This article was downloaded by: [Lakehead University]On: 28 November 2014, At: 07:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

College TeachingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20

Reaction Papers Enrich Economics DiscussionsMark Pernecky aa Economics department , St. Olaf College in Northfield , Minnesota, USAPublished online: 09 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Mark Pernecky (1993) Reaction Papers Enrich Economics Discussions, College Teaching, 41:3, 89-91, DOI:10.1080/87567555.1993.9926785

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1993.9926785

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reaction Papers Enrich Economics

any professors are reluctant M to have a classroom discussion because they fear that it may not develop into an interesting and informa- tive dialogue. The major concern is that students “won’t discuss.” If students do not read the assigned materials or choose not to participate, the class may deteriorate into an uncomfortable “quasi-lecture” or a staring contest (Frederick 1981). Students may also make unconstructive or tangential points in a discussion (Frederick 1981), which will result in an inefficient use of class time (Cashin and McKnight 1986; Eble 1988). However, I have found that students can engage in useful discussion if, before the class, they write a reaction paper that summarizes and assesses the readings.

Guidelines for Reaction Papers There are a number of different

guidelines for papers. The open-ended format involves a brief summary of the assigned readings, as well as the stu- dent’s critical response. Students must hand in these papers at the beginning of the class in which the readings are discussed. I have found that distributing copies of an excellent example from the first group of papers helps students to understand the requirements, especially for open-ended reaction papers.

Mark Pemecky is an assistant pro- fessor in the economics department at St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota.

Mark Pernecky

In “directed reaction” papers, spe- cific questions on readings for the next class may be assigned (Greene 1991). Alternatively, I may ask for responses to specific questions on assigned read- ings at the beginning of the class, before the discussion (Frederick 1981), and use these responses during the discussion to garner participation.

In order for students concisely to summarize the main points, papers should be short: between one and three doubled-spaced typed pages. Students should also be encouraged to use proper writing conventions in order to foster improved writing.

Although I have used reaction papers in my principles of economics course, I have found that it is more useful to as- sign them mainly in sessions involving discussion. Stopping a lecture ten min- utes before the class is over to hold a discussion based on these papers is too constraining. Courses that contain a large amount of technical information, such as standard courses in the physical sciences or in mathematics, might face time constraints from using the discus- sion format, as well. However, all disci- plines can contain courses with a sizable writing component. If several sessions of the class can be devoted to discussing less technical issues, reaction papers would be very useful. For instance, the subject matter of the course can be put in historical context in a basic way, allowing for the use of reaction papers to generate an efficient discussion.

Or, the more philosophical approach to the subject can be taken, possibly ex- ploring the ethical implications of cer- tain issues, especially if they relate to current events. It is this approach that I take in my Economic Justice course. I assign reaction papers on the readings for every class period. Class time is mostly devoted to discussion in which we apply both the writings of econom- ists and philosophers to economic is- sues. (See table 1 for a summary of many of the readings.)

Some of the current questions that are analyzed with these philosophical and economic frameworks include: (1) How justified is the North American Free Trade Agreement when taking the “winners” and “losers” into account? (2) What is a fair solution to the contro- versy between supporters of both the spotted owl and old growth forests ver- sus the logging industry? (3) What, if any, restrictions should be placed on welfare payments to encourage birth control or work? (4) Should govern- mental support for health care be “ra- tioned”? ( 5 ) Should immigration policy be more restricted to those with needed skills? (6) Should the government be an “employer of last resort”? (7) Should there be a voucher system that includes both public and private education?

Methods of Evaluation I count each paper as a small fraction

of the total grade, about two percent. There are no make-ups allowed because

89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

57 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Table 1 .-Readings for Reaction Papers on Different Schools of Thought

Libertarians Utilitarians Marxists Welfare state Religious views

Philosop hers/econombts John Locke Jeremy Bentham Karl Marx John Rawls Bible Immanuel Kant John Stuart Mill Richard Edwards Arthur Okun St. Thomas Aquinas James Madison Amartya Sen Thomas Weisskopf John Hobson The Catholic bishops Robert Nozick Michael Reich Josk Profirio Miranda Milton Friedman Samuel Bowles

Major issues Government interven- Criteria for judging The role of work; The Progressivity of the in- Private property tion in the economy; social welfare; The nature of value; The come tax; The govern- Charity; Basic needs The relationship be- economic system that relation between the ment provision of basic tween democracy and maximizes social economic system and goods economic freedom in- welfare both the political cluding private system and the property rights classhace structure of

education

this would defeat the purpose of moti- vating discussions. However, the stu- dent could have more opportunities to write reaction papers than are required. For example, I allow twelve opportu- nities to write ten required papers over the semester.

Professors can use numbers, letter grades, or other symbols. For instance, I give a “check” for a weak effort, that is, if the student does not appear to have sufficiently read and considered the as- signed reading. A check counts for one percent out of a possible two percent. A check plus, or a full two percent, repre- sents a good effort in summarizing and critiquing the material. A zero is given if the paper is not handed in. I do not grade comprehension because the mate- rial has yet to be discussed in class when the paper is handed in. I also write sug- gestions on the papers about both writ- ing and content. Students who have completed the required papers may take advantage of the options to improve their grade. Early checks or zeroes may thus be replaced with higher grades.

Reaction papers do tend to improve over the semester. Standards vary, of course, as to what characterizes a good effort, and each professor will probably defme what constitutes a good effort before completing the evaluation of the first group of papers. Like the Supreme

Court’s ruling on obscenity, “You’ll know it when you see it.”

How Papers Aid Discussion Reaction papers improve discussions.

I have discovered that students do the assigned readings because they are graded on their effort in summarizing and critiquing them. They are more likely to participate because they have done the reading and because they have summarized and critiqued the material in writing (McKeachie 1986; Strode 1991). Furthermore, the act of writing strengthens their understanding and re- tention of the material, as well as crit- ical thinking (Brent and Felder 1992; Ebie 1988; Kraft 1990; Strode 1991; Tomlinson 1990, Wood 1984).

Thus, students enhance their prepara- tion for answering a variety of ques- tions. For instance, because of the sum- maries, students are better able to an- swer simple lower-level questions, those that ask for recollection or simple appli- cation. Furthermore, by writing down their reaction to the readings before the discussion, students improve their abil- ity to answer higher-level questions. These questions require complex appli- cations or assessments and may pro- mote a variety of responses (Cashin and McKnight 1986). Students often volun- teer comments to try to discover during

class the professor’s assessment of what they wrote in their paper.

A specific example of a reaction pa- per may be useful. The following paper, which was assigned for my “Economic Justice” class, addresses excerpts from John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice. The reaction paper, written by a first-year student, is printed in its entirety.

It seems imperative to Rawls’s presenta- tion of his argument that one accepts his principles of justice. His fwst principle, that of greatest equal liberty requires that all basic liberties be distributed equally. These include the right to participate in the political process (right to vote and run for office). You must be eighteen to vote. This seems a temble way to allocate this right. Just because you have lived eighteen years does not mean you value the right, can perform in an educated fashion, and therefore deserve the right. Many people under the age of eighteen should be able to vote based on their knowledge of and con- cern for the actions of this country. Some who are eighteen or older know so little about the country that they could be ex- ploited under their ignorance to vote for a candidate who would clearly be detrimen- tal to the workings of community. Fur- thermore, convicted felons cannot vote or hold office. In a redistributive society, all of these primary goods must be distrib- uted almost constantly to suppress in- equality. Does this mean, since in Rawls’s redistributive form of justice, that these felons should be given these primary goods back?

90 COLLEGE TEACHING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

57 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Rawls’s two-part second principle has its problems as well. If social and eco- nomic inequalities are arranged so they benefit the least advantaged, the more ad- vantaged will have to be punished. If the money my parents set aside for my educa- tion (since they come from educated back- grounds, I am one of the more advan- taged) is taken to be used to educate some- one who is one of the least advantaged, I become one of the least advantaged. This is worse than the crude “eye-for-an-eye” form of biblical justice. It is like saying-“since I don’t have an eye, I de- serve yours.” Furthermore, I don’t see how this could work since my parents’ right to free property under the principle of greatest equal liberty (Lexically number one) would necessarily have to be violated to cany this out. Along these lines the sec- ond part of the principle could not be canied out. If I, as a proprietor, have to pay for the training of those who cannot afford it before considering anyone for a position, this (besides being grossly ineffi- cient) infringes on my rights of private property. The Supreme Court made a rul- ing along these lines in 1923 citing the Fifth Amendment as reason to abolish the frst minimum wage.

One point I did find interesting was his theory on moral judgements. He construes that under a “veil of ignorance” and total equality, all humans would make nearly the same moral principles. This seems true up to a point, but I find it difficult to be- lieve. With all the genetic differences in humans, I don’t see how all of us could come up with the same “rules.” Also it seems to have an extremely limited appli- cation to real society.

This paper has a number of faults that are common for first-year students and for the challenging material as- signed. First, the grammar and word choice are obviously flawed in a number of instances. Second, the student does not have a complete grasp of the mate- rial. For instance, the student does not correctly apply the “difference princi- ple,” maximizing the position of the least advantaged group, to his own fam- ily’s circumstances. He does raise the standard critique of questioning the im- portance of hypothetical philosophical frameworks but seems to require fur- ther help in understanding how Rawls’s “original position” and rules of justice could have important applications (Rawls 1971).

However, the student obviously did do the reading. He also considered the major points made by Rawls. Further-

more, this student contributed greatly to the discussion. The reading did pro- voke him. His paper develops some in- teresting critical responses, such as his consideration of the ability of ignorant people and felons to vote, the question of equating revenge with justice, the tension between preserving opportuni- ties for the more affluent while raising the disadvantaged, and the uniformity of rational principles of justice.

If he had written a masterful assess- ment and reaction to the readings in this paper, there would have been no need for me! Furthermore, his writing did improve over the semester, and he con- tributed well to class discussion on this day. He thus fulfilled the primary ob- jectives of the reaction paper. I gave him a check plus on the paper, noting the problems with content mentioned above, as well as the proper interpreta- tions. I also suggested style and gram- matical improvements.

Students as Intellectuals There are benefits from reaction pa-

pers other than those that improve dis- cussion. First, the corrected papers are helpful in studying for exams. Second, this format in which there are many short assignments is especially useful in developing writing skills (Tomlinson 1990). Also, the role of the teacher as an intellectual is replicated; now students must glean, organize, and critique the important ideas from a body of infor- mation, especially in open-ended reac- tion papers. I have found that many students feel that they do not have any- thing important to add to a conversa- tion because they fear that they are not sufficiently intellectual, but they are now emboldened to participate because they have engaged their intellectual abil- ities in writing the reaction paper (Tom- linson 1990; Zinsser 1988). Finally, ef- fort, not performance, determines the grade. Although parents may tell their children, “Just as long as you do your best,” grades usually are based on per- formance. Students benefit from a di- versity of evaluations.

Students’ responses to reaction pa- pers have been positive, in general. A few who would do the reading and en- gage in discussion without these assign-

ments have found reaction papers to be “busy work.” But others have com- mented that they would not have done the readings without this type of assign- ment. Most have enjoyed the chance to become more actively involved in class and recognize the contribution that re- action papers make.

With the use of reaction papers to en- rich discussion, students have demon- strated greater interest in the class and more understanding of the material. Other professors who have used reac- tion papers because of my urging have had similar positive results.

NOTE An earlier version of this paper was

presented at the twentieth annual conference of the International Society for Exploring Teaching Alternatives, October 4, 1991. Pro- fessor Jack Pernecky (Northwestern Univer- sity) provided helpful comments. The author is responsible for all errors.

REFERENCES Brent, R. and R. Felder. 1992. Writing

assignments: Pathways to connections, clarity, creativity. College Teaching 40(2): 43-47.

Cashin, E., W. and P. Mcknight. 1986. Im- proving discussions. IDEA paper no. 15. Classroom communication: Collected readings for effective dkusion and ques- tioning, edited by R. Neff and M. Wei- mer, 3 3 4 .

Eble, K. 1988. The crqft of teaching. 2d ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Frederick, P. 1981. The dreaded discussion: Ten ways to start. College Teaching, 29(3): 109-114, In Clmroom communica- tion: Collected readings for effmtive dimmion and questioning, edited by R. Neff and M. Weimer, 9-16.

Greene, J. 1991. Making students think. The Teaching Profior , 5(8): 1-2.

Kraft, R. 1990. Writing to learn. The Teach- ing Profior , 4(3): 1-2.

McKeachie, W. 1986. Teaching tip: A guidebook for the beginning college teacher. 8th ed. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath.

Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cam- bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Strode, C. 1991. Writing as a tool for learn- ing. I m e s and Inquiry in College Learn- ing and Teaching 15(2): 46-59.

Tomlinson, S. 1990. Writing to learn: Back to another basic. In The changing face of college teaching, edited by M. D. Svinicki,

Wood, N. 1984. Improving reading. New

Zinsser. W. 1988. Writing to learn. New

31-38. San Francisco: Jo~ey-Bass.

York: CBS College Publications.

York: Harper & Row.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

57 2

8 N

ovem

ber

2014