Active Learning in Economics: A Brief Survey for Japan’s
Educators
MORITA Tamaki*

YAMAMOTO Kimika**
Abstract

Active learning (AL) in economics has begun to be applied in Japanese higher education but still in the trial
and error phase. In other countries, especially in the United States, however, AL has recently been applied toeconomics courses and an overwhelming amount of statistical analyses on its effect has been accumulated.
We review the literature and introduce these studies to Japan’s economics educators who are seeking to adopt
appropriate methods of AL in their courses. We found that collaborative learning is sometimes effective in
helping students achieve higher grades, especially in small enrollment classes, and well-designed flipped learning
works even in large enrollment class. We found other methods introduced here (experiments, online teaching,service learning, writing assignments, and just-in-time teaching) should be treated with care.
Key words: Active learning, Economics education.

1

Introduction

talk” approach and only a few studies investigate theActive learning (AL) that let students learn byeffect of AL methods. For instance, Tatsumi (2012)

acting more than just listening to the lectures has

measured the effect of second-year undergraduate

begun to be adopted in Japanese higher education.

microeconomics and macroeconomics exercise

Japan’s traditional classes in higher education involve

courses and found that these courses are successful

the instructor only giving lectures to students during

in increasing the students’ understanding ofclass hours. Students merely passively listen to themicroeconomics and macroeconomics.

lecture, neither expressing their opinions nor asking

However, in other countries, especially in thequestions. Some instructors do not even welcome

United States (US), AL has recently been applied toquestions during class. The Ministry of Education,

economics courses and an overwhelming amount ofCulture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)

statistical analyses on its effect has been accumulated.

began allowing universities and colleges to introduce

This article focuses on introducing these studies and

AL in 2012 to support students’ vocational andproviding some suggestions for Japanese economics

social independence. Instead of traditional lectures,instructors to adopt AL effectively.

AL should be the essential tool for universities and2colleges to enhance the quality of education and for

Active Learning in General

students to learn more effectively (MEXT 2012).

The definition of AL is not unique. Bonwell andHowever, for most Japanese universities and colleges,

Eison (1991) examined John Dewey’s definition of

AL is still in the trial-and-error phase.

learning as “something an individual does when he

Among the various disciplines in Japan’s higher

studies. It is an active, personally conducted affair”

education, economics is one where instructors(Dewey, 1924, p. 390). The current concept of AL isprefer the standard lecture-oriented “chalk-and-summarized by Eison and Bonwell (1988) and Bonwell***

Department of Policy Studies, Yamanashi Prefectural University
Faculty of Business Administration, Josai University− 57 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No. 12（2017）(2000) as “in the context of the college classroom, ALof recognizing its drawbacks like high workload, theinvolves students in doing things and thinking about

limited quality of interaction, as well as uncertainty

the things they are doing.” More precisely, according

about the ownership and assessment issues. It also

to the University of Michigan Center for Research on

poses threats, which include the difficulty of ensuring

Learning and Teaching (2016), “Active learning is a

support and reliability of the applications and theprocess whereby students engage in activities, such as

implications of their illegitimate use.

reading, writing, discussion, or problem solving that

What about the effect of AL in the discipline ofpromote analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of classeconomics? Is AL valuable for economics education?

content. Cooperative learning, problem-based learning,
and the use of case methods and simulations are some3

approaches that promote AL.”

Active Learning in Economics
We can find that the ratio of AL used inSome disciplines utilize AL effectively. In

economics courses had been low until recently evenlanguage teaching, methods used in AL have beenin the US. In 1980, only 38% of the 538 colleges andapplied long before its name became popular. In

universities in the US used one of these innovative

science, McConnell (2003), through a literatureteaching methods: computer-assisted methods (e.g.,survey, found the benefits of AL in improving

games and simulation), computer-managed instruction

students’ attitudes toward science and found increases(or personalized system of instruction), self-paced

in standardized test scores. A meta-analysis of 225

instruction, programmed learning, case study method,

studies in the field of science, technology, engineering,or television or other audio-visual equipment (Sweeney

and mathematics (STEM) by Freeman et al. (2014)

et al., 1983). About fifteen years later, Benzing andsuggested that AL is the preferred, empirically

Christ’s (1997) open-question survey with economics

validated teaching practice in regular classrooms. They

instructors indicated that some instructors had begun

revealed that average examination scores improved byto change their teaching methods to include more

approximately 6% in AL sections and those students infaculty–student interaction. In the 2000s, the use of ALclasses with traditional lecturing were 1.5 times more

was recommended by, for instance, Hansen et al. (2002)

likely to fail than those with AL. Across the STEM

who bemoaned the low economic literacy of American

disciplines, AL increases scores on concept inventories

economics students. He advised economics instructors

more than on course examinations and it also appears

to lecture less, use active learning, and focus oneffective across all class sizes.

problems, issues, and policies. Other consecutive

In contrast, Oppenheimer (2003) warned thatsurveys of mainly the members of the American

the tendency of using technology in education would

Economic Association about teaching and assessment

diminish rather than enhance creativity. He describes

methods in various undergraduate economics courses

students in lower and higher school as follows:

were conducted in 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010 in“America’s students, as will be seen, have become a

the US (Siegfried et al., 1996; Becker and Watts,

distracted lot. Their attention span―one of the most

1996; Becker and Watts, 1999; Becker and Watts,

important intellectual capacities anyone can possess―

2001; Watts and Becker, 2008; Salemi and Walstad,shows numerous signs of diminishing. Their ability to

2010; Watts and Schaur, 2011). They all showed thatreason, to listen, to feel empathy, among other things,

most economics instructors choose to teach using theis quite literally flickering” (p. xx). Focusing on the

traditional chalk-and-talk style.

use of social networking software in higher education,

In recent times, Allgood et al. (2015) summarized

Schroeder et al. (2010) stressed on the importancethe main research findings about teaching economics− 58 −

Active Learning in Economics: A Brief Survey for Japan’s Educators

to undergraduates by reviewing the literature sincewith a grade incentive for voluntary participation

Becker’s (1997) literature survey. In Chapter 5 of theirincreased a student’s letter grade by one-third.

review, “Alternative Teaching Methods and Practices,”

Some instructors adopted a collaborative learning

Allgood et al. introduced literature that describes

lab component (CLL)ⅰ in their classes. Moore (1998)

how faculty members can use interactive teaching

showed how most of the 176 CLL students found themethods (e.g., Becker and Watts, 1998; Salemi and

CLL very worthwhile, enjoyable, and helpful, but

Hansen, 2005; Becker, Watts, and Becker, 2006). We

there was no strong pattern between student responses

investigate those and other studies to highlight lessons

and their final grade in the course. In the case of CLL,

Japanese instructors can learn to provide effective AL

the effect depends on class size and small classes arein economics. Among the diverse AL methods, wereported to be better. Brooks and Khandker (2002)

focus on collaborative learning, experiments, online

divided 95 enrollees in a microeconomics class into

teaching, service learning, flipped learning, and two

three groups: with large in-class CLL (48 students),

other methods.

with small in-class CLL (24 students), and without inclass CLL. The authors found that student attending

3.1 Collaborative Learninga large in-class CLL got better test scores than thoseSome of the forms of AL are collaborative learning

without an in-class CLL but significantly worse thanand cooperative learning. Collaborative learning is

those with a small in-class CLL students.

such that, by discussing and exploring problems withJohnston et al. (2000) took a collaborative,

each other inside and outside of class, students can

problem-solving (CPS) approach in the second

learn how to connect the concepts and their knowledge

semester of a second-year university macroeconomics

at a deeper level. Cooperative learning is a kind ofcourse in 1995. Just like Moore’s result, althoughcollaborative learning, which is a structured form ofstudents liked the collaborative activity, it did notgroup work where students pursue common goals

increase exam grades or interest in economics.

while being assessed individually (Millis and Cottell,

There is a study that shows cooperative learning is

1998). A supplementary method of collaborative

valid for students’ grade but not for attitudes. Yamariklearning is peer tutoring whose role is to encourage(2007) compared the results of an intermediate

students’ interaction, teaching each other, solving themacroeconomic course using cooperative learning andproblems themselves, and explaining the point to theira traditional lecture. Controlling for the endogeneity ofpeers.

attendance, he found that students in the cooperative

In economics classes, the empirical results ofexperimental group scored five to six points higher

the effect of collaborative learning and cooperativeout of a possible 200 points but that there were nolearning are negligible or positive depending on themeaningful differences between the two groups on

method and outcome measured.

other outcomes such as attendance or student attitudes

Huynh et al. (2010) explored the presence(interest, preparation, participation).

of a noticeable difference between students in a

Marburger (2005) found that students

collaborative learning class and those in a non-

who worked in cooperative learning groups did

collaborative learning class by conducting a quasi-

significantly better than those in a lecture class in theirrandomized experiment. They concluded that there

ability to analyze and apply economic theory to casewas strong positive connection between collaborative

studies, which requires deeper level learning ability.

learning and academic performance, and reported that

However, there was no difference between students

the use of collaborative learning in a principles coursein either type of class on a multiple-choice exam.

− 59 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No. 12（2017）

Bartlett (2006) found that a combination of lectures

effects and do not support the experts’ general advice

and the use of cooperative learning for introductoryon how to form teams.

macroeconomics and microeconomics courses makestudents accountable to what they were learning.

From these studies, it becomes evident that thecausal relation between collaborative learning andSome evidence is available on how peer

academic performance is not always clear. Sometutoring can be an effective way to increase student

find that a relationship exists while others do not.

achievement. Munley, Garvey, and McConnell

However, class-size is essential in collaborative(2010) studied the effects of peer tutoring acrosslearning. As Brooks and Khandker suggest, small classdifferent subjects, including economics, and foundcollaborative learning might have a positive effect onthat participation in such a tutoring program increased

students’ academic performance. Peer tutoring also

grades by one-third of a letter grade if the student

affects the grade positively. Group composition does

participated for ten to twenty hours over the course of

not seem to have much effects, and instructors do nota 14-weeksemester, which is something akin to one

have to worry about the way they form teams.

hour per week.

3.2

Other styles of collaborative learning include

Experiments

peer-assisted recitation classes that utilizes peer-

Experiments in economics comprise of a variety

tutoring. Stock et al. (2013) examined the impacts ofof tools like games, case studies, simulation models,enrollment in a voluntary one-credit recitation classdemonstration routines, and so on. These tools require

for fundamental economics students. Undergraduate

students’ active participation and stimulate their skills

p e e r l e a d e r s w i t h e x p e r i e n c e i n u p p e r- l e v e lto adapt economic theory to real-world situations.

microeconomics taught the recitation classes. Instead

Students prefer experiments. Hawtrey (2007)of being paid, the peer leaders enrolled in a three-showed that, among an Australian economics cohort

credit course focused on examining research onof 500 third-year undergraduate finance students,

economics pedagogy. The authors’ estimates indicate

sixty percent said experimental learning is importantthat the recitation class students earned higher final

or very important. They not only prefer whengrades than their counterparts in the same fundamental

experimental learning techniques are incorporated

economics course did. In addition, those who enrolled

but also benefit through higher knowledge retention.

in the recitation class were no more likely to drop theMoreover, Emerson and Taylor (2004) mention thatcourse than their counterparts who did not enroll in thein the students’ evaluations of instructors and courses,

recitation class.

“assignments contributed to my understanding of the

In collaborative learning, group composition ina class seems to affect the students’ performance, butcourse content” are higher in the experiments groupthan in the non-experiments group.

a study shows it has no significant impact. Moore

Gremmen and Potters (1997) and Gramlich and(2011) examined whether the characteristics of theGreenlee (1993) found a slight positive relationshipsmall, semi-permanent team to which an introductory

between what students think they learn and their grade.

economics student was randomly assigned affected theWhile experiments do not improve test scores, they are

student’s performance on an identical final exam in

found to improve other student attributes. Cartwrighteight sections of a principles course over three years,

and Stepanova (2012) paid attention to students’holding individual student characteristics the same.

attendance and/or writing reports. Students selected

The results are encouraging in how they show that

two topics out of ten and wrote a report. The course

peer effects from such group characteristics have weak

test they then took had all the 10 topics. The students− 60 −

Active Learning in Economics: A Brief Survey for Japan’s Educators

got 50% higher mark on topics on which they wrote anow, however, we have not seen markedly positive

report.

effects of online teaching.

Moreover, it seems that incentives play key roles

Simkins (1999) introduced two cases suitablein experiments but do not help augment students’for independent learning: one was a simulation of theperformance. Dickie (2006) added incentives forFederal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC)

those who participated in the games in the experiment

designed as a collaborative exerciseⅲ, and the otherclasses; if he or she succeeded, they would earn

was a web-based financial market where students

five points on their grade. The result was that gradeuse real money accounts to buy and sell futuresincentives had a negative influence on scores, i.e., thecontractsⅳ. In the former, Simkins found that using

experiment group without incentives achieved higher

the web provides greater flexibility in implementing

grades in TUCE (the Test of Understanding in College

the activity, greatly increases the ease of obtainingⅱ

Economics ).

information, and allows new opportunities for out-of-

However, Emerson and Taylor (2004) insistedclass student collaboration. In the latter, by integratingthat their results proved experimental learning is useful

the web-based market into classroom discussion andfor improving students’ scores in TUCE. Cardell etcourse assignments throughout the course, studentsal. (1996) also found students in experiment classes

were able to analyze these price changes using

achieve higher TUCE scores. They compared students’demand/supply analysis. Unfortunately, he did notscores before and after introduction of experimental

qualitatively analyze the effect of this learning.

learning in Denison University and Washington State

Adding the supplemental materials such as

University, where the experiment and non-experiment

web pages and supplemental online quizzes did notclasses were prepared.

improve student performance on exams and out-of-

As described above, experimental learning mightclass use of technology did not increase student scores

be preferred and accepted favorable among students,

in Harter and Harter (2004)ⅴ. Duarte (2015) showed

and have an effect on their attitude. However, as forthat students find blogging to be a useful learning tool

their grade, the results differ among literature. As

and that blogs could be used effectively to support

Gremmen and Potters and Gramlich and Greenlee

learning activities for longer than one semester based

pointed out, students’ evaluation and their grade doon the blog’s visitor statistics and feedback. However,not correspond. The efficacy of experiments should be

its ability to build and sustain a sense of community

explored further.

was not as strong as expected. Students were morepositive about the use of the blog as an information

3.3 Online Teaching and Learningand promotional tool to share marketing news and

The number of undergraduate students in theinformation and publicize the degree rather than for

US taking online classes has increased significantly

community building. Moreover, although the majority

over the past decade. According to survey data forof students thought the system was helpful for sharing

2003–2004 from the US National Center for Education

discipline-related knowledge and information, they

Statistics (NCES) (2015), 15.6% students were taking

were reluctant to participate in a regular and active

some distance or online classes and, in 2011–2012,

way by posting. To increase the participation levels,

the ratio rose to 32.0%. The trend of online classes

the grading system should be tailored.

in economics departments shows a similar trend. In

Two systems have been developed for online use.

this circumstance, online courses in economics have

One is the Personal Response System (PRS) ⅵ andbecome an important part of student learning. Until

the other is the Wireless Interactive Teaching System− 61 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No. 12（2017）(WITS) ⅶ. Elliot (2003) discussed advantages andlectures to fit the reduced class time for students to

disadvantages of the PRS when used in group-teaching

make more use of the lecture slides, online material,

scenarios and showed the PRS was ineffective. She

and faculty-produced videos, and the traditional

reported the results of a trial use of the technology in asection where these professors gave lectures forsecond-year undergraduate microeconomics principles

the entire duration of the class time. The principal

course. She suggested further study of PRS because

differences between the two formats were the amountit may be easily adopted as a teaching method forof contact that students had with their course professor

theoretical and quantitative material in economics,

and classmates, the tempo of learning required during

though she is not yet certain about its value in more

the lectures, and the amount of class time available fordiscursive and contentious subjects. In contrast, WITS

questions. Through statistically robust experiments,

has strong effect to the student performance in Ball

Joyce et al. found that students in the traditional

et al. (2006) who developed it. Ball et al. report thelecture format did modestly better than those in the

results of a controlled experiment to test the impact

hybrid version for an introductory microeconomics

of WITS-facilitated AL exercises in an 80-personclass. Brown and Liedholm (2002) also comparedprinciples of microeconomics class. The impact on

a macroeconomics live course that met face-to-facelearning is strongly positive, with larger impacts on

during class hours every week with that of a hybrid

freshmen and on women, two of the groups that often

course that supplemented two class hours of face-to-

struggle with introductory economics. In addition,

face lectures per week with online materials. They

students’ evaluations on key questions were higher foralso prepared a virtual course that consisted of videos,

the experimental class.

online materials, which was the same as hybrid course,

Some researchers statistically compared online

and repeatable practice quizzes. They showed that

instruction to other instructions. Staveley-O’Carroll

students in the live course achieved significantly(2015) compared the effects of lecture supplement

higher grades than those in the virtual class. With theof in-class pen-and-paper practice problems (therationale that was caused by the difference of time

control group), in-class demonstrations, andspent with instructors, they concluded that instructor

online discussions. His findings were (1) in-classand student interaction is important. Other relations,demonstrations have a positive effect on student

such as between the hybrid and virtual versions, werelearning, with the exception of African–American

not significantly clear.

students; (2) female students perform better having

There is a study revealing that login time mattersparticipated in online discussions; and (3) traditional

but login frequency does not affect students’ grades in

pen-and-paper recitation questions “teach to the test”

online courses in economics and finance (Calafiore andbut do not impart as much economic intuition as theDamianov, 2011). They surveyed the determinants of

two alternative pedagogical methods. This comparison

students’ online academic achievementⅷ. Recognizing

reveals that online discussions positively affect only

the limitation of the study that the login time is only afemale students and in-class demonstrations seem toquantitative measure, not a qualitative one, Calafiore

be superior to other methods.

and Damianov concluded that the total time that a

Other studies indicate that hybrid classes

student spends in the course, rather than the number of

do not surpass traditional lectures with regard totimes a student logs into the course, is a determinant ofstudent performance. Joyce et al. (2014) divided

student performance.

approximately 750 students into two sections: theFrom the literature, we have found limited

hybrid section where professors compressed theirevidence for the effectiveness of online learning thus

− 62 −

Active Learning in Economics: A Brief Survey for Japan’s Educators

far. Only a few studies derived positive conclusions.

in SL showed improvement in civic responsibility,

We see that the numbers of online students are rapidlyinterpersonal skills, and academic development, they

increasing in the US and posit that Japan will follow

only demonstrated better academic development

this trend. Universities and colleges should continue toin terms of concrete course concepts, showing no

explore ways to contribute to the students’ learning if

differences in final examination marks.

they adopt online education.

SL definitely suits economics and businessstudies; however, for now we cannot judge its

3.4 Service Learning

effectiveness until further empirical research has been

Service learning (SL) is said to originate fromdone.

John Dewey’s idea that the interaction of knowledge
and skills with experience is key to learning (Ehrlich

3.5

Flipped Learning

and Jacoby, 1996). In the context of economics, SL

Flipped learning is a relatively new method in AL.

is a method of experiential learning that links the

It is defined by the Flipped Learning Network (2014)classroom with the local community, and it requires

as “a pedagogical approach in which direct instruction

students to spend time in volunteer service and relate

moves from the group learning space to the individual

their experiences to the educational theories they learn

learning space, and the resulting group space isin the classroom (McGoldrick, 1998). McGoldricktransformed into a dynamic, interactive learningstates that students, instructors, and community

environment where the educator guides students asorganizations all welcome SL in economics.

they apply concepts and engage creatively in the

The drawbacks of SL are instances where

subject matter.” In flipped learning, generally, students

either the student or the agency fail to live up to thewatch lecture materials outside classroom time and use

expectations of the assignment, even with careful

their classroom time to do other activities.

service contacts. McGoldrick et al. (2000) report the

So far, flipped learning is highly evaluated. Lageeffectiveness of student-based instruction in SL. The

et al. (2000) discussed the benefits of “inverting”

example of student-based instruction presented in their

the economics classroom; students were expected to

study requires that economics students have a firm

come to class prepared to discuss the relevant material

grounding in the material they are presenting to young

provided as video-taped lectures and PowerPoint slidesⅸ

children . They must be able to anticipate questions

which was followed by in-class economic experiments.

and give examples in terms that their audience will

They found the strength of the flipped classroom lies

understand and be able to pull examples of economic

in the opportunity for faculty–student interaction sinceconcepts from the most basic aspects of everyday life,

students are able to clear any confusion immediately

reminding them of its universal relevance in decision-and instructors are able to monitor performance

making.

and comprehension. Roach (2014) documented the

Although there have not been many empirical

implementation of a “partially-flipped” class overstudies on SL due to the difficulty in designing

one semester of a large enrollment microeconomics

random experiments, Hébert and Hauf (2015)

course and showed how students responded positively

empirically showed the effects through a test–retest

to flipped learning, which was also found to be aⅹmethodology . They measured academic development

beneficial instructional design across student groups.

of course grades, an assignment that directly tested

Unlike cooperative learning, flipped learning

course-specific comprehension, and self-reported

works in larger classes. Vazquez and Chiang (2015)

improvement. Although students who participatedreported on their experience “flipping” a large− 63 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No. 12（2017）enrollment (over 900 students) microeconomic

reflect on how economics ties to their daily lives.

principles classroom using a methodology enhanced

Both worked well and the reflection papers seemedover the course of several years. Students were

to be particularly successful based on the quality ofassigned to watch multimedia pre-lectures thatthe work submitted. Similarly, Dalton (2010) asked

included embedded questions prior to attending eachher students to conduct interviews of individuals who

lecture. The materials promoted the understanding

lived through the Great Depression and summarize

and retention of information by allowing visual

their experiences with special focus on their economic

connections to be made between images and concepts.

difficulties. The interviewee tells his or her story andVazquez and Chiang concluded that pre-lecture videos

the new knowledge is used in story expansion as the

could replace traditional chalk-and-talk style lectures

student interviewer asks additional questions regarding

and create more classroom time for active learning.

the particulars of the interviewee’s experiences.

With the development of audio-visual equipment

Dalton thought this approach could be useful forand increase of learning management offerings

the study of economic expectations because theby major publishers in the US, flipped learning isformation of individual expectations depends, in part,

becoming more effective for students and more cost-on individual experience. Aguilar and Soques (2013)

effective for instructors. The fact that flipped learning

proposed the use of a journal to enhance the study

works for large classes is encouraging for Japaneseof macroeconomics. They equipped a pedagogicaluniversities that have large-enrollment introductory

device, called the MacroJournal (MJ), which

economics classes.

streamlines the process of incorporating current events
into a macroeconomics course. By completing the

3.6

Other Methods

assignment, students have an opportunity to become

Among many other methods in AL, here we lookat writing assignments and just-in-time teaching. Bothpractitioners and link current events to classroom
theory.

of them are burdensome to instructors but may work
well if designed appropriately.

With writing assignments, students should beassessed using a well-established rubric such as that
proposed by Aguilar and Soques: one point for his/her

3.6.1

Writing Assignments

opinion with no justification whatsoever; two points for

Writing assignments, such as journals, canhis/her opinion and an explanation that is incomplete,reach a broader array of students and can be assigned

illogical, incorrectly uses the ideas developed in class,repeatedly in a low-stakes environment. Throughor is in some other way unsatisfactory; three points

the act of writing, the students must analyze andfor complete and logical rationale for the change increate. Greenlaw (1999) taught two sections ofassessment from the previous week, with the ideal

macroeconomic principles that were identical except

answer incorporating items learned in class and a focus

that one included a series of writing assignmentson the marginal contribution of the most recent events

while the other did not. The examinations for bothupon his/her assessment. Adequate rubrics also limit

sections were the same. Greenlaw concluded fromthe instructors’ costs of assessment and writing can be

his experiment that the writing augmented section

a way for students to learn actively.

showed greater learning. Brewer and Jozefowicz

3.6.2(2006) designed short reflection papers and journal

Just-in-Time Teaching

entries to connect the student’s personal activities

Simkins and Maier (2004, 2010) introduce

to classroom material, which permitted students tothe use of Just-in-Time Teaching Technologies− 64 −

Active Learning in Economics: A Brief Survey for Japan’s Educators(JiTT) in the principles of economics course. JiTTOn the other hand, other methods did not show

is defined by Novak et al. (1999) as “a teachingclear effects on augmenting students’ academic

and learning strategy comprised of two elements:

performance. As for experiments, evaluations fromclassroom activities that promote AL and web-based

students are favorable, but these do not improve

resources that are used to enhance the classroom

students’ grades. Online learning may have only

component.” Between classes, students complete

slightly positive effect or even no effect if students

carefully constructed exercises focusing on material

spend time just sitting in front of the computer.

that will be covered in the next class and submit themConsidering the increase of online undergraduate

electronically by a preassigned time a few hours

students and the use of supplementary tools for

before class using course management software or

economic classes in the US, Japanese universities willthrough a simple email. Once submitted, instructors

soon have to provide more online materials or online

review students’ JiTT responses a few hours prior tocourses. Improvement of the content and methods ofclass and use the responses to organize and structure

the online tools is a pressing issue. Other methods,

the upcoming classroom session. Simkins and Maiersuch as service learning, writing assignments, and just-(2004) summarize the following benefits, though not

in-time teaching, may advance the efficacy of learningby statistical way: (1) students are more likely to be

but may triple the instructors’ burdens and their

prepared for class, (2) the use of student responses

assessment should be treated with care.

creates a positive feedback loop, (3) instructors
become more aware of student thinking processes,and (4) JiTT pedagogy increases students’ cognitive
learning.

Notesⅰ）According to Moore, the collaborative learning lab is “wherestudents, usually working in groups of three or four, take a

There is no evident way to reduce instructors’series of short, written quizzes (called unit tests) that cor-

cost in this method, but if materials like rubrics forrespond to each of six units in the course. When the classwriting assignments are developed, JiTT may work

has completed the material in a particular unit, students are
urged to attempt one of these unit tests, which are taken out-

well.

4

side of class at pre-arranged times. A unit test usually consists of about three or four questions or problems and takes

Conclusion

approximately 20−30 minutes to complete.” (Moore 1998,

We surveyed the literature on how AL can beutilized in economics courses in higher education. We
focused on mainly collaborative learning, experiments,
online teaching, service learning, flipped learning, andp.321)
ⅱ）TUCE is a nationally recognized test that measures student
learning in introductory economics courses in the US.
ⅲ）Simkins used an exercise based on the Federal Reserve’s Fed
Challenge program, a national economics competition

two other methods in other countries, especially in therequiring teams of high school or college students to

US. Japan’s economics educators can compare anddevelop monetary policy recommendations and present

contrast these results so as to apply AL.

them at simulated FOMC meetings.

We found some methods to be effective inⅳ）Simkins used Iowa Electronic Markets (IEM), a set of Webbased financial markets, where contract payoffs are linked

economics courses. Collaborative learning is

to political events, such as presidential and congressionalsometimes effective in helping students achieve higher

elections. Students buy and sell contracts based on theirgrades, especially in small enrollment classes. It also

expectation of election outcomes, in the process learning

has a positive peer effect on students’ other attributes,

valuable lessons about market behavior and the forces deter-

regardless of their group composition. Well-designed
flipped learning works even in large enrollment class.

mining that behavior.
ⅴ）In Harter and Harter (2004), the instructor created a web− 65 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No. 12（2017）

page that contained homework assignments, practice exams,

Becker, William E., and Michael Watts. 1996. “Chalk and Talk:

answer keys, and interactive quizzes according to the

A National Survey on Teaching Undergraduate Economics.”

chapters. The questions answered correctly were followed

American Economic Review 86 (2): 448–53.

by a brief explanation about why they were correct, whereas

Becker, William E., and Michael Watts, 1998. Teaching

those answered incorrectly were followed by more in-depth

Economics to Undergraduates: Alternatives to Chalk andexplanations about why the answers were not correct.

Talk. Cheltenham: Elgar.

ⅵ）A Personal Response System (PRS) is a form of technology

Becker, William E., and Michael Watts. 1999. “How Departments

developed in UK that offers a lecturer/tutor the opportunityof Economics Evaluate Teaching.” American Economic
Review 89 (2): 344–49.

to ask a group of students multiple-choice questions towhich they reply individually by selecting an answer on

Becker, William E., and Michael Watts. 2001. “Teachinga hand-held wireless transmitter. Receivers connected to

Economics at the Start of the 21 St Century: Still Chalk-

a computer pick up these answers. Computer software

and-Talk.” American Economic Review 91 (2): 446–51.

then aggregates the responses, and the students can see theBecker, W.E., M.Watts, and S.R.Becker. (Eds.,) 2006. Teaching
Economics: More Alternatives to Chalk and Talk. Edward

results on a large screen using a standard projector.
ⅶ）The Wireless Interactive Teaching System (WITS) consists

Elgar, Cheltenham.

of Handspring Visors (a hand-held PDA) equipped with

Benzing, Cynthia, and Paul Christ. 1997. “A Survey of Teaching

wireless capabilities, a laptop server, a wireless access

Methods Among Economics Faculty.” Journal of Economic
Education 28 (2): 182–88.

point and projector, and proprietary software. WITS allows
students to trade in markets, play standard economics games

Bonwell, C. C. 2000. “Active Learning: Creating Excitement in(prisoner’s dilemma, public goods, 2 by 2 matrix, etc.),

the Classroom” material for Active Learning Workshops.

take multiple choice quizzes, and communicate with the

Retrieved on October 6, 2016. http://www.ydae.purdue.

instructor during class.

edu/lct/hbcu/documents/Active_Learning_Creating_ⅷ）The authors use the online tracking feature in Blackboard(Campus Edition) to retrieve the real time that each student

Excitement_in_the_Classroom.pdf
Bonwell, C. C., and J.A. Eison. 1991. “Active learning:
Creating excitement in the classroom.” ASHE-ERIC Higher

spent in the course for the entire semester.

Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: TheGeorgeⅸ）The students prepared materials and went into elementary

Washington University, School of Education and Human

school classrooms to teach.
ⅹ）The study used a test–retest methodology to control for theissue of self-selection and the potential differences between

Development.
Brewer, S. M., and J. J. Jozefowicz. 2006. “Making economic
principles personal: Student journals and reflection papers.”

these students prior to their service learning experience.

Journal of Economic Education 37: 202–16.

References

Brooks, Taggert J., and A. Wahhab Khandker. 2002. “A
Collaborative Learning Lab: Does the Form Matter?”Allgood, Sam, William B. Walstad, and John J. Siegfried. 2015.

Contemporary Economic Policy 20 (3): 330–38.

“Research on Teaching Economics to Undergraduates.”

Brown, Byron W., and Carl E. Liedholm. 2002. “Can

Journal of Economic Literature 53 (2): 285–325.
Aguilar, Mike, and Daniel Soques. 2013. “MacroJournal—

Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles ofTurning Students into Practitioners.” Journal of Economic

Microeconomics?” American Economic Review 92 (2):444–48.

Education 44 (3): 230–37.
Ball, Sheryl B., Catherine Eckel, and Christian Rojas. 2006.

Calafiore, Pablo, and Damian S. Damianov. 2011. “The Effect“Technology Improves Learning in Large Principles ofof Time Spent Online on Student Achievement in Online

Economics Classes: Using Our WITS.” American Economic

Economics and Finance Courses.” Journal of Economic
Education 42 (3): 209–23.

Review 96 (2): 442–46.
Bartlett, R., 2006. The evolution of cooperative learning andCardell, N. Scott, Rodney Fort, Wayne Joerding, Fred Inaba,economics instruction. In: Becker, W.E., M.Watts, andDavid Lamoreaux, Robert Rosenman, Ernest Stormsdorfer,

S.R.Becker. (Eds.), Teaching Economics: More Alternatives

and Robin Bartlet. 1996. “Laboratory-Based Experimental

to Chalk and Talk. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

and Demonstration Initiatives in Teaching Undergraduate
Economics.” American Economic Review 86 (2): pp. 454–

B e c k e r, Wi l l i a m E . 1 9 9 7 . “ Te a c h i n g E c o n o m i c s t o59.

Undergraduates.” Journal of Economic Literature 35 (3):1347–73.

Cartwright, E, and A.Stepanova. 2012. “What Do Students Learn− 66 −

Active Learning in Economics: A Brief Survey for Japan’s Educators

Principles Course.” American Economic Review 92 (2):from a Classroom Experiment: Not Much, Unless They463–72.

Write a Report on It.” Journal of Economic Education 43 (1):Hébert, Ali, and Petra Hauf. 2015.“Student Learning through48–57.
Dalton, P. 2010. “The use of narrative interview in teaching

Service Learning: Effects on Academic Development,

principles of macroeconomics.” Journal of Economic

Civic Responsibility, Interpersonal Skills and Practical
Skills.”Active Learning in Higher Education 16 (1): 37–49.

Education 41: 252–58.
Dewey, John. 1924. Democracy and Education. New York:

Harter, Cynthia L., and John F. R. Harter. 2004. “Teaching withTechnology: Does Access to Computer Technology Increase

Macmillan.

Student Achievement.” Eastern Economic Journal 30 (4):Dickie, Mark. 2006. “Do Classroom Experiments Increase507–14.

Learning in Introductory Microeconomics?” Journal of

Hawtrey, K. 2007. “Using experiential learning techniques.”

Economic Education 37 (3): 267–88.

Journal of Economic Education 38: 143–52.

Duarte, P. 2015. “The Use of a Group Blog to Actively Support
Learning Activities.” Active Learning in Higher Education

Huynh, Kim P., David T. Jacho-Chávez, and James K. Self. 2010.
“The Efficacy of Collaborative Learning Recitation Sessions

16 (2): 103–17.

on Student Outcomes.” American Economic Review 100 (2):Ehrlich, T. and B.Jacoby, 1996. Service-learning in higher

287–91.

education: Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA:

Johnston, Carol G., Richard H. James, Jenny N. Lye, and Ian M.

Jossey Bas.
Eison, J. and C. Bonwell 1988. “Making Real the Promise of

Mcdonald. 2000. “An Evaluation of Collaborative Problem

Active Learning” Report presented at the 1988 National

Solving for Learning Economics.” Journal of Economic
Education 31 (1): 13–29.

Converence of the American Asssociation for Higher

Joyce, Theodore J., Sean Crockett, David A. Jaeger, David

Education. Washington, DC., March 9–12, 1988.
Elliott, Caroline. 2003. “Using a Personal Response System in

Altindag, and Stephen D. O’Connell. 2014. “Does

Economics Teaching.” International Review of Economics

Classroom Time Matter? A Randomized Field Experiment

Education 1 (1). Elsevier Masson SAS: 80–86.

of Hybrid and Traditional Lecture Formats in Economics.”
NBER Working Paper 20006.

Emerson, Tisha, and Beck Taylor. 2004. “Comparing Student
Achievement across Experimental and Lecture-Oriented

Lage, M.J., G.J. Platt, and M. Treglia. 2000. “Inverting theSections of a Principles of Microeconomics Course.”

classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning

Southern Economic Journal 70 (3).

environment.” Journal of Economic Education 31 (1):30–43.

Freeman, S, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N.
Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth. 2014. “Active

Marburger, Daniel R. 2005. “Comparing Student Performance

Learning Increases Student Performance in Science,

Using Cooperative Learning.” International Review ofEngineering, and Mathematics.” Proceedings of the

Economics Education 4 (1). Elsevier: 46–57.

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

McConnell, D. A., D. N. Steer, and K. D. Owens. 2003.
“Assessment and Active Learning Strategies for Introductory

America 111 (23): 8410–15.

Geology Courses.” Journal of Geoscience Education 51 (2):Flipped Learning Network. 2014. The Four Pillars of F-L-I-P™

205–16.

www.flippedlearning.org/definition. Retrieved on October

McGoldrick, KimMarie. 1998. “Service-Learning in Economics:

30, 2016.

A Detailed Application.” Journal of Economic Education 29

Gramlich, Edward. M, and Glen A. Greenlee. 1993. “Measuring(4): 365–76.

Teaching performance.” Journal of Economic Education

McGoldrick, KimMarie, Ann Battle, and Suzanne Gallagher.

24(1): 3–13.

2000. “Service-Learning and the Economics Course: Theory

Greenlaw, Steven A. 1999. “Using Writing to Enhance Student

and Practice.” American Economist 44 (1): 43–52.

Learning in Undergraduate Economics.” International
Review of Economics Education 30 (1). Elsevier Masson

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
2012. University Education and Global Human Resource

SAS: 61–70.

Development for the Future (Third Proposal)

Gremmen, Hans, and Jan Potters. 1997. “Assessing the Efficacy
of Gaming in Economic Education.” Journal in Economic

Moore, Robert L. 1998. “Teaching Introductory Economics witha Collaborative Learning Lab Component.” Journal of

Education 28(4): 291–303.

Economic Education 29 (4): 321–29.

Hansen, W. Lee, Michael K. Salemi, and John J. Siegfried. 2002.
“Use It or Lose It: Teaching Literacy in the Economics

Moore, Robert L. 2011. “The Effect of Group Composition− 67 −

山梨国際研究山梨県立大学国際政策学部紀要

No. 12（2017）

on Individual Student Performance in an Introductory

Simkins, Scott and Mark Maier 2010. “Using Just-in-Time

Economics Course.” Journal of Economic Education 42 (2):Teaching in Economics,” in Just-in-time Teaching: Across

120–35.

the Disciplines, Across the Academy, Ch. 8. Stylus Pub Llc.

Millis, B., and P. Cottell, Jr. 1998. Cooperative Learning for

Staveley-O’Carroll, James. 2015. “The Impact of Classroom

Higher Education Faculty, American Council on Education,

Demonstrations and Online Discussions on Student

ORYX Press, Praeger.

Achievement.” International Review of Economics
Education 20. Elsevier Ltd: 46–58.

Munley, Vincent G., Eoghan Garvey, and Michael J. McConnell.
2010. “The Effectiveness of Peer Tutoring on Student

Stock, Wendy A., Kevin Ward, Justin Folsom, Teresa Borrenpohl,

Achievement at the University Level.” American Economic

Sophie Mumford, Zach Pershin, Danielle Carriere, andReview 100 (2): 277–82.

Heather Smart. 2013. “Cheap and Effective: The Impact of

National Center for Education Statistics. 2015. Digest ofStudent-Led Recitation Classes on Learning Outcomes in

Education Statistics 2014, Table 311.22. Number andIntroductory Economics.” Journal of Economic Education
44 (1): 1–16.

percentage of undergraduate students taking distanceeducation or online classes and degree programs, by

Sweeney, M. Jane Barr, John J. Siegfried, Jennie E. Raymond,selected characteristics: Selected years, 2003–04 throughand James T Wilkinson. 1983. “The Structure of the

2011–12,http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/

Introductory Economics Course in United States Colleges.”

dt14_311.22.asp?current=yes (Retrieved on 2016.10.31)

Journal of Economic Education 14 (4): 68–76.

Novak, G., Patterson, E., A. Gavrin, and W. Christian. 1999. Just-

Tatsumi, Yasuaki, Shinji Azuma, Shunsuke Kodama, Takashi

in-time teaching: Blending AL with web technology. Upper

Sato, and Takashi Sawaguchi. 2012. “An Empirical Study on

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

the Effect of Second-Year Undergraduate Microeconomics
and Macroeconomics Exercise Courses.”

Oppenheimer, Todd. 2003. The flickering mind: The false
promise of technology in the classroom and how learning

巽靖昭、東晋司、児玉俊介、佐藤崇、澤口隆「ミクロ・can be saved. New York: Random House Publishing Group.

マクロ経済学演習科目の教育効果に関する実証研究」『京都大学高等教育研究』18: 11–23.

Roach, Travis. 2014. “Student Perceptions toward Flipped
Learning: New Methods to Increase Interaction and Active

University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and

Learning in Economics.” International Review of Economics

Teaching (2016) ‘Active Learning’ homepage.http://www.

Education 17.

crlt.umich.edu/tstrategies/tsal (retrieved in October 6, 2016.)

Salemi, Michael K., and W. Lee Hansen. 2005. Discussing

Vazquez, J.J., and E.P. Chiang. (2015) “Flipping Out! A

Economics: A Classroom Guide to Preparing Discussion

Case Study on How to Flip the Principles of Economics

Questions and Leading Discussion. Cheltenham, U.K. andClassroom.” International Advances in Economic Research
21 (4): pp 379–90.

Northampton, Mass.: Elgar.
Salemi, Michael K., and William B. Walstad. 2010. Teaching

Watts, Michael, and William E. Becker. 2008. “A Little More

Innovations in Economics: Strategies and Applications forthan Chalk and Talk: Results from a Third National

Interactive Instruction. Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton,

Survey of Teaching Methods in Undergraduate Economics
Courses.” Journal of Economic Education 39 (3): 273–86.

Mass.: Elgar.
Schroeder, A., S. Minocha, and C. Schneider. 2010. “TheWatts, Michael, and Georg Schaur. 2011. “Teaching andStrengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of Using

Assessment Methods in Undergraduate Economics:

Social Software in Higher and Further Education Teaching

A Fourth National Quinquennial Survey.” Journal ofand Learning.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26

Economic Education 42 (3): 294–309.
Yamarik, Steven. 2007. “Does Cooperative Learning Improve(3): 159–74.
Siegfried, John J., Phillip Saunders, Ethan Stinar, and Hao Zhang.
1996. “Teaching Tools: How is Introductory Economics
Taught in America?” Economic Inquiry, 43 (January), 182–92.
Simkins, Scott P. 1999. “Promoting Active-Student Learning
Using the World Wide Web in Economics Courses.” Journalof Economic Education 30 (3): 278–87.
Simkins, Scott and Mark H. Maier. 2004. “Using Just-inTime Teaching Techniques in the Principles of Economics
Course.” Social Science Computer Review 22 (4): 444–56.

− 68 −

Student Learning Outcomes?” Journal of Economic
Education 38 (3): 259–77.