Mike Walsh Keith Gray Coventry University ref: DEE winthresh3 sept 07 ver4 U/L/D

An Investigation into the Application of Economics Threshold Concepts using

WinEcon via a VLE for Business Students

Economics Network Mini Project

Mike WalshKeith Gray

Coventry Universityref: DEE winthresh3 sept 07 ver4 U/L/D

(1) Introduction• Builds upon two Fund for the

Development of Teaching and Learning 5 projects (FDTL5)– Embedding threshold concepts in first year

undergraduate economics– Beyond dissemination strategies:

Embedding computer based learning and effective use of WinEcon and VLEs

• WinEcon extensively used at Coventry University, particularly on business degrees

• Business students find certain threshold concepts relatively difficult. Consider:– Opportunity cost– Marginal analysis– Multiplier

• Promote understanding and working knowledge (Salami 2005)

• Mini project

(2) Project Aims• Investigate feasibility of embedding

selected threshold concepts using WinEcon via a VLE for business students

• Develop relevant teaching materials• Assess how students’ understanding of

these concepts changes as a result of embedding

• Investigate possibility of embedding a wider range of threshold concepts

(3) Methodology• 3 seminar groups, 1 being a control

group• Introduce a threshold concept in lecture• 2 research groups undertake exercise

with hyperlinks to WinEcon

(4) Implementation

Stage I (week2)• The threshold concept of opportunity

cost introduced in lectures

Stage II (week 4)• Baseline questions issued• To ensure completion

– Concise– In labs

• Three questions covered– a) a perceived understanding of the concept, – b) selecting a definition of the concept– c) an application of the concept.

Stage III (week eight)

• All three groups covered material on opportunity cost in order to reinforce the lecture – Short case study considering the opportunity

cost of examination revision• Two research groups undertook

WinEcon activity; ‘Allocation of a health budget’ – Verbal and written feedback

Stage IV (week nine)

• All three groups were given the baseline questions again

• Process repeated for multiplier in term two

(5) Web-linking

• Instructions on www.winecon.com• Using weblinks

http://www.winecon.com/video/using_weblinks/

• Creating weblinks http://www.winecon.com/video/creating_weblinks/

(6) Implementation issues• Insufficient workshop time for marginal analysis• Problems with hyperlinks• Compliance

– Non-attendance– ‘Matching’– Motivation

• Unanticipated benefits incl.– Move from unrealistic WinEcon pricing structure

• Downloading to individual (registered) students pioneered at Coventry University

(7) Evaluation

• Student’s understanding:

– Opportunity cost & Multiplier– Baseline…3 questions (confidence / definition /

application)– Given immediate feedback– 4 weeks later = winecon link (research groups) or

alternative (control group)– Follow up on 3 baseline questions 1 week later – Data is for matched pairs only

Baseline Follow up % ∆

Research group 1 N= 11

45% 64% + 40%

Research group 2 (p/t) N = 16

63% 88% + 40%

Control group N = 13 62% 69% + 12.5%

Table 7.1: Percentage of Students Certain of Understanding (recording 4 or 5 on Likert scale): Opportunity Cost

Relative hubris among 2nd research group (age/ exp./ motivation?) Notable that % change matched & highest for research groups

Baseline Follow up % Δ

Research group 1 N = 11

81% 81% 0

Research group 2 p/t N = 16

N = 13

88%

77%

94%

77%

+ 7%

0

Table 7.2: % of Students giving correct definition: Opportunity Cost

Control group

Only research group 2 improved Students found question easier than anticipated

Baseline Follow up % Δ

Research group 1 N = 11

72% 81% +12.5%

Research group 2 p/t N = 16

Control groupN = 13

94%

62%

94%

69%

0

+12.5%

Table 7.3: % of students giving correct application: Opportunity Cost

Notable 1st research group & control had same % gain 2nd research group continued to be strongest in general

Baseline Follow up % ∆

Research group 1 N= 6

17% 50% + 200%

Research group 2 (p/t) N = 13

31% 85% + 175%

Control group N = 6 17% 50% + 200%

Table 7.4: Percentage of Students Certain of Understanding (recording 4 or 5 on Likert scale): Multiplier

Notably lower confidence re multiplier concept Again hubris for 2nd research group (p/t) Small numbers make % change difficult to interpret

Baseline Follow up % Δ

Research group 1 N = 6

50% 33% - 33%

Research group 2 p/t N = 13

Control groupN = 6

54%

50%

85%

83%

+ 57%

+ 40%

Table 7.5: % of Students giving correct definition: Multiplier

Equivalent performance across groups at baseline % change evidence mixed

Baseline Follow up % Δ

Research group 1 N = 6

0 33%

Research group 2 p/t N = 13

Control groupN = 6

54%

0

62%

17%

+ 14%

Table 7.6: % of students giving correct application: Multiplier

Evidence inconclusive 2nd research group did improve performance & stronger in general

(8) WinEcon survey• Indicates

– Students find WinEcon a useful learning aid – Links relatively easy to use

Source: ‘Embedding computer based learning and effective use of WinEcon and VLEs’ FDTL5 project, ‘WinEcon Survey’ for Year 1 Business students at Coventry, May 2007.

(9) Conclusion• Feasible to embed threshold concepts

using WinEcon• Students have improved access to

WinEcon outside labs• Teaching materials developed• Students’ understanding of TCs

inconclusive• Could extend using more groups and

threshold concepts

Bibliography

• Meyer J and Land R, (2002), ‘Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (1): linkages to ways of thinking and practicing within the disciplines’, ISL 2002 Conceptual Paper.

• Salami M, (2003) ‘Teaching Economic Literacy: Why, What and How', International Review of Economics Education, vol 4, issue 2.