Changes

Money and Monetary
Policy

Fiscal Policy:
Taxes, Expend-
itures, and
Transfers

Economic Growth

Savings, Investment,
and Productivity

World Economy

 

International
Economics

Broad Social Goals

Widget Game

Landosa

Out of Thin Air

Cut the Budget?
Tax Simulation

Manufacturing (rev)
Out of Thin Air

Multinational

Tricks of the Trade

Goals/Policy Simula-
tions
Economic Goals

p- 97

State of Ohio

Activities That
Teach Economics
(’75)

 

 

Strategies, (JCEE,
p. 54)

Give and Take (JCEE)

Choice, p. 89

Strategies, (JCEE
p. 54)

Choice, p. 29

107

. "Choices," American Enterprise: Teaching Notes,
Sept./Oct., 1977, p. 4.

 

 

Dale, Lawrence. Gaming and Simulations in Economics: Southeast
Missouri State University.

. "Galactica": Activities that Teach Economics. Obtained
from Lesley College, Massachusetts.

 

. "How Much?" Adapted from Weidenaar/Weilen, Instructor’s
Resource Guide to Economics: An Introduction to the World Around
You. Addison-Wesley, 1976.

 

 

Koblin, Sasie. ”Universal Cookie Company," American Enterprise:
Teaching Notes, Spring, 1979, p. 12.

 

 

Kourilsky, Marilyn. "Building a Town in the Days of the Gold Rush:
An Economic Simulation Activity." In; Part II Strategies for
Teaching Economics-Intermediate Level (Grade§_§-6). Joint Council
on Economic Education: New York, 1978, pp. 97-108.

 

 

Kourilsky, Marilyn. ”Competiting Soft-Drink Stands: An Economic

' Activity Illustrating Competition and Monopoly.” In; Part II
Strategies for Teaching Economics-Intermediate Level (Grades 4-6).
Joint Council on Economic Education: New York, 1978, pp. 61-67.

 

Kourilsky, Marilyn. ”Let’s Make Bread: A Simulation Activity on the
Economic Problems of What, How, and For Whom to Produce." In; Part
II Strategies for Teaching Economics-Intermediate Level (Grades Z-G).
Joint Couficil onIEconomic_Education: NEw’Iork, 197E, pp. 70-24.
Kourilsky, Marilyn. ”Out of Thin Air: An Economic Simulation Activity
on Money and Banking." In; Part II Strategies for Teaching Economics-
Intermediate Level (Grades 4-6). Joint Council on Economic
Education: New York, 1978, pp. 54-58.

 

 

Meyers, Peter J., Dr. George Vredeveld, John Lewis, and Peter
Harrington. Choice, Educational Service, 1975.

Reese, Jay. "Landosa.” Activities That Teach Economics, 1975, pp.
87-96 e

 

Watson, George. "Instructional Activity No. 10 - ’The Bottle Bill’."

Analyzing Gogernmgnt Regulation. Joint Council on Economic
Education: New York, 1975, pp. 61-68.

 

. "When More is Less." See ("How Much?").

 

BI BLIOGRAPHY

108

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, Theodore A., W. Robert Houston, Brenda L. Bryant, Adult
Learners (A Research Study), (Washington, D.C.: ATE, 1981), p. 56.

 

Armstrong, David G., Development of Behaviorial Objectives Test Items
or "Free Enterprise" and Assessment of IIFree Enterprise" Training’s
Impact on Understanding of (1) Teachers Taking the Training and (2)
Secondary Students in Those Classes: Phase II, (CollegeSIatren,
Texas: College of Education, Texas A & M, 1977), pp. 20 - 21.

 

Banaszak, Ronald A. and Dennis C. Brennan, Teaching Economics —
Content and Strategies, (Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1983).

 

 

Becker, William E., ”Economic Education Research: Part I, Issues and
Questions," Journal of Economic Education, vol. 14, (Winter,
1983) , pe 10o

 

Birnbaum, Robert, ”Games and Simulations in Higher Education,"
Simulations and Games, vol. 13, (March, 1982), p. 4.

 

Borgatta, Edgar F. and Raymond J. Corsini, Quick Word Test Manual,
(U.S.A.: Harcourt, Brace, 8 World, 1964), p. 14.

 

Brickell, H. M. and M. C. W. Scott, The Effectiveness of Economic
Education in Senior High Schools, (New York, Policy Studies in
Education, 1976), ERIC, No. 143571.

 

 

Burnham, Lynn 3., "Adults: Not Grown Up Children,” Community and
Junior College Journal, vol. 53, (Nov., 1982), p. 26.

 

 

Byrne, Robert, ”Inservice Programs - What are the Essentials for
Making Them Effective?” NASSP Bulletin, vol. 67, (March, 1983),
p. 1.

 

Cherryholmes, Cleo H., "Some Current Research in Effectiveness of
Educational Simulations: Implications for Alternative Strategies,"
The American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 6, (Oct., 1966), p. 4.

 

Davis, Dale, Economic Education in the Curriculum, (ERIC: ED 168
833, 1979), p. 13.

 

Davisson, William I. and Frank J. Bonello, Computer-Assisted

Instruction in Economics: A Case Study, (South Bend: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1976). -

 

 

Dolan, Lawrence, ”Affective Characteristics of the Adult Learner: A
Study of Mastery Based Instruction," Community/Junior Collegg
Quartggly of Research and Practice, vol. 7, (July - Sept., 1983),
p. 368.

 

 

Dunn, Rita, ”Teaching in a Purple Fog: What We Don’t Know About
Learning Style,” NASSP Bulletin, vol. 65, (March, 1981), pp.
33 - 36o

 

109

Fraas, John W., "The Use of Seven Simulation Games in a College
Economics Course," Journal of Experimental Education, vol. 48,
(Summer, 1980).

 

Fraas, John W. and Frederick Rafeld, Simulation Activities and Student
Learning Characteristics in a College Economics Survey Course,
TPaper presented at Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational
Research Association: Norfolk, VA, 1980), p. 15.

 

 

(Girgis, Maurice A. and Michael A. MacDowell, "A Quantitative Analysis
of the Effectiveness of an Inservice Institute on Teaching
Economics,” Indiana Social Studies Quarterly, vol. 25, (Winter,
1972-73), p. 72.

 

Greenfield, Harry, ”Economics in Secondary Schools: Some Problems of
Inservice Teaching,” The Social Studies, vol. 73, (Sept./Oct.,
1982), no. 3, p. 217.

 

Hall, John, Jacques Benninga, Charlotte Clark, ”A 3 Part Model: A

Comprehensive Approach to the Inservice Training of Teachers,” NASSP
Bulletin, vol. 67, (March, 1983), p. 18.

Hansen, Lee W., Chairman, et al., Part I - A_§ramework for Teachin
Economic Basic Concepts, Joint Council on Economic Education, New
York, 1977), p. 3.

 

 

Heyman, Mark, ”What are Simulation Games?" Environmental Education
Report, vol. 10, (August/Sept., 1982), p. 2.

 

Hill, Joseph E. and August Kerber, "Chapter 27 - Parametric
Statistical Tests - 1,” Models, Methods, and Analytical Procedures
in Educational Research, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1967), p. 344.

 

 

Hunt, David, "Learning Style and the Interdependence of Practice and
Theory,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 62, (May, 1982), p. 647.

 

Karstensson, Lewis, An Analysis of Short-Term Learning in Economics:
The Case of Participant Performance in a Free Enterprise System
Seminar, (Denton, TX: North Texas State Center for Economic
Education, 1979), p. 3.

 

 

Kennedy, Peter, ”9 - Assumption Five: Multicollinearity," A Guide to
Econometrics, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1979), p. 132.

 

 

Livingston, Samuel A. and Clairice Stacz Stoll, Simulation Games: An
Introduction for1 the Social Studies Teacher, Free Press, (New
York, 1973), p. .

 

 

Lowell, Hugh and Charlotte Harter, An Economic Course for Elementary
School Teachegg, 2nd ed., (New York: Joint Council on Economic
Education, 1975), p. 2.

 

 

Maidment, Robert and Russell H. Bronstein, Simulation Games: Design
and Implementation, (Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Pub.,
1973), pp. 13 - 14.

 

 

110

McKilbin, Michael, Marsha Weil, Bruce Joyce, Teaching ang Learning:
Demonstrations of Alternatives, (Washington, D.C.: ATE, 1977),
p. 45.

 

 

Mertens, Sally, "Basics in Inservice Education: Findings from Rand
and Teacher Center Studies," Action in Teacher Education: Role of
Research in Education, vol. 4, (Spring/Summer, 1982), p. 64.

 

 

Monahan, Jerry, "An Educational Production Function for Principles of
Economics," Journal of Economic Education, vol. 14, (Spring,
1983), p. 16.

 

Murphy, Dennis, "Learning and Intensive Instruction," Journal of
Economic Education, (Fall, 1979), p. 35.

 

 

Neter, John, et al., ”Chapter 20 - Multiple Regression,” Applied
Statistics, (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1978), pp. 506 - 512.

 

Nic, Norman H., et al., "Chapter 20 - Multiple Regression Analysis:
Subprogram Regression,” SPSS, 2nd ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1975), p. 339.

Orlich, Donald C., "Inservice Education: A Problem or a Solution?"
Science and Children, vol. 21, (Feb., 1984), p. 33.

 

Pager, John M., Jr., "Simulations - A Valuable Learning Technique,"
Environmental Education Report, vol. 10, (Aug./Sept., 1932), p. 1.

 

Popham, James W. and Kenneth A. Sirotnik, "Chapter 10 - The T—Test -
Computation Procedures," Educational Statistics: Use and
Interpretation, 2nd ed., (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 141.

 

 

Price, Gary E., et al., Productivity Environmental Preference Survey:
PEPS Manual, (Lawrence, KS: Price Systems, 1982), pp. 1 & 12.

 

Reese, Jim E. and Robert L. Darcy, Report on the 1966 NDEA Advanced
Study Institute in Economics, (Consortium of Professional

Associations for the Study of Special Teacher Improvement Programs,
1966), p. 13.

 

 

Schug, Mark C., "Elementary Teachers’ Views on Economic Issues,”
Theory and Research in Social Education, vol. XI, (Spring, 1983),
p0 SSe

Seider, C. J., "Teaching with Simulations and Games,“ In N. L. Gage
(ed. ), The Psychology of Teaching Methods - The Seventy-Fifth
Yearbook of the National Society of Education, Part I, The
National Society for the Study of Education, (Chicago, 1976).

Siegfield, John J. and Rendigs Fels, "Research on Teaching College
Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 17,
(September, 1979), p. 925.

 

Soper, John C., Test of Economic Literacy:__piscussion Guide and
Rationale, (New York: Joint Council on Economic Education, 1979),
p. 11.

 

111

Stensrud, Robert and Kay Stensrud, ”Teaching Styles and Learning
Styles of Public School Teachers," Perceptual and Motor Skills,
vol. 56, April, 1983), p. 414.

 

Stigler, George, "The Case, If Any, for Economic Literacy,” Journal
of Economic Education, vol. 14, (Summer, 1983), p. 60.

 

Walstad, William C., "Effectiveness of A USMES Inservice Economic
Education Program for Elementary School Teachers," Journal of
Economic Education, 3rd ed., no. 1, (Fall, 1979), p. 9.

 

 

Walstad, William C. and Stephen Buckles, "The New Economic Tests for
the College and Pre-College Levels: A Comment," Journal of Economic
Education, vol. 14, (Spring, 1983), pp. 17 - 22.

 

Walstad, William C. and John C. Soper, "A Model of Economic Learning
in the High School," The Journal of Economic Education, vol. 13,
no. 1, (Winter, 1982), pp. 42 - 4S.

 

Walstad, William C. Walstad and John C. Soper, "Measuring Economic
Attitudes in High School," Theory and Research in Social Education,
vol. XI, (Spring, 1983), p. 41.

 

Walstad, William C. and Michael Watts, "Teaching Economics in the
Schools: Analysis of Survey Findings," delivered at Midwest
Economic Association, 1983.

Weidenaar, Dennis J., "Economics: A Little Known Discipline Among

Social Studies Methods Teachers," Peabody Journal of Education,
vol. 57, (April, 1980), pp. 197 - 203.

 

Wetzel, James N., W. James Potter, Dennis M. O’Toole, "The Influence of
Learning and Teaching Styles on Student Attitudes and Achievement in
the Introductory Economic Course: Case Study,” Journal of Economic
Education, vol. 13, (Winter, 1982), p. 35.

 

Willey, Reynold and Kenneth R. Howey, "Chapter 3 - Reflections on Adult
Development: Implications for Inservice Teacher Education," Staff
Development and Educational Chapgg, ed. W. Robert Houston and
Roger Panteratz, (Reston, VA: ATE, 1980), p. 25.

 

 

Williams, Elmer D., ”Teacher Education: The Continuous Process,"
Chapter 6, NCSS Bulletin No. 65, Economic Education: Links to the
Social Studies, ed., Stowell Symmes. NCSS, (Washington, D.C.,
1981), pp. 67 & 69.

 

 

Wilsey, Cathy and Joellen Killian, "Making Staff Development Programs
Work," Educational Leadership, vol. 40, (Oct., 1982), p. 36.

 

Wilson, Cathy R. and Mark C. Schug, "The Evaluation of Instructional
Games and Simulations,” A Guide to Games and Simulations for
Teaching Econpmics, 3rd ed., Joint Council on Economic Education,
(New York, 1979), p. 22.

 

 

Yankelovich, et al., National Survey of Economic Education, 1981,
(New York: Phillips Petroleum Co., 1981), p. 26.

 

112

Zelmer, A. C. Lynn and Amy M. Zelmer, "Proceedings of the Western
Regional Symposium on Instructional Simulations," ed. 054608, 1971.