REDESIGNING INTRODUCTORY ECONOMICS
Techno-collaborative Learning
Maha Bali, Aziza El-Lozy and Herb Thompson
The American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt
Keywords: Educational technology, tertiary education, computer mediation, pedagogy.
Abstract: Does computer-mediation enhance student performance or student interest in the learning process? In this
paper we present the somewhat tentative results of an experiment carried out in teaching/learning
methodology and pedagogy. The goal of the experiment was to examine, compare and elicit results to
identify the differences, if any, in learning outcomes between two classes. One class was taught using
computer-mediated technologies in conjunction with “active” learning pedagogical principles; and the other
class was taught by the same instructor with identical course syllabi and textbook, but using a more
conventional approach of lectures and tests to achieve learning.
1 INTRODUCTION
As (Brahler et.al., 2000), argue, the combinatory
effects of increased workloads, larger classes,
changing learner needs and improved instructional
technologies all have resulted in an increased
demand for on-line teaching material. Consequently,
the aim of this project was to focus on creating a
learner-centred, formatively assessed, course that
used Web-enabled technology. Introduction to
Microeconomics, was chosen as the course to be
redesigned because it has many sections and because
it has a “broad institutional impact”. In order to
gather comparative data, another section of the same
course was simultaneously offered by the same
professor, utilising a more traditional “talking head”,
summatively assessed, approach.
We proceed in the following section with a
literature overview of computer-mediated learning.
This is followed by a description of the experiment
and the methodologies used. Given the data gathered
during the experiment, tentative results and
conclusions are delineated.
2 OVERVIEW OF
COMPUTER-MEDIATED
LEARNING
Does computer-mediation enhance student
performance or learning interests? In this paper we
examine the relationship between computer-
mediated technologies and student intellectual skills
and abilities (Salomon, Perkins and Globerson,
1991). It has been argued, and the premise is
accepted, that many students prefer the “talking
head” that enables them to sit and listen passively
while information pertinent to examinations is
organised for them. Other research shows that better
retention, deeper thinking and higher motivation is
initiated when students are actively involved in
talking, writing and doing things relevant to their
studies, both inside and out of class (Ahern and El-
Hindi 2000: 385-396). Student evaluations exist for
both types of educational practice (McKeachie 1997:
1219).
Implementing a change from the traditional
classroom to one of collaborative, computer-
mediated learning is not simple, either in
organisation and structure, or in the process of
carrying it out. The instructor is no longer the fount
of wisdom or the only purveyor of interpretation.
Even the hours of the class become manipulable by
157
Bali M., El-Lozy A. and Thompson H. (2006).
REDESIGNING INTRODUCTORY ECONOMICS - Techno-collaborative Learning.
In Proceedings of WEBIST 2006 - Second International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Society, e-Business and
e-Government / e-Learning, pages 157-163
DOI: 10.5220/0001238001570163
Copyright
c
SciTePress
students given the ability to log on to discussion
forums at any hour of the day and virtually, submit
assignments, read announcements gather
supplementary reading and ask or respond to
questions (Fuller, et.al. 2000). In any case, even with
the aforementioned technological advances, poor
pedagogical models emphasising the passive
absorption of “authoritative” information is being
passed onto students, thereby wasting the immense
potential of the Internet (Crook 1997; Kirkpatrick
and McLaughlan 2000). Clearly, the challenge is to
weave the technologies into the learning process so
that they become part of the process rather than an
adjunct to it.
Computer mediated technologies have and will
continue to have major repercussions on the
organisation and process of teaching and learning.
For those of us encapsulated in this process,
pedagogical approaches have come under more
scrutiny. Giving the student the chance to participate
more actively, interactively and collaboratively with
both peer groups and instructors is not only possible
but more easily achieved (Bailey and Cotlar 1994:
184-193; Ellsworth 1994; Ragoondden and
Bordeleau 2000).
3 DESCRIPTION AND
METHODOLOGIES OF THE
EXPERIMENT
Two parallel sections of the course (“traditional” and
“innovative”), taught by the same professor,
covering the same textual material, was offered in
the same semester.
The traditional section involved lectures only
(although students were encouraged to ask
questions), using power-point slides in-class. The
course syllabus and discussion forum was placed
online utilising WebCT and a textbook was used for
the required reading. Assessment was based on two
hard-copy pop quizzes (10% each), a midterm exam
(20%), two short reading assignments with students
required to provide a summary analysis in the web-
based discussion forum (15% each) class
participation (20%) and a final exam (20%). In
addition, a “learning styles” questionnaire (discussed
below) was placed in WebCT online.
The innovative section involved very little
lecturing by the instructor, but was facilitated mainly
as student-centred, with open class participation and
interaction. The students took turns giving short
lectures on the textbook material using power-point
slides in class. All course material, other than the
same hard copy text used in the other class, was
provided online and online discussion was overtly
encouraged. Assessment in this section included 10
weekly online quizzes (1% each), class and
electronic online participation (20%), a group
collaborative project that was uploaded and assessed
on WebCT for all students to see (30%), a learning
journal that was shared with the rest of the class
upon completion (15%) and the same final exam
given to the other class (25%). Here too, a “learning
styles” questionnaire was placed in WebCT online.
Classes were primarily “open forums” with learning
activities, peer instruction, group assignments and
individual participation. All of the students in this
class had a personal computer which was used for
most of the class assignments and activities.
Students were encouraged to use the computer as the
search tool for questions and gathering of
information. “Instruction” in this class was primarily
one of coordination and facilitation with assistance
provided as required when computer searching, peer
instruction or collaborative assistance amongst the
students was insufficient.
The usefulness and reasoning behind the group
projects and learning journal is discussed further to
stress the pedagogy involved.
3.1 Collaborative Group Projects
Utilisation of the Internet to assist in collaborative
learning at a sophisticated level has been discussed
in the literature for at least a decade (Crook 1997;
Edwards and Clear 2001; Light, et.al. 1997;
McAteer, et.al. 1997; Sosabowski, et.al. 1998).
Team (collaborative) learning emphasises a high
level of active involvement and a great deal of self-
management by students. The challenges include
determination of effective team member role
behaviours and skill, dealing with ‘free riders’, and
evaluation of individual performance within the
group (Aiken 1991; Alie, R., Beam, H. and Carey,
T. 1998; Boyatiz 1994; Malinger 1998; Ramsey and
Couch 1994). It was emphasised from the beginning
that the students were going to have to resolve all
“management” problems themselves as the
instructor was not going to “referee” squabbles or
disagreements. Secondly, to handle the ‘free rider’
problem, one-third of the project grade was based on
peer evaluation of their colleagues in the group
(Cheng and Warren 2000). Grades were given by
each student to the others in the group anonymously,
and these marks were averaged by the instructor.
The caveat by McCuddy and Pirie that: “students
generally receive little guidance as to how to assess
peers but are simply told to provide an evaluation for
WEBIST 2006 - E-LEARNING
158
each team member”, was taken seriously and given
credence. It is recognised that “peer assessment is a
challenge to experienced individuals and can be a
daunting task for the uninitiated” [2004: 154].
Therefore, detailed guidance was given.
Group projects are problematic, to say the least.
Some students do not wish to study/work with others
as they feel that they are held back by the group, or
forced to coordinate their efforts with others who
may have very different study habits, initiative or
ideas as to what is a “successful project”. These
students will insist that group work is time
consuming with little benefit and in no way provides
an enhancement of their learning. Computer-
mediated communication may become a problem
when members of the group log on at very different
times or indeed, may not log on at all during times
considered crucial for others in the group (“Is
anyone going to respond to the point I made
yesterday about sharing responsibility for the write-
up…”). The point is that the technology is not living
up to its promise NOW! (Harasim 1993: 119-130;
Ragoondden and Bordeleau 2000) In fact, Repman
and Logan (1996) argue convincingly that the
benefits of group oriented pedagogy works primarily
at a social and affective level rather than enhancing
learning. One reason for this, also identified in the
literature, is that collaboration does not work well
within introductory courses, which attract a
variegated group of students both in terms of
backgrounds and interests. Rather collaboration
appears to be more strongly correlated to learning in
professional and graduate courses where
homogeneity of background and interest is more
closely aligned (Muffoletto 1997). However, in this
class, small groups appeared to work reasonably
well.
3.2 Learning Journals
What distinguished a learning journal in this course
is the necessity to relate the theory and models of the
classroom to lived experience. The intention is to
both learn from the process of doing it, i.e.,
reflecting on lived experience in terms of
information gained from the course, and to learn
from the results, i.e., the application of classroom
theory and models to actions, discussions, reading
material or experiences that are encountered outside
the classroom. The journal provides an intellectual
platform for reflection on what is being learned as
well as its usefulness. It counteracts “spoon-feeding”
which are the hallmark of lecture notes and
handouts. Instead, a personal approach to learning is
emphasised allowing the learner to incorporate the
material in their own terms of understanding.
The specific instruction provided to the student is
as follows: You will complete a journal/diary of
approximately 250 words per week, over a ten week
period (2500 words total. You will keep a record as
to what you have learned that is relevant to your
studies and life, questions that have been raised in
your mind, identification of issues that you never
thought about before. This is not to be a diary about
what we did in class. It is to be a reflective journal
relating the material covered in class to the rest of
your life's activities, such as conversations,
experiences, economic activities in which you were
specifically engaged, or articles in newspapers read
based on the material covered in class. How do the
theory and models learned in this course connect to
your lived experiences outside class.
4 AVAILABLE DATA TO ASSESS
IMPACT ON STUDENTS
4.1 Learning Styles Questionnaire
There may be as many different learning styles in a
classroom as there are people, which should directly
impact on the way teaching is organised. Research,
experimentation and results of work by Richard M.
Felder and Barbara A. Solomon in this area is made
available. They have developed a questionnaire to
delineate amongst four dichotomous pairs of
learning styles. The four pairs are: 1) Active and
Reflective Learners; 2) Sensory-based and Intuitive
Learners; Visual and Verbal Learners; and 4)
Sequential or Global Learners. Examination of their
efforts at URL http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/
is recommended. This exercise was included in the
project at hand. Of course there are numerous “ifs”
and “buts” in the results of their work, but the
questionnaire is a most practical and useful tool to
get a mental image of the groups being taught. The
results are more anecdotal, than analytical, but may
provide room for consideration.
Results from questionnaire: Students in the
Innovative section were all “active” learners, slightly
sensory rather than intuitive, primarily visual, and all
sequential learners.
Students in the Traditional section were half
active and half reflective; slightly more sensory than
the innovative section, similar in visual orientation
to the innovative section and were split fairly evenly
but slightly more global in approach.
REDESIGNING INTRODUCTORY ECONOMICS - Techno-collaborative Learning
159
Table 1: Summary and Comparison of Teaching/Learning Approaches in each Section.
Characteristic Traditional Section Innovative Section
Population 20 (mostly 1
st
and 2
nd
year) 16 (mostly 1
st
and 2
nd
year)
Textbook N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics Chapters 1-17
Material
Online
Syllabus, topic notes, glossary,
ppt slides, learning styles
questionnaire, required and
additional reading, assignments,
calendar, bonus questions,
discussion forum.
Syllabus, topic notes, glossary, ppt. slides, learning styles
questionnaire, study guide, chapter links to relevant internet
material, links to classical scholars in economics, calendar, bonus
questions, discussion forum and quizzes. Student group projects
and learning journals were uploaded for viewing by the entire
class.
Lecture Lectures by instructor with .ppt
slides. Students were encouraged
to ask questions before and during
lectures.
Lectures by students using .ppt slides. Student centred, open
class participation and interaction encouraged (e.g., peer
instruction, group activities collaboration and sharing of
computer searches to solve problems or discuss issues)
Class
Environment
One computer, projector and
screen for professor
Class projector and screen for use by all. Each student supplied
with a personal computer. Software (Timbuctu) allowed any of
the computers to use projection screen.
Assignments 2 readings and summary analysis
uploaded on WebCT discussion
forum
Group project; Learning journal uploaded on WebCT
Quizzes 2 paper-based pop quizzes, with
normal assessment of correct
answers.
10 online quizzes – one per week. Following quiz, peers discuss
answers. Credit given simply for taking quiz
Direct
Assessment
2 pop quizzes – 20%
Class participation – 20%
Midterm – 20%
2 paper-based readings and
summary analysis – 20%
Final Exam – 20%
10 online quizzes – 10%
Class/Web participation – 20%
Class project – 30%
Learning Journal – 15%
Final Exam – 25%
Indirect
Assessment
Pre- and Post-course tests, Student evaluations, a Small Group Instructional Diagnosis, Learning
Styles questionnaire, WebCT tracking student activities
The instructor is seen as completely reflective
and much more intuitive than either of the sections,
but equally visual and verbal in approach, while only
slightly more global than sequential.
Description of Categories
ACTIVE – retain and understand best by doing,
applying or explaining.
REFLECTIVE – prefer to think about problems
quietly to begin with before acting.
SENSORY – prefer the facts and a “positivist”
approach; good at memorisation and lab work.
INTUITIVE – look for possibilities and
relationships and exceptions; comfortable with
abstraction and seeks innovation.
VISUAL – prefer pictures, diagrams, flow
charts, time lines, films and demonstrations
VERBAL – prefer written and/or spoken
explanation.
GLOBAL – prefer the “big” picture,
connections, interrelations and move almost
randomly to solution.
SEQUENTIAL – prefer linear step by step
approach to solution
4.2 Pre- and Post-Course Test
Results
The pre-course test was taken from the Third edition
of William B Walstad and Ken Rebeck 2001 Test of
Economic Literacy, New York: National Council on
Economic Education which is used to measure
achievement of American high school students in
economics. A norming sample was provided
showing the aggregate statistics for a sample of
7,243 American students who had taken an
economics course. The numbers below are
representative of the number of correct answers out
of 40 questions. Both sections did better than the
norming sample, and had much lower standard
deviations. This suggests, that on the average, a
number of students in this course had previous
experience with Economics at the secondary level.
The post-course test was taken from the Third
edition of Phillip Saunders 1991 Test of
Understanding in College Economics, New York:
Joint Council on Economic Education which serves
as a measuring instrument in the teaching of
introductory economics at the college level for
WEBIST 2006 - E-LEARNING
160
comparative purposes. A norming sample was
provided showing the aggregate statistics for a
sample of 1,426 American students who had taken
the college course in economics. The numbers below
are representative of the number of correct answers
out of 33 questions. The Innovative section scored
similarly to the American sample, whereas the mean
of the Traditional section was lower than both, albeit
with a smaller standard deviation. See Table 2
below.
4.3 Comparative Assessment of
Final Exam and Final Grades
Summary: The results for the final exam and the
final grades were very similar for both sections. The
final exam results were (Innovative section – 75%,
Traditional section 74%) and the final grades were
(Innovative section had a mean grade of 83.8%
while the traditional section had a mean grade of
78.7%)
4.4 Comparisons of Student Course
Evaluation
In Table 3 the innovative section shows, overall, a
more positive attitude towards the course itself, but
the only significant difference is with reference to
the “reading materials”. This is most likely the result
of the variegated possibilities that the computer
offered the students in the classroom as a “library”
reference source and the facilitation provided to gain
access to up-to-date information relevant to the
material being studied in the text
. Table 4, with
reference to the instructor, shows similar results.
Although the innovative section ranks more
positively (with the exception of “explains concepts
clearly”) the differences are slight in every instance.
See Tables 3 and 4 below.
Table 2: Pre-course and Post-course test results.
Pre-test results Mean Standard
deviation
Traditional section 27.2 5.3
Innovative section 30.3 2.5
American sample 24.7 7.9
Post-test results
Traditional section 13.4 3.9
Innovative section 16.5 5.1
American sample 16.67 6.3
Table 3: Evaluation (Mean) of Course on a scale of 1-5 with 1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree.
Question Traditional
section
Innovative
section
Economics
overall
School of
Business
Reading materials are challenging and
stimulate my thinking
3.80 4.43 3.94 3.78
Tests and assignments reflect the
purpose and content of the course
4.30 4.29 4.18 4.03
Tests and assignments challenge me
to do more than memorize
4.40 4.57 3.97 3.86
The number and frequency of tests
and assignments are reasonable
4.10 4.43 4.17 4.00
The working load is appropriate for
the number of credits
4.30 4.43 4.08 3.91
Overall, this is a useful course 4.40 4.57 4.18 3.99
Table 4: Evaluation (Mean) of the Instructor on a scale of 1-5 with 1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree.
Question Traditional
section
Innovative
section
Economics
overall
School of
Business
Inspires student interest in course 4.29 4.33 4.08 3.94
Organised and prepared for class 4.43 4.56 4.45 4.23
Explains concepts clearly 4.00 3.94 4.19 4.01
Emphasises conceptual
understanding and critical thinking
4.29 4.41 4.15 3.99
REDESIGNING INTRODUCTORY ECONOMICS - Techno-collaborative Learning
161
4.5 Small Group Instructional
Diagnosis
In this exercise, the Director of the Center for
Learning and Teaching and the Instructional
technologist spent 30 minutes in each of the classes
interviewing the students as to their impressions of
the course half way through the semester. Below is a
summary of their responses to two questions.
What helps you learn in this course?
Traditional section
Power-point slides in conjunction with lectures but there
were a couple in the class who “hated” computers.
Understanding is expected more than memorization.
People asking questions: so that the point is covered again
and professor is prepared to go over questions again.
Innovative section
WebCT: permanent interaction; helps us to learn in an
innovative way (discussing amongst ourselves materials
that we may not comprehend).
No need to memorize – no mid-terms, so there is a need to
understand when writing in the learning journal. We have
to take much more responsibility for our own learning.
An interesting teaching style.
Discussions in class and feedback through the online
discussion is more important the sitting and listening to
lectures.
Students become the role players in the class, asking each
other questions and using the board and projector
ourselves to show our understanding to other students who
may not understand.
Always being up to date with what is going on in class and
outside class.
What improvements would you like and How would you
suggest that they be made?
Traditional section
Go slower
Spend more time covering class material relevant to
quizzes.
Provide more worksheets with practical problems.
Show relations between chapters.
More participation and discussion needed in class.
Don’t depend so much on WebCT
Innovative section
Provide more variety of choice for the group projects.
The discussion forum needs more structure and more input
from the professor.
Make all courses like this.
5 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Pre, Post, Final Exams
Given the intervening variables and relatively small
sample of students it does not seem appropriate to
discuss questions of “significant” difference.
However, practically, it can be noted that in all three
exams (Pre-test, Post-test and Final exam) the mean
and median results were higher for the innovative
section.
5.2 Course Evaluation
The numerical results of the course evaluation, and
qualitative observation by the instructional
technologist indicated better student disposition
towards the effect of technology on learning as well
as student motivation. General disposition towards
computer mediation was much stronger for the
“innovative” section students than for the traditional
section students (suggesting that it did enhance their
learning process, etc). The innovative course
consistently showed better results than either, the
traditional course, and other courses in Economics,
or all courses in the School of Business.
5.3 SGID
According to the SGID results the innovative section
students were more comfortable with the speed of
the course, the use of technology, and the material
covered. The traditional section students were
uncomfortable with the speed of instruction; felt
their questions were not sufficiently answered and
that the course was not sufficiently interactive.
Qualitatively, the students in the innovative section
seemed much more interested both in taking more
economics courses and/or taking economics as a
major; whereas the students in the traditional section
showed much less enthusiasm for the material
covered, or for economics as a discipline
.
5.4 CAVEAT
There is insufficient quantitative and qualitative data
to allow clear, undifferentiated judgements.
Furthermore, an excessive number of intervening
variables blurred both the accuracy and
interpretation of results, which, among other things,
is the analogue of Heisenberg’s “principle of
WEBIST 2006 - E-LEARNING
162
uncertainty”, i.e., the biases, attitudes and behaviour
of the facilitator.
No information was gathered with respect to
gender, major and minor degree interest, or student
backgrounds in economics in secondary school or
university.
To conclude qualitatively, on one level the
results indicate that the amount of work that goes
into creating an activity-based alternative to the
“talking head” and conventional testing approach
may be unnecessary. However, at another level there
was sufficient evidence to show that the learning
process (and economics) was enjoyed much more by
the students when engaged in an open, active,
collaborative manner. The depth of learning which
takes place remains to be determined in further
research.
REFERENCES
Ahern, T. and El-Hindi, A. E. (2000). Improving the
instructional congruency of a computer-mediated
small-group discussion: A case study in design and
delivery. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 32(3), 385-596.
Aiken, G. (1991). Self-directed learning in introductory
management. Journal of Management Education, 15,
295-312.
Alie, R., Beam, H. and Carey, T. (1998). The use of teams
in an undergraduate management program. Journal of
Management Education, 22, 707-719.
Bailey, E. and Cotlar, E. (1994). Teaching via the Internet.
Communication Education, 43, 184-193.
Boyatiz, R. (1994). Stimulating self-directed learning
through the managerial assessment and development
course. Journal of Management Education, 18, 304-
323.
Brahler, C.J., Peterson, N.S. and Johnson, E.C. (2000).
Developing on-line material for higher education: an
overview of current issues. Education Technology and
Society, 3(1), 42-54.
Cheng, W. and Warren, M. (2000). Making a Difference:
using peers to assess individual students’ contributions
to a group project. Teaching in Higher Education 5(2),
243-255.
Crook, C.K. (1997). Making hypertext lecture notes more
interactive: undergraduate reactions. Journal of
Computer-Assisted Learning, 13, 236-244.
Edwards, M.A. and Clear, F. (2001). Supporting the
Collaborative Learning of Practical Skills with
Computer-Mediated Communications Technology.
Educational Technology and Society, 4(1) [WWW
page]. URL
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_1_2001/edwards.ht
ml
Ellsworth, J. (1994). Education on the Internet. Indiana:
Sams Publishing.
Fuller, Dorothy, Norby, Rena F., Pearce, Kristi and
Strand, Sharon (2000). Internet Teaching By Style:
Profiling the On-line Professor. Educational
Technology & Society, 3(2) [WWW page]. URL
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_2_2000/pearce.html
Harasim, L. (1993). Collaborating in cyberspace: Using
computer conferences as a group learning
environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2),
119-130.
Kirkpatrick, D. and McLaughlan, R. (2000). Flexible
lifelong learning in professional education. Education
Technology and Society, 3(1), 24-31.
Light, P., Colbourn, C. and Light, V. (1997). Computer
mediated tutorial support for conventional courses.
Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 13, 228-235.
Malinger, M. (1998). Maintaining control in the classroom
by giving up control. Journal of Management
Education 22, 43-56.
McCuddy, M.K. and Pirie, W.L (2004). Using teams in
the classroom: Meeting the challenge of evaluating
student’s work. In Ottewill, R., Borredon, L., Falque,
L., Macfarlane, B. and Wall, A. Educational
Innovation in Economics and Business: Pedagogy,
Technology and Innovation (Volume VIII, pp.147-
160). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McAteer, E., Tolmie, A., Duffy, C. and Corbett, J. (1997).
Computer-mediated communication as a learning
resource. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 13,
219-227.
McKeachie, W. (1997). Student ratings: the validity of
use. American Psychologist 52, November, 1218-
1225.
Muffoletto, R. (1997). Reflections on Designing and
Producing an Internet-Based Course. TechTrends,
42(2), 50-53.
Ragoondden, Karen and Bordeleau, Pierre (2000).
Collaborative Learning via the Internet. Educational
Technology & Society, 3(3) [WWW page]. URL
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2000/d11.html
Ramsey, V. and Couch, P. (1994). Beyond self-directed
learning: A partnership model of teaching learning.
Journal of Management Education, 18, 139-161.
Repman, J. & Logan, S. (1996). Interactions at a Distance:
Possible Barriers and Collaborative Solutions.
TechTrends, November/December, 35-38.
Salomon, G. Perkins, D. and Globerson, T. (1991).
Partners in Cognition: Extending Human Intelligence
with Intelligent Technologies. Educational Researcher
20(3), April, 2-9.
Sosabowski, M.H., Herson, K. and Lloyd, A.W. (1998).
Enhancing learning and teaching quality: integration
of networked learning technologies into undergraduate
modules. Active Learning, 8, 20-25.
REDESIGNING INTRODUCTORY ECONOMICS - Techno-collaborative Learning
163