Teaching Economics at the Start of the 21st Century: Still Chalk and Talk

In spring 2000, we conducted a national survey of academic economists to determine how economics is taught in four different types of undergraduate courses (Principles, Intermediate Theory, Statistics and Econometrics, and other upper-division courses) at institutions in the five Carnegie classifications (research, doctoral, master’s, baccalaureate, and associate), as listed in A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 1994 Edition. This new survey replicates our 1995 survey (Becker and Watts, 1996). Therefore, we can compare the results from the two surveys to document changes in teaching methods, as well as the related academic issues that were addressed in the background information section of the surveys. A key reason for believing that teaching methods might have changed during this period was the sharp decrease in economics enrollments during the early 1990’s (Becker, 1997; John Siegfried and David K. Round, 2001). As we have documented elsewhere (Becker and Watts, 1998), there is evidence that economists are less likely to use non-lecture teaching methods than instructors in other fields, and that students rate economics instructors somewhat lower than they rate other instructors. Changing teaching methods and increasing the importance of teaching within economics departments, in response to falling enrollments, is therefore a plausible and endogenous response for faculty members and departments concerned about losing resources. Furthermore, there is at least circumstantial evidence that economists are devoting more attention to teaching than in the recent past (Becker, 2000). Since our 1995 survey, several books have been published to illustrate how economists can use a wide range of alternative teaching methods in undergraduate courses (e.g., Becker and Watts, 1998; William Walstad and Philip Saunders, 1998). Other books have appeared focusing on specific teaching methods, such as using classroom experiments, spreadsheet applications, or active-learning and cooperative-learning assignments (e.g., Diane Keenan and Mark H. Maier, 1995; Tod S. Porter and Teresa Riley, 1995; Theodore Bergstrom and John H. Miller, 1997; Denise Hazlett, 1999). Becker (2000) documents the increase in AEA sessions devoted to teaching economics at the annual meetings of the Allied Social Sciences Association during the mid-1990’s. At the 1998–2000 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) meetings the number of sessions devoted to teaching economics ranged from 11 to 14, and presented sessions dealt with such topics as teaching economics in the transition economies (chaired by World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz), a retrospective on Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson’s principles textbook, how faculty advisors can deal with student apprehensiveness about taking economics courses, and teaching business economics (chaired by Nobel laureate Ronald Coase). As recently as the 1996 ASSA meetings in San Francisco there were only six sessions on teaching economics, and at the 1994 meetings in Boston there were only four such sessions. Similarly small numbers of sessions were scheduled through the 1980’s. Here we ask whether any increased emphasis on teaching in economics departments has led to changes in how economics is taught. Do academic economists report that they are now * Becker: Department of Economics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 (e-mail: beckerw@indiana.edu), and Adjunct Professor, School of International Business, University of South Australia; Watts: Department of Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47905 (e-mail: bfp@mgmt.purdue.edu). We thank Julia K. Huffer, Kevin M. Green, Siddhartha Kapoor, Chatchai Meteveravong, Alexandre Skiba, and Suzanne Becker for help in the mailing, data entry and tabulation, and preparing of this paper. Financial support from the Purdue University Center for International Business Education and Research, University of South Australia School of International Business, and the National Council on Economic Education through its sponsorship of the Journal of Economic Education is gratefully acknowledged.