An Investigation into the Application of Economics Threshold Concepts using WinEcon via a VLE for Business Students Economics Network Mini Project Mike.

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 weblinkshttp://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= 1145% 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 group

N = 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= 617% 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 group

N = 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 group

N = 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.