IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Teaching Them before We Teach: The Effectiveness of Conducting Classroom
Experiments before Teaching the Underlying Theory
Raymond Li
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Tina Wong
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

79

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Abstract
This study examines the effectiveness of classroom experiments conducted before therelevant theories were taught. The experiments were used to provide students with first-handexperience of decision-making under various rivalry settings and to demonstrate several key
predictions of oligopoly models. Statistical methods were used to analyze the effectiveness ofthese experiments in helping students master the concepts covered by the experiments. In
general, students had a positive experience in the process and they found the experiments
useful in stimulating their interest and helping improve their understanding of the relevant
theories. Statistically, students who took part in the experiments performed significantly
better in an exam question on oligopoly markets.
Keywords: economics education, classroom experiments, prior knowledge, decision making,oligopoly model, treatment-effect model80

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Introduction
Economics is a discipline that can be characterized by rigorous theories developed to explain
the behavior of economic agents or businesses. These theories can be evaluated byobservation of actual human behavior or empirical analyses involving the use of relevant data.
However, since economic decisions are usually made in a non-laboratory environment, it isdifficult to evaluate these theories directly. To address this problem, economists havedesigned experiments that can be used to collect economic data under a controlledenvironment. These experiments can be useful in testing the validity of economic theories, aswell as in teaching and learning. Learning is more effective when students can relate to what
they are being taught. Oftentimes, students fail to understand economic models because theylack the first-hand experience and/or prior exposure to the context addressed by the models.
The problem gets worse when the models are mathematical and students’ attention getsdiverted away from the economic reasoning behind the models. To help students understandthese models, classroom experiments have been increasingly adopted by instructors. As notedby Neral and Ray (1995), classroom experiments not only provide students with concrete
examples of the phenomena that the economic theories attempt to describe, but also theexperience which can be related to particular aspects of the theories.
The effects of classroom experiments on student learning have been examined by various
studies in the economics education literature. To our knowledge, in all but one of the existingstudies (namely, Cartwright and Stepanova, 2012), classroom experiments were introduced
after a relevant concept was taught. This approach helps reinforce concepts by allowing
students to apply what they have learned in a (semi-)controlled environment. The aim of ourresearch was to examine the efficacy of classroom experiments in improving student learning
outcomes when the experiments are conducted before the relevant concepts are covered. We
postulate that by giving students first-hand prior experience on the subject matter, it becomeseasier for them to learn as a first-person rather than a third-party, and this enables students tomaster the models more effectively. We believe the results of this study will enable thedevelopment of a better understanding of the experiential learning pedagogy.
Our study began with an optional session of a computerized classroom experiment, wherestudents were required to compete against the others in the classroom by making a series ofbusiness decisions in order to maximize their profits. The market conditions were known to
the students, but relevant theories of this market setting were not yet covered in the lecture.
Students’ feedback on various aspects of the experiment were collected through aquestionnaire and their course results were used to examine the effectiveness of ourclassroom experiment on improving students’ learning outcomes. An endogenous treatmenteffect regression model was used to mitigate the potential bias that voluntary experimentparticipation may exert on our regression results.
In the next section, we review the literature on experiential learning and the application ofexperimental learning in economics. Section 3 describes our experimental set up and somepreliminary data on student learning outcomes. Section 4 contains the details of ourregression analysis and Section 5 concludes.

81

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Literature Review
Overview of Experiential Learning
The development of experiential learning began in the 20th century. Dewey (1916) first
defines experiential learning as “learning by doing”. Hoover and Whitehead (1975) laterelaborate that this learning approach is self-directed which includes a high level of active
involvement and participation. According to Kolb and Kolb (2005), the primary focus ofexperiential learning is transformation of experience to knowledge. Knowledge is constructed
through learners’ experience, reflection and thinking. Experiences serve as the basis forparticipants to reflect and think, and these reflections offer new implications to them. Kolb
and Kolb (2005) point out that experiential learning is a process that draws out students' ideas
about a topic and allows them to integrate new experiences with existing concepts.
Wolfe and Byrne (1975) suggest four major tasks of experiential learning, namely, design,
conduct, evaluation, and feedback. Design consists of specifying learning objectives,
producing activities for students and identifying factors affecting student learning. In order tocreate a favorable learning environment with structured learning experience, conduct is thefollowing task which involves controlling the design. While evaluation is important byoffering opportunities for participants to express what they have benefited, feedback is acontinuous monitoring process aiming to improve the learning approach further.
Classroom experiments offer students with opportunities to discover economic concepts bythemselves (Emerson, 2014). By engaging with the learning materials more fully, students
are able to think deeper about the subject matter. This learning approach enhances students’learning motivation because students will engage with the subject matter more as they must
apply theoretical knowledge to conduct experiments for solving real-life problems (Hawtrey,2007). In addition, experiments can significantly raise the degree to which students found thecourse stimulating (Ball, Eckel, & Rojas, 2006). Personal skill development is alsoemphasized under experiential learning (Egbert & Mertins, 2010). Students are encouraged to
explain subject matters to each other or work effectively and support each other in teams. As
a result, they can develop self-organization skills and team spirit through experiments. The
benefits obtained from this learning experience will last beyond the lesson.
According to Egbert and Mertins (2010), instructors can also gain from experiential learning
by enjoying teaching more. Classroom experiments serve as a good starting point for problem
discussion, enhance instructor-student interactions, and help inspire students to understandtheoretical concepts through discussions about the experiments. It is rewarding for instructors
to see students being intrinsically motivated with their course design. By arousing students’intellectual curiosity and having enjoyable interaction with them, instructors’ satisfaction
from teaching will likely be raised.
Despite the merits mentioned above, the challenges of this active learning approach should
not be ignored. Unlike traditional instructional approach, it is time intensive for the instructor
to plan and prepare courses with experimental learning. Besides, uncertainties always exist
when conducting experiments and the results of the experiments may not be predicted andcontrolled easily by the instructor. Emerson (2014) recommends running trials ofan experiment so that the sample results will be useful for understanding the pitfalls that may
arise. In light of this, instructors are advised to state the solutions to deal with those pitfalls intheir manuscript in advance. Moreover, students may complain that learning with82

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

experiments is time consuming as they are required to do more work. As noted by Egbert andMertins (2010), this is true as students often focus only on examinations. Thus, it is essential
for students to understand the importance of learning informally through this active learningtechnique. In order to motivate students to be passionate in classroom experiments, Emerson(2014) encourages instructors to develop classroom experiments on those topics wherestudents would enormously benefit from seeing the concept in action.
Previous Studies on Experimental Learning in Economics
According to Emerson and English (2016), the existing literature on the efficacy ofexperimental learning can be classified into two categories. Studies in the first category focus
on particular experiments and examine the effects of these experiments on student learning in
related topics. Frank (1997) and Gremmen and Potters (1997) are two major previous studies
under this category. Frank (1997) examines the impact of a simple tragedy of the commons
experiment while Gremmen and Potters (1997) study the effects of an international economic
relations simulation game on student learning. By comparing the assessment marks, bothstudies found that students who engaged in or observed the experiment performed better andlearned more about the economic model than those who are not involved in the experiment.
The experiments in both studies were conducted after the delivery of a relevant lecture.
Studies in the second category examine whether exposure to the experimental learningpedagogy improves students’ overall course achievements. In general, these studies arebroader in nature and conduct experiments on an extensive range of economics topics. The
empirical findings under this category of research are mixed. On one hand, Emerson andTaylor (2004), Ball et al. (2006) and Dickie (2006) found that experimental learning
improves students’ examination performance in general. In all three studies, students weredivided into control groups and experiment groups. Traditional lectures or seminars wereconducted in the control groups while the experimental learning approach was adopted inanother group. Emerson and Taylor (2004) administer experiments covering topics such as
supply and demand, sales taxes, externalities, monopolies and adverse selection while Ball etal. (2006) employ experiments relating to taxes, public goods, tragedy of the commons andother economics concepts. Dickie (2006) conducts experiments relating to the topics ofcomparative advantage, demand and supply, sales tax and effects of minimum wage.
Regression models were used in all these studies. Emerson and Taylor (2004) identify student
learning as a function of student specific characteristics, such as aptitude, education
background and teaching methodology. Ball et al. (2006) focus on analyzing final
examination performance and include year of study, gender and whether students have taken
economics in high school as the independent variables in their study. Dickie (2006) measures
how classroom experiments with and without grade incentives affect learning of
microeconomics and supplements comparisons of treatment means by collecting additional
data such as student's cumulative grade point average (GPA), composite score on theAmerican College Test (ACT), number of semester credit hours passed, race, and gender. All
three studies documented that students participating in the experiments perform significantly
better in the examinations than those in the non-participating group. More recently, Rousu etal. (2015) examine whether or not providing monetary incentives will enhance students’
examination performance. They find strong evidence that students who played a classroom
experiment game with real monetary consequences eventually performed better in theexamination than those who played a hypothetical game and those who did not play at all.

83

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

On the other hand, Cardell et al. (1996) were not able to find evidence on improved student
achievement through experimental learning. They employed computerized experiments
relating to demand and supply, public goods and income redistribution. Including students’gender, GPA, prior experience in taking economics course, attendance rate, Scholastic
Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, age and ethnicity as the independent variables in the regression
model, there is no statistically significant difference between students from the experimentand control groups in the performance of the Test of Understanding College Economics(TUCE). However, Cardell et al. (1996) noted that their results are preliminary because there
is no direct control for sample selection and variations in the behavioral impact of instructors
cannot be fully controlled until the experiment is completed.
Durham et al. (2007) found mixed results on the influence of experimental pedagogy on
students’ examination performance. They include class size, age, gender, ethnicity, ACT
exam score, GPA, attendance rate and students’ major in the regression model. Their researchshows that students participating in experiments perform better than the non-participants inquestions illustrating the concepts of demand and supply, cartels, resource allocation andpublic goods. However, participants were outperformed by non-participants in areas ofmonopoly and diminishing marginal utility.
While the majority of research studies on classroom experiments are focused on university
education, Eisenkopf and Sulser (2016) focus on high school students in the Germanspeaking area of Switzerland. They randomly assigned students into an experiment and aconventional teaching group. Data suggests that their classroom experiments did not offer asignificant benefit to students in terms of average test scores. The authors point out that thislack of significant benefit can potentially be due to the fact that economic theories taught at
the high school level are generally less abstract, hence limiting the effectiveness of classroom
experiments.
Instead of comparing student achievements with and without the use of experiments, Yandell(2004) and Cartwright and Stepanova (2012) studied other aspects of experimental learning.
Yandell (2004) examines the influence of the number of experiments on student
achievements. Experiments adopted in this study cover topics such as double oral auction,
production function, public goods and prisoners’ dilemma. A comparison of the examination
performance between students who are exposed to only two sets of experiments and thosewith six sets reveals no statistically significant difference. It is concluded that additional
experiments do not pose positive impacts on student achievement. Cartwright and Stepanova(2012) compare the performance of students who attended and/or wrote a report on an
experiment versus those who did not. They observed a 40-60% improvement in students’score in a classroom experiment-based test question if students had written a report on thatexperiment. Their findings illustrate the benefit of integrating classroom experiments withsome form of assessment.
Our study falls into the first category as classified by Emerson and English (2016). We
focused on one set of oligopoly market experiment and study the effectiveness of theexperiment on improving students’ learning outcome. But unlike Frank (1997) and Gremmen
and Potters (1997) in which the experiments are conducted after the relevant lectures, we
conduct the experiments before the relevant lecture is delivered.

84

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Experimental Design and Data Description
Background and Experimental Design
This study was implemented on a calculus-based intermediate microeconomics course
offered in the Spring semester of the 2015-16 academic year at the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University. The enrolment size was 59, with students either majoring in Investment Scienceor minoring in Business Economics. As this course is at the intermediate level, all students
have prior knowledge in economics. Similar to the market structure curriculum of mostmicroeconomics courses, perfect competition and monopoly models are covered before
oligopoly models, such that students have a firm grasp on the concept of profit maximization
before the introduction of interdependency between firms. An experiment session wasinserted in the teaching schedule between the monopoly and oligopoly models. The session
was pre-announced and held during a normal class time. Attendance at the session was
voluntary, just as class attendance was voluntary.
Two experiments were adopted from Economics-games.com, an online platform offering freeeducational games and experiments for teaching economics. One was based on the Stackelberg
model and the other on the Cournot model. Each student used an individual electronic device(mobile phone, tablet or laptop computer) to access the experiment system. In order to keep
track of students’ decisions and participation, they were required to log into the system with
their student ID. They were then paired up with an unknown counterpart in class, whom they
had to compete against. Instructions were shown to students before each experiment,
outlining the setting of the market, the objective (i.e. profit-maximization), and the choicevariable. In both experiments, the market demand function and marginal cost of production
were known to every participant. Students were required to submit a production quantity
decision to the system, either in turn (Stackelberg game) or simultaneously (Cournot game).
After receiving all the decisions, the system calculates the profit earned by each participant
and a leaderboard was projected on the screen so that everyone knows the outcomes. Eachgame was repeated five times. To encourage serious participation, a special bonus mark wasgiven to the top three students who achieved the highest cumulated profit in each set ofexperiment.
Students were asked to share and review their experience after each series of experiment.
Unsurprisingly, all top-performers had factored into their decisions the expected behavior of
their rivals. This outcome allowed the instructor to stress the importance of strategic behavior
in oligopoly markets. As the experiment session was held before the discussion of therelevant models, it gave students a first encounter with the context of the oligopoly models.
This helps pave the way for the actual discussion of the actual models because students canrelate to the models with their personal experience. It also helps arouse students’ interest andincrease their motivation in learning the models, as they would like to know how they could
have achieved better results.
Questionnaire Results
At the end of the semester, students were required to complete a questionnaire evaluating thecharacteristics of the experiments and the perceived effectiveness of the experiments inhelping them meet the learning objectives. The scope of this research and the use of students’
data (including questionnaire feedback and course results) were explained clearly to students
in the introduction of the questionnaire. Students were given the option to leave thequestionnaire blank if they do not wish to have their data used for this research. All

85

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018questionnaires were collected by a student representative and the questionnaires were kept in
the School’s administration office until final examination results were finalized and released.
Students were required to indicate on a five-point scale their opinion towards various
statements about the experiment (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5= strongly agree). Students were generally positive to both the experiment setup and theassociated learning experience. The arithmetic means of the responses to the statements range
from 3.97 to 4.17. The primary objectives of the experiments are to stimulate students’interest in the subject matter and help students understand the relevant course content. As
reported in Table 1 and Figure 1, 80% or more of the students agreed (i.e. giving a rating of 4or above) to the questionnaire statements addressing these two objectives (S3 and S4). Also,
most students can see the relevance of the experiments to their study (S5). Overall, students
were positive towards the learning experience provided by the experiments, with over 70% of
students agreeing to statement S6.
Table 1. Questionnaire statements and mean score
Statement
S1. The experiment requirements are easy to understand.
S2. The competitive nature of the experiments increased the level of excitement.
S3. The experiments help stimulate my interest in the subject contents.
S4. The experiments enhanced my understanding on how competitors interact in various market
structures.
S5. I can see the relevance of the experiments to my studies.
S6. In general, the experiments have provided me with valuable learning experience and knowledge
in the topic concerned.

Mean
4.09
4.17
4.03
4.06
4.09
3.97

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of questionnaire responses
Impact on Learning Outcomes
We postulate that participation in the experiment session helps improve students’
understanding of the oligopoly theories and subsequently improving their learning outcome.

86

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

In this study, we quantify student learning outcome through a final examination question
devoted to oligopoly models. All questions in the final exam were compulsory and theoligopoly question accounted for 20 out of 100 points of the examination. Figure 2 compares
the major assessment performance of students who participated in the experiment (EXP=1)
and those who did not (EXP=0). We can see that the experiment group performed noticeably
better in the mid-term test (MT), overall final examination (EXAM_TOT), questions in the
final examination addressing other topics (EXAM_OTH), as well as the oligopoly question(EXAM_OLI). Table 2 summarizes the results of four t-tests of equal means on theassessment scores of the two groups. According to the p-values for the two-sided tests, thenull hypothesis of equal mean is strongly rejected at 1% significance for each assessment
outcome. The same results hold irrespective of the assumption on equality of variance.

Figure 2. Student assessment outcomes
Table 2. Two-sample t-tests of equal means assuming unequal variances
Mean

VarianceObs

t-statp-value

EXP=1
EXP=0

70.62954.417283.711275.123

35
24

3.665

0.001

EXAM_TOT
EXP=1
EXP=0

62.60048.458194.071325.042

35
24

3.237

0.002

EXAM_OTH
EXP=1
EXP=0

50.85741.333116.773186.841

35
24

2.856

0.007

EXAM_OLI
EXP=1
EXP=0

11.7437.125

29.55040.375

35
24

2.905

0.006

MT

87

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

The results in both Figure 2 and Table 2 apparently suggest that students who participated in
the experiment session were the “better” ones in terms of their intellectual ability and/or
motivation, because they performed significantly better in all assessment tasks. As a result,better performance in the oligopoly question, at least on its own, does not necessarily imply
that the experiment session was beneficial to students’ learning. However, on closer
examination of Figure 2, we can observe a more pronounced difference between the meanscores in EXAM_OLI relative to that of the other assessments. The mean scores of theexperiment group were 30%, 30%, 23% and 65% higher than the control group in MT,
EXAM_TOT, EXAM_OTH and EXAM_OLI, respectively.
Econometric Model and Results
In order to isolate the impact of our experimental session on students’ learning outcome, we
further analyze students’ score in the oligopoly question under a reduced-form education
production function framework:
EXAM_OLI = f (student ability, study effort, learning attitude, experimentparticipation)
Since we do not have detailed and reliable data on students’ ability, study effort and learning
attitude during the semester, we use students’ net continuous assessment score (= continuous
assessment score minus participation score), CA, as a proxy variable to control for the effectof these factors on students’ performance in the oligopoly question. Specifically, we
anticipate a positive relationship between CA and EXAM_OLI. This yields the following
basic regression model:
EXAM_OLIi = b0 + b1CAi + b2EXPi + ei

(1)where subscript i identifies the individual students and e is an error term. Since participationin the experiment session was voluntary, students who participated were likely to be more
motivated (and/or with better learning attitude). Therefore, experiment participation is likely
to be endogenous. We accommodate this sample selection problem by estimating equation (1)as an endogenous treatment effects model (Maddala, 1983, ch.9), in which EXPi is assumed
to stem from an unobservable latent variable, EXPi*, that depends on students’ classparticipation and overall performance during the semester. Experiment participation ismodelled as follows:
EXPi* = g0 + g1PARTi + g2CAi+ ui(2)

EXPi = 1 if EXPi* > 0, = 0 otherwise(3)

where PART is a class participation score ranging between 0 and 10 to reflect a student’s
level of involvement in class and u is an error term for the treatment-assignment model. It is
expected that both g1 and g2 are positive.
We estimate the endogenous treatment effects model with a one-step control-function
estimator (Wooldridge, 2010, sec.14.2). The results are presented in Table 3. A Wald test on
the null hypothesis of no correlation between e and u has a c2 statistics of 1.340 and a p-valueof 0.247, meaning that the outcome and treatment equations are statistically independent. In
the treatment equation, the estimated coefficient for PART is statistically significant (p <88

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

0.000) but that for CA is not (p = 0.201). It is unlikely that the statistical insignificance is due
to multi-collinearity because the pairwise correlation coefficient between CA and PART isonly 0.313. This means students who participate more actively in class are more likely toattend the experiment session, but a student’s overall performance during the semester does
not affect experiment participation. Turning to the outcome equation, we can see that thecoefficients for both CA and EXP are statistically significant. As expected, a student’s overall
performance during the semester has a positive influence on the score of the oligopoly
question. This implies that students who are more capable and/or with better learning attitude
perform better in the oligopoly question. More importantly, experiment participation has a
discernible positive effect on students’ performance in the oligopoly question. On average,
students who participated in the experiment scored 5.417 points higher than the other groupin this 20-point question. This serves as a strong support to our hypothesis that classroom
experiments conducted prior to relevant lectures can also help improve student learning
outcomes.
Table 3. Endogenous treatment-effects regression results
Estimated
CoefficientStandard
Error

p-value-1.097
0.276
5.417

3.024
0.133
2.187

0.717
0.038
0.013

-6.020
0.735
0.069

1.870
0.144
0.054

0.000
0.000
0.201

Outcome equation

b0
b1
b2
Treatment equation

g0
g1
g2

Discussions and Conclusions
The goal of this study is to examine whether classroom experiments can improve student
learning outcomes when the experiment is conducted before the relevant concepts arecovered. We found that the group of students who voluntarily participated in an oligopoly
experiment session performed noticeably better than the control group in all assessment tasks
throughout the semester, but there is a much more pronounced difference between the twogroups in their performance in a final exam question on oligopoly (65% difference) relative
to that of the other assessments (23-30% difference). This potentially implies that experimentparticipation has a positive influence on students’ performance in the exam question related
to the classroom experiment. Our endogenous treatment effects regression results further
reveal that experiment participation raised a student’s score by 5.417 points on average in a
20-point question that was related to the experiment. Findings from the end-of-semester
student evaluation questionnaires also indicate that students have gained valuable learning
experience and knowledge in the topic concerned through the experiments. Their interest in
the subject contents were stimulated and their understanding on how competitors interact invarious market structures were enhanced. As discussed in the literature review section above,
experiential learning is about the transformation of experience to knowledge. Our experiment89

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018served the role of providing students with a relevant experience in the context of the theories
to be taught. It also helped students grasp the key components of the theories. The lectureteaching then guided the students through a reflection and thinking process to help themcreate knowledge. The effectiveness of this approach is demonstrated in the student learning
outcomes.
Our results supplement existing findings in the literature by showing that experiments
conducted before a relevant theory is taught can also improve student learning outcomes.
Rather than helping students retain knowledge by allowing them to apply the theories theylearned, our experimental design put students in the context of which a theory addresses. Our
approach can provide students with prior knowledge and experience that is important for theunderstanding of a theory and improve students’ motivation in learning the theory. Although
our study focuses on the use of classroom experiments, the practical implication of our results
is more far-reaching. In order to help associate students with the relevant subject matters to
improve learning, lecturers may explore other effective and appropriate means that can beused to provide students with prior knowledge and experience. These means are course or
topic-specific, and they may include case study, role play, gamification, etc., just to name afew examples. It should also be noted that the adoption of our approach is not limited to theeconomics and business disciplines. Given the educational value of first-hand priorknowledge, our approach may as well be suitable for other academic disciplines (e.g.
humanities, social sciences, applied sciences, etc.) with a focus on real-world applicability.
Of course, our current research is not without limitations. Firstly, the sample size of thisstudy is not big (around 60 students). This may have limited the capability of the endogenous
treatment-effect model in correcting for the potential bias in our sample selection. Secondly,
it will be more ideal if a comparison can be made between a group doing experiments before,
and another group after relevant theories are taught. However, this calls for a very different
experimental design and is out of the scope of this research.
To our knowledge, this study is the first that documents the efficacy of the use of classroom
experiments in an Asian university. We encourage more research in this area with a broader
geographical or demographical coverage, so that economic education researchers can better
understand the application of experiential learning in different cultural settings. Further
research in this area can also try to randomize the assignment of students into the experimentand control groups. This may minimize the influence of self-selection as encountered in thisstudy.

90

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

References
Ball S.B., Eckel C. & Rojas C. (2006). Technology improves learning in large principles of
economics classes: Using our WITS. American Economic Review, 96 (2), 442–446.
Cardell N.S., Fort R, Joerding W, Inaba F., Lamoreaux D., Rosenman R. & Bartlett R. (1996).
Laboratory-based experimental and demonstration initiatives in teachingundergraduate economics. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 86(2), 454–459.
Cartwright E. & Stepanova A. (2012). What do students learn from a classroom experiment:
not much, unless they write a report on it. Journal of Economic Education, 43 (1), 48–
57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2012.636710
Dewey J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy ofeducation. New York, NY: Macmillan Company.
Durham Y., McKinnon T. & Schulman C. (2007). Classroom experiments: Not just fun andgames. Economic Inquiry, 45 (1), 162–178.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2006.00003.x
Egbert H. & Mertins V. (2010). Experiential learning with experiments. International Review
of Economics Education, 9 (2), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1477-3880(15)300505
Eisenkopf G. & Sulser P.A. (2016). Randomized controlled trial of teaching methods: Doclassroom experiments improve economic education in high schools? Journal of
Economic Education, 47 (3), 211–225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2016.1179143
Emerson T.L.N. (2014). Anyone? Anyone? A guide to submissions on classroom
experiments. Journal of Economic Education, 45 (2), 174–179.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2014.889970
Emerson T.L.N. & English L.K. (2016). Classroom experiments: Teaching specific topics orpromoting the economic way of thinking? Journal of Economic Education, 47 (4),288–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2016.1213684
Emerson T.L.N. & Taylor B.A. (2004). Comparing student achievement across experimental
and lecture-oriented sections of a principles of microeconomics course. Southern
Economic Journal, 70 (3), 672–693. https://doi.org/10.2307/4135338
Frank B. (1997). The impact of classroom experiments on the learning of economics: An
empirical investigation. Economic Inquiry, 35 (4), 763–769.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1997.tb01962.x
Gremmen H. & Potters J. (1997). Assessing the efficacy of gaming in economic
education. Journal of Economic Education, 28 (4), 291–303.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1183414
Hawtrey K. (2007). Using experiential learning techniques. Journal of Economic
Education, 38 (2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.38.2.143-152
Hoover J.D. & Whitehead C.J. (1975). An experiential-cognitive methodology in the firstcourse in management: Some preliminary results. Developments in Business
Simulation and Experiential Learning, 2, 25–30.
Kolb A.Y. & Kolb D.A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential
learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4 (2),
193–212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566
Neral J. & Ray M. (1995). Teaching tools experiential learning in the undergraduate
classroom: two exercises. Economic Inquiry, 33 (1), 170–173.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1995.tb01854.x

91

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 3 – Winter 2018

Rousu M.C., Corrigan J.R., Harris D., Hayter J.K., Houser S., Lafrancois B.A., Onafowora
O., Colson G. & Hoffer A. (2015). Do monetary incentives matter in classroom
experiments? Effects on course performance. Journal of Economic Education, 46 (4),341–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2015.1071214
Wolfe D.E. & Byrne E.T. (1975). Research on experiential learning: Enhancing theprocess. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 2, 325–336.
Yandell D. (2004). Effects of integration and classroom experiments on student learning andsatisfaction. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 5, 17–28.
Corresponding author: Raymond Li
Contact email: ray.li@polyu.edu.hk

92