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.