This website uses cookies.

By clicking the "Accept" button or continuing to browse our site, you agree to first-party and session-only cookies being stored on your device to enhance site navigation and analyze site performance and traffic. For more information on our use of cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  1. Home
  2. ASSA Annual Meeting
  3. 2022
  4. Preliminary Program
  5. Targeting Economic Literacy: What Should Go into the Only Economics Course Students Will Ever Take?
« Back to Results

Targeting Economic Literacy: What Should Go into the Only Economics Course Students Will Ever Take?

Paper Session

Saturday, Jan. 8, 2022 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM (EST)

Hosted By: American Economic Association & Committee on Economic Education
  • Chair: Wendy Stock, Montana State University

What Do We Want Principles Students To (Know and) Be Able to Do: Learning Outcomes, Content and Competencies

Avi J. Cohen
,
York University and University of Toronto

Abstract

What are the implications when learning objectives shift focus from content – what students should know – to competencies – what students should be able to do with the content? While Hansen (1986, 2001) pioneered in economics an emphasis on student proficiencies/competencies, their profile increased with the Measuring College Learning Project. Algood and Bayer (2016, 2017) are at the forefront of identifying competencies, as well as content, for undergraduate economics students at all levels. Widespread adoption of the backward-design model (Wiggins and McTighe 2008) has made competencies foundational in course learning objectives for pedagogically sound courses, whether in-person or online.

The literacy-targeted focus on “one-and-done” students aligns well with an increased emphasis on competencies as opposed to content. If principles is the only economics course students will ever take, what do we want students to be able to do with that knowledge and training for the rest of their lives? Scattered papers have identified content topics to include and exclude in a literacy-targeted course (Hansen, Salemi, and Siegfried 2002; Salemi 2005; Colander and McGoldrick 2009). This paper surveys that literature and more importantly, integrates the recent growing literature on the essential competencies principles students should have.

Cognitive Science Teaching Strategies and Literacy-Targeted Economics Complementarities

William L. Goffe
,
Pennsylvania State University
Scott Wolla
,
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Abstract

The economic literacy or literacy targeted (LT) approach argues that it is far more valuable for students to learn and be able to apply core economic concepts well, than to be exposed to a wide range of concepts they will not master and therefore will soon forget. This approach seeks to equip students with the content and skills they need to make sense of, and succeed in, their world. This aim to create "economically literate" students who learn to "think like an economist" lines up well with the strategies such as spacing and interleaving that cognitive scientists suggest increases the likelihood that knowledge is learned, transferred, and used to think critically about the world. This paper will argue that LT courses are well suited to cognitive learning and teaching strategies because LT content focuses on fewer core concepts and applies them in a variety of contexts. This paper will include specific classroom examples using introductory level LT economic content to ensure that cognitive practices are easily transferred and applied in the classroom. In addition, this paper will recommend specific research-driven strategies that instructors can easily implement in small or large economics classes to leverage the LT approach.

How Literacy-Targeted Principles Can Improve Diversity, Inclusiveness and Student Interest

Ebonya Washington
,
Yale University
Gary Hoover
,
Tulane University

Abstract

Economics has a well-documented problem with diversity. Literacy-targeted courses designed for a broader spectrum of students have the potential to address the underrepresentation of women and other minorities in our discipline. While much of the literature about diversity and textbooks is about representation of URM in textbooks (such as Stevenson and Zlotnik, 2018), there is a growing realization that content matters as well. Bayer and Rouse (2016, p. 226) highlights the perceived lack of interest among undergraduate women in economics as currently taught, while Bayer and Wilcox ( 2019, p. 311) argue for a literacy- targeted approach with active learning – "construct curricula around teaching core competencies in economics (e.g., Allgood and Bayer 2017 ); emphasizing skills over laundry lists of concepts and content is integral to learning economics and allows more nuanced investigation of substantive economic issues. Taking these steps could improve even otherwise innovative new courses and help them generate and sustain broader appeal." This paper will address specific content and concepts in the economics curriculum (using the LT approach) where classroom discussions and data can be leveraged to be more inclusive, and to address issues of racism and discrimination in the classroom.

How Do We Measure Success in a Literacy-Targeted Course? Developing Scalable Assessments

Mark Maier
,
Glendale Community College
Phil Ruder
,
Pacific University

Abstract

Measuring student capacities to do is much more difficult and time-consuming than testing the content we want students to know. Successful LT courses must develop scalable assessments that align with the course learning objectives. How do we develop those assessments? How can technology and campus-wide resources help with scalability? (Archibong, Dekker, Grawe, Olney, Rutz, Weiman 2017). With the goal of reducing costs for instructors considering an LT course, this paper will bring perspectives from economics, cognitive science, and other disciplines regarding the importance of transfer of understanding (i.e., assessing students' ability to do economics vs. assessing their knowledge of economics), will collate examples of existing assessments and evidence (if any) of their effectiveness, and will provide a template for creating assessments of capacities. The empirical studies comparing students in LT and conventional principles courses have focused on performance in intermediate micro and macro theory courses (Gilleski and Salemi 2012; Benjamin, Cohen, Hamilton 2020). An equally, if not more important, empirical question is measuring and comparing the lasting benefits for one-and-done students from LT versus conventional principles courses. This paper will begin to address that task.
JEL Classifications
  • A2 - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics