Spring 2008 ISSN 1096-1453 Issue 1Vol 12,

EditorJoAnn Danelo Barbour -Texas Woman's University

Copyright ({?author(s) andAcademicExchangeQuarterly.

Associate EditorsMaureen Connolly -Elmhurst College, ILDeborah Court -Bar-llan University, Israel

Manuscriptacceptance ratefor this issue is 20 %.

Academic Exchange,having readershipbase of over 25,000educators, has beenpublished since /997as a collaborativeeffort of educatorsfrom 760+ US andforeign collegesand universities.

This quarterly,the nation's leadingprovider ofteaching solutions.is dedicated tothe presentationof ideas. research.and methodsleading to effectiveinstruction andlearning regardlessof level or subject.

Feature E:ditorsJacqueline: Bach -Louisiana State UniversityK. Denise Bane -Bloomfield College, NJHefer Bernbenutty -Queens College, NYRichard T.. Boon -The University of GeorgiaVanessa Clomine -Montclair State University, NJCecil Fore -The University of GeorgiaJohn Garger -Metronome Computer Services, NYJeffrey Gerwing -Portland State University, OREugene W. Gotwalt -Sweet Briar College, V AAnnette Grady Greer -East Carolina University, NCMarjorie (-[all Haley -George Mason UniversityRebecca J~.cobson -Troy University, ALMargarita Jara -University of Nevada, Las VegasJames B. [I~elley -Mississippi State UniversityAlejandro Latinez -Sam Houston State University, TXHiroshi Matsumoto -Soka University of America, CaliforniaSusan Martin Meggs -East Carolina University, NCThalia M. IMulvihill -Ball State University, INJudith Hope Munter -University of Texas at EI PasoEvan T. Ol11ieb -Valdosta State University, GAMelinda R., Pierson -California State University, FullertonJulie Smith -Portland State University, ORDavid L. Stader -University of Texas at ArlingtonKristin K. :Stang -California State University, FullertonMartha L. Tapia -Berry College, GABen Varnelr -University of Northern Col6i"8doDavid L. \\{eiden -Indiana University-Purdue

Assistant I~ditorsStephen O. Fought -Air War College, ALBarbara Garii -State University of New York at Oswego, NYSusan Russell- The University of OklahomaLinda Shidller -Nova Sotheastem University, FL AEQ. owned and

operated by RIG.is edited/our timesa year in New York,USA

Consulting: EditorsWu He -01ld Dominion University, VAShin-ying Huang -National Taiwan Normal UniversityAaron S. Riichmond -Metropolitan State College of Denver

Editorial:Catalysts for Curricular Change / 4Teaching the Novel and Short Fiction / 6

Teaching Homer's Iliad through the Movie 300 / 7Kimberly K. Bell, Sam Houston State University, TX

Makinl~.Art Work / 12Patricia M. Ellis, Villa Julie College, MDAmanda G. HostaJka, Villa Julie College, MDAmanda (Mimi) Bory, Villa Julie College, MD

Cultural Portraits for Beginning Ethnographers / 17Cathy Kaufman, Indiana University of Pennsylvania ./

Problen~ :Based Learning in College Economics / 22 v'Thomas M. Smith, University of lJIinois at Chicago, IL~rason Ravitz, Buck Institute for Education, CA

Changing Our Students' Perception about Reading / 29Neva Cramer, Louisiana State University, LAEvan Ortlieb, Valdosta State University, GAEarl Cheek, Jr., Louisiana State University, LA

Does TiJme of Instruction Affect Student Learning? / 34Felix U. Kamuche, Morehouse College, GA

Generation Text and Social Technologies / 39Derek Greenfield, Shaw University, NC

OccupyiJl1g Divided Spaces: Two Gangster Writers / 46Katherine M. Schmidt, Western Oregon University

Ian McE'wan's Saturday: The Pre/Post-Modern Novel/51Sue Sorensen, Canadian Mennonite University

Learning Styles of Elementary Teacher Candidates / 56JRuth R. Kennedy, Bloomsburg University ofPennsy]vania

Chinese s:tudents' attitudes toward code-switching / 63~)hufen Huang, Texas A&M University, Texas~~ohreh Eslami, Texas A&M University, Texas

Interdisci]f'J.inary Health Care Attitudes / 68Crystal Lynn Duncan Lane, Virginia Tech, VADorothea Handron, East Carolina University, NC

The Status Quo of Latino Children's Literature / 73laura Chris Green, Texas A & M University -Commerce, TX

The Canon Issue in Ishmael Reed's Mumbo Jumbo / 78

Randy Laist, University of ConnecticutJ~:n:y Phillips, University of Connecticut

Teaching thc~ Novel in Context / 83P~un Whitfield, Rochester Community and Technical College, MN

Teachable Qualities of the Novel Beloved / 88Jaclyn Naster, Basehor-Linwood High Schoo], KS

Motivating Teenage Readers with Popular Magazines / 93Inm1acu]ee Harushimana, Lehman College, City University of New Yo~ NY

1Academic Exchange Quarterly - Sorin2 200R

Problem Based Learning in College Economics

Thomas M. Smith, University of Illinois at Chicago, ILJason Ravitz, Buck Institute for Education, CA

Copyright fQ 2008, author(s) and Academic Exchange Quarterly. No permission is given to copy,distribute or reproduce this article in any format without prior explicit written permission fromthe article's author(s) who hold exclusive right to impose usage fee or royalties. Smith, Ph.D.,is Clinical Assistant Professor and Assistant Director for the Center for Economics Education atUniversity of Illinois, Chicago; Ravitz, Ph.D., is Research Director at the Buck Institute forEducation in Novato, CA..

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to assess the impact of problem-based learning (PBL) in four sections ofprinciples of microeconomics at a large, urban, public university, in a course taught by twodifferent professors. In addition to providing an overall test of the effectiveness of thisinstructional approach for college level economics, this paper offers insights on design,implementation, outcomes, and teacher effects.

IntroductionThis research examines the extent to which a problem based learning (PBL) curriculumcombined with effective implementation by the instructor impact student understandingin economics. The study concludes that student understanding is not simply a functionof instructional approach, but depends on a combination of what is taught, how it istaught, who teaches it, as well as the alignment between the curriculum and theassessment pieces.

Problem based learning is a well-established approach to teaching and presentingmaterials that gives students a scenario and puts them in the position of having to solveproblems that lack a clear set of "correct" procedural solutions or answers. Theproblems are framed in the context of a particular subject, economics, for example, andpresented in conjunction with a set of core theories and models in that subject-supplyand demand, elasticity of demand, comparative advantage, monetary and fiscalpolicy-that must be understood to solve the problem. The students, individually or ingroups, must then use the discipline's core theories and models to solve the problem.Additional documents are given to the students as the problem progresses, addingconstraints or identifying unforeseen consequences of following a particular solution.The best problems have multiple possible solutions and require students to make anddefend choices based on their evolving understanding of the topic.

There is a large literature that examines pedagogical development, implementation, andeffectiveness of problem based curriculum. Hake (2005) indicates that this approachfits with an overall paradigm shift in higher education from "providing instruction" to"producing learning" that can stimulate reform in colleges and improve learning ofconceptually difficult topics. Bok (2005) agrees that "problem-based discussion, groupstudy, and other forms of active learning produce greater gains in critical thinking thanlectures..." Favorable student outcomes using PBL have been reported by Boaler(2002) who found differences in achievement in mathematics including solving avariety of types of problems to the extent that many more students in PBL schoolsscored at the top level on a national exam. Greer, Blumenfeld & Mark (2004) studiedPBL in science classrooms and found higher scores on statewide assessments andimproved content understanding and skills. One problem with evaluating outcomes isthat the benefits of problem based instruction are not just in acquisition of declarative

Spring 200822

Academic Exchange Quarterly -

knowledge but extend to the ability to apply knowledge skillfully (Dochy, Segers, Vanden Bossche & Gijbels, 2003). Other potential advantages of this approach includedevelopment of soft skills such as collaboration (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn,2006), better retention of learning (Ravitz & Mergendoller, 2005) and ability to transferlearning to new problems (Bransford and Schwartz, 1999)..

When assessing the effectiveness of PBL, it is important to consider both the design of thecumculum and the extent to which the instructor bad been trained in the content area anddelivery of PBL. Researcb shows that use of problem based learning can improve learning, butis difficult to implement weII without a knowledgeable teacher (David, 2008). Even the bestdesigned cumculum unit is far from "teacher proof', and it may take considerable expertise todeliver and facilitate effectively (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2006). PBL is a complex innovationthat depends on the instructor having acquired a mastery of both the content and the teachingmethodology (KoeIIner, Jacobs, Borko, Schneider, et al., 2007). Schmidt, Loyens, Van Gog, &Pass (2007) indicate that the lower the prior knowledge of students the more important theexpertise oftbe instructor. Because students generaIIy have very low prior knowledge of formaleconomics theory, we include an analysis of instructor effects in our study.

Problem Based EconomicsLittle research has been conducted concerning use of problem based learning ineconomics. The problems used in this study follow a common series of steps for eachEconomics unit, based on an adaptation of the medical school discussed by Maxwell,Bellisimo & Megendoller (2001).[1]

Most of the available research uses the same curriculum as the current study. Each unitstarts with an entry document that places the student in a position to enact policy (oradvise those who will enact policy) and then presents the student with a 'problem' tosolve. The students then formulate the 'problem statement' in the form: "How do weas... do... such that.. ." The students then identify what they know about the situationand what they need to know. It is this "need to know" framed by the problem thatmotivates or "anchors" learning. As students formulate solutions, additional documentsare added that present new information or "twists" in the problem, and benchmarklessons are presented by the instructor when students have developed a strong "need toknow". Students then craft their solutions in groups and present them in a writtendocument or in an oral argument. They then have to defend solutions in response tospecific questions that might be realistically posed by different stakeholder groups, witha debriefmg regarding alternative solutions and an assessment.

This approach is a pragmatic one that recognizes the need for extensive scaffolding andsupport. As argued by Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn (2006), well-designed PBLstands in contrast to discovery learning (Mayer, 2004) or minimally-guided instruction(Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006) which require students to discover principles andconcepts on their own. Mergendoller, Maxwell, and Bellisimo (2006) concluded thatthe curriculum in question was an effective tool when in the hands of trained teachers;while some teachers tended to be more effective with traditional instruction. Ravitz andMergendoller (2005) noted an increased retention of learning for students who weretaught using the curriculum, a difference shown on final exam scores. A Korean studyused a translated unit in an experiment involving one teacher who taught 6 classes; halfof the classes were randomly assigned to receive the unit or not. It appeared the unitwas more effective than traditional instruction methods in tenns of students acquiringknowledge and motivation, particularly for students identified as risk-takers rather thanrisk-avoiders (Mo & Choi, 2003). None of these studies involved use of the units at thecollege level.

23Academic Exchange Quarterly - Spring 2008

Data, Methodology and ModelThe data for this study were collected from of 178 students from four sections ofPrinciples of Microeconomics at the University of Illinois at Chicago in Fall 2005, astaught by two professors, including the first author of this study. Students weresurveyed to establish a core set of characteristics: age, gender, race, whether they hadstudied economics in high school, how many hours they planned to work per week at ajob during the semester, and how many college semester credit hours they werecurrently taking. The problem-based curriculum units (henceforth, referenced as thetreatment curriculum) focused on various microeconomic concepts, from supply anddemand to international trade. Each unit was presented during I Y2 to 2 weeks of classtime--anywhere from four to six 50-minute class periods. The treatment curriculumwas introduced to two of the four classes while a standard approach was used in theother two class sections. The methodology called for varying the treatment across thefour sections in the following format: section A would receive all four PBL units,Section B would receive the first half of the units, Section C would receive the otherhalf of the units and Section D would receive none of the units.[2] The four sectionswere then randomly assigned a letter, A, B, C or D.

The study design accounts for variation in student ability, curriculum treatment, andinstructor effectiveness. As shown in Table I, for most of the course there were twosections using the treatment curriculum and two sections using the standard curriculum.In addition, the two instructors changed sections frequently during the semester, so theywould be teaching at least one PBL section and one non-PBL section. The onlyexception was Topic Two, for which there was no curriculum treatment and only oneinstructor.

Table Teaching Assignments and Problem Based Learning Curriculum Use

Topic One:Supply &

Demand, TotalRevenue &

Profits

Topic Two:Market Forces:

Taxes & QuotasTopic Four:

ComparativeAdvantage

CLASSSECTION

Topic Three:Market Types:

PerfectCompetition &Monopolies

ProfesSOT

ProfesSOT

Professor

Professor

PBL PBLPBL PBL

Yes x 2 B YesA Yes A No AA

No YesB Yes A No A AB

Yes x 2 B NoNo A No Bc A

NoNo No B No AD B A

Note. There was no PBL unit specifically on market forces, so no PBL treatmentwas planned for Topic Two. Instead, two PBL units were used to teach Topic 3:Market Types. The original design called for Professor B to teach sections A and Bon Market Forces, but this changed due to an unexpected scheduling conflict.

Spring 200824

Academic Exchange Quarterly -

Measuring OutcomesThis research uses Ordinary Least-Squares (OLS). multiple regression. to measure therelationship between student and classroom characteristics and student outcomes. Themodel assesses the relationship of the achievement of each student in the differentmidterm exams. midterm exam subject areas and the final exam as a function ofpersonal characteristics. prior understanding of economics. exposure to the treatmentcurriculum and the instructor of record. The mathematical model is as follows:SCORE=A +BO(TUCE) + BI(PBL) + B2(Prof_A) + B3(Prof_A*PBL) + XiV + e.Tables with summary statistics of the independent and dependent variables. standardenors. and OLS estimates used in this analysis are available upon request.

Mid Term ResultsThe model used (see footnote 3) allows for the analysis of two separate effects-theimpact of the treatment curriculum (PBL) on the student's performance on a particularexam and the impact of the instructor (Professor A) on the student's performance on aparticular exam. Both of these impacts will be discussed below.

Overall, the impact of the treatment curriculum on the student's performance on themid term exams were mixed: students who were instructed using the PBL units scoredsignificantly higher on the first two midterms, underperformed non-treatment studentson the third midterm, and performed at the same level as non-PBL students on thefourth midterm. These results are shown in Table 2.

The beta coefficients in Table 2 are interpreted as the unique contribution of eachvariable in predicting student outcomes, after controlling for the other variables. Theycan also be interpreted as the marginal impact, i.e., the result of a one unit change in theindependent variable on the outcome measure. For example, the class section thatrec:eived PBL curriculum units prior to Midterm 1 outperformed their counterparts by5.72 points on the first midterm, after controlling for the independent variables. Out ofa possible high-score of 57 points this means students scored nearly 10% higher thanstudents who received non-PBL curriculum.

Table 2: Impact ofPBL on Student Outcomes: Midtenn ExamsDependent Variable: Score on Midtenn Exams

Midtenn J: Midtenn 4:"SuppJy & Midtenn 2: Midtenn 3: "ComparativeDemand" "Market Forces" "Market Types" Advantage"

5.72** -3.0] * (1.83) 2.78 (2.63)

25Academic Exchange Quarterly - Spring 2008

** indicates a statistically significant estimate (p < 0.05);* indicates a statistically significant estimate (0.05 ~ P < 0.10).

Variables: TUCE PRE is the raw score for the TUCE pre-test. PBL identifieswhether the corresponding PBL curriculum was used prior to each midterm exam:PROF A identifies if Professor A taught the section, and PROF A *PBL is aninteraction term identifying if Professor A taught the BIE PBL unit.

The treatment curriculum for period I was chosen because it directly related to topicscovered in the flrst assessment period (midterm 1). There was no treatment curriculumfor the second assess~ent period-midterm 2. However, the topics covered in thesecond assessment period were a continuation of the topics addressed in the fIrSt period.Although there was no treatment curriculum for the second assessment, the stllldents(Class A and Class B) who had received treatment curriculum in the prleviousinstruction period outperformed the other class sections by 13%, or approximaltely 8points (7.85 and 8.33 points), on the second midterm exam. This indicates that stilldentswho learned the concepts of supply and demand through the treatment curriculumdisplayed a transfer of knowledge.

The treatment curriculum for the third period consisted of two separate units rc~latingdirectly to types of markets--perfect competition and monopolies. The studentreceiving the treatment curriculum underperformed by 3 points (5 %) compared to thenon-treatment group. The students receiving the treatment curriculum in asse~;smentperiod 4 scored higher than non-treatment students--nearly 3 points-but not at astatistically significant level.

Professor EffectsAs mentioned, the experiment consisted of alternating both the curriculum aJod theinstructor throughout the four different class sections. Professor A had been trained inproblem-based curriculum instruction. Table 2 identifies the impact of being taught byProfessor A during each instructional period. Although there were no significantinstructor effects for midterm exam 1, midterm exam 2, or midterm 4, ther(: weresignificant positive effects for midterm 3. For the third assessment period, the studentsof Professor_A scored between 6 and 7 points higher, almost 15%, relative to the non-PBL students and those of the other instructor.

Final Exam ResultsThe final exam for the course was cumulative in nature, covering the materialspresented in the previous 15 weeks and tested through the four mid-term exams. Theimpact of curriculum and professor on [mal exam performance is shown in Tiible 3.The class sections that received half of the treatment curriculum outperformed the no-treatment sections by 4.42 points. The section that received all four treatmentcurriculum units outperformed the non-treatment group by 5.5 points. However,neither of these estimates were statistically significant.

26Academic Exchange Quarterly - Spring 2008

Table 3. Impact ofPBL on Student Achievement on the Final Exam,Overall and by Topic Area

** indicates a statistically significant estimate (p < 0.05)* indicates a statistically significant estimate (0.05 ~ P < 0.10).a: PBL Half=1 for class sections B and C; b: PBL Whole = 1Benchmark for PBL Half & PBL Whole is Class D = No PBL

for class section A

As with the midtenn results, the PBL sections perfonned higher on specific topicquestions. For example, students who received the PBL curriculum on supply anddemand scored 7 points higher than the non-PBL students on this topic on the finalexam, a statistically significant result. This suggests that the students who were taughtwith PBL curriculum retained their knowledge through the fmal exam better than theother students did.

DiscussionThis report identifies the relationship between curriculum, instruction and performance onmultiple assessment tools in four sections of college-level economics principles. The experimentwas set up in order to deliver different curriculum while revolving instructors throughout thesemester. We found mixed evidence regarding the effectiveness of problem-based curriculumand the role of the instructor. Students who received the first treatment curriculum performedmuch higher on the assessment than their counterparts. Additionally, these students displayed ahigher understanding in the continuation of the economic ideas covered in the first assessmentperiod. These students also displayed a higher level of understanding of these topics in the finalassessment. This result suggests that the use of problem-based learning curriculum helps both inthe transfer of leaning as well as the retention of learning.

Students who received the third treatment curriculum under-performed in the assessment relativeto the non-treatment group. The 'instructor' effects for this group, however, were quite large andsignificant. It appears that the third treatment curriculum was not very we" aligned to thestandard approach-the methodology and calculations used in the third PBL unit divergeconsiderably from how the text taught the subject. It is possible that the training of the professorwas sufficient in molding the curriculum effectively to match the approach used in the text.

In conclusion, the aim of this paper was to assess the impact of problem-based learning (PBL) infour sections of principles of microeconomics at a large, urban, public university as taught by twodifft:rent professors. The results of student outcomes suggest that students are impacted in whatis taught, how it is taught, who teaches it, and how welJ it aligns with what is expected to betaught and how it wilJ be assessed. It is not just the pedagogical approach that matters, but

27Acad~mic Exchange Quarterly -Spring 2008

effe(:tive use of that pedagogy by the instructors and alignment to the expected outcomes. As inprevious studies, it is a combination of these elements that results in effective instruction.

Endnotes[I] The curriculum being studied was developed by the Buck Institute for Education,

located in Novato, CA. Information is available at http://www.bie.org

[2] The first half of the units were High School Food Court and The Great A wakening.The second half were The Monopolies Might and The Might Strikes Back.

ReferencesBoaler, J. (2002): Learning from Teaching: Exploring the Relationship between Refonn

Curriculum and Equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(4), 239-258.Bok, D. (2005). Are colleges failing? Higher ed needs new lesson plans. Boston Globe,

December 18. Available: http://www.boston.corn/news/education/higher/articles/2005/ 12/18/are_colleges- failing/

Bransford, J. & Schwartz. D. (1999). Rethinking Transfer: A Simple Proposal withMultiple Implications, Review of Research in Education, 24, 61-10

David, J. (2008). What Research Says About Project Based Learning. EducationalLeadership, 65(6).

Dochy, F. Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P. & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533-568.

Greer, R. Blumenfeld, P, Marx, R. et at. (2004). Standardized test outcomes of urbanstudents participating in standards and project based science curricula. Proceedings of the 6thInternational Conference on Learning Sciences. Santa Monica, CA.

Hake, R. (2005). The Physics Education Refonn Effort: A Possible Model for HigherEducation? National Teaching and Learning Forum (NTLF) 15(1), Available:http://www.physics.indiana.edu/-hake/NTLF42.pd£

Hmelo-Silver, C.E. & Barrows, H.S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-basedlearning facilitator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 1,21-39.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2006). Scaffolding andachievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark.Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance DuringInstruction Does Not Work. Educational PsYchologist, 41 (2),75-86.

Koellner, K, Jacobs, J., Borko, H. Schneider, C., et al (2007). The Problem-SolvingCycle: A Model to Support the Development of Teachers' Professional Knowledge.Mathematical Thinking and Learning: An Intemational Journal, 9(3), 273-303.

Mayer, R. (1994). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?American PsYchologist, 59(1),14-19.

Maxwell, N., Bellisimo, Y. Megendoller, J. (2001). Problem Based Learning:Modifying the Medical Model for Teaching High School Economics. The Social Studies,Marchi April.

Mergendoller, J.R., Maxwell, N.L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). Published in TheInterdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, Volume I, Issue 2, pp. 49-69. Retrievedfrom http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/

Mo, K., & Choi, Y. (2003). Comparing problem-based learning with traditionalinstruction: Focus on high school economics. In Theory and Research in Citizenship Education,35(1),89-113. Published by the Association of Social Education in Korea (ISSN: 1598-7280).

Ravitz. J. & Mergendoller, J. (2005). Evaluating implementation and impacts ofproblem based economics in u.S. high schools. Annual Meetings of the American EducationalResearch Association. Montreal, Canada. Available: http://www.bie.org/files/Ravitz-Megendoller.pdf

Schmidt, H., Loyens, S., Van Gog, T. & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning iscompatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark(2006). Educational PsYchologist, 42(2).

28Academic Exchange Quarterly - Spring 2008