Transcript I. Thinking Errors II. Strategies III. Experiment

“Mislearning” Economics: Addressing Common
Thinking Errors of Principles Students
Mariya Burdina, Ph.D. & Katherine M. Sauer, Ph.D.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Metropolitan State College of Denver
February 18th , 2011
22nd Annual Teaching Economics Conference
Robert Morris University/McGraw Hill - Irwin
Basic premise:
People learn new material by putting it in the context
of what they already know.
In economics, prior experience and knowledge
commonly interfere with the correct understanding of
the new material.
Outline:
I. Thinking Errors
II. Identification Strategies
III. Field Experiment
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
Examples of student “misthinking” fall into three categories.
1. linguistic mindset: derives from the tendency to identify with
the everyday language usage of a word
- discipline’s usage differs from everyday usage
- ‘precision’ of the term matters
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
2. physical mindset: derives from the students’ physical
experiences that cause misconceptions with regard to the
understanding of graphical representations
3. resistive mindset: derives from the natural resistance to
acknowledge a reality that is different from what the student
believes “ought to be” the case
Kourilsky, M. (1993) “Economic Education and a Generative Model of Mislearning and
Recovery” The Journal of Economic Education 24(1): 23-33.
Examples:
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment


Linguistic Mindset
scarcity vs rarity
quantity demanded vs demand


Physical Mindset
spending money has a cost but spending time doesn’t
left shift in supply is a decrease

quantity supplied vs supply

binding price ceilings and floors

inelastic elasticity


public good vs public provision of a good
zero economic profits vs not earning any
money
the “cost” in opportunity cost isn’t just money 
cost
welfare economics vs welfare program

demand for labor vs wanting to have a job


shift vs movement along
unintended consequences vs negative
externalities

above vs increasing (on average-marginal
graphs)






Resistive Mindset
price controls are not always good for consumers (or
producers)
a monopoly isn’t simply a bad thing
trade can benefit both parties involved
sales tax on consumers or producers yields same
outcome
ceteris paribus
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
According to the Generative Theory of Learning, people
understand new concepts by idiosyncratically relating them to prior
experiences and prior stored information.
How can we tap in to the students’ schema and use it to our
teaching advantage?
Assessing the connections that the students have made can give
insight to instructors.
Wittrock, M.C. (1974) “Learning as a Generative Process” Educational Psychologist.
11(2): 87-95. Republished in original form in 2010 “Learning as a Generative
Process” Educational Psychologist. 45(1): 40-45.
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
Generative Learning Strategies can be broken down into 4 basic
categories.
Strategies that promote: recall, organization, integration or
elaboration.
Sharp, D.C., DS. Knowlton, and R.E. Weiss (2005) “Applications of Generative Learning
for the Survey of International Economics Course” The Journal of Economic Education
36(4): 345-357.
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
1. Organization strategies involve the student imposing an
organization on the content.
outline
summary
concept map
2. Integration strategies are those that assist students in making
connections to their prior experience and knowledge.
paraphrasing
creating analogies or metaphors
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
3. Elaboration strategies require the student to connect the new
content with additional or extended information.
- identifying real-world examples
- predicting implications of policies
- connecting course content to content from other disciplines
- hypothesizing causes for particular outcomes
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
Our Focus:
Analogies and metaphors are useful for making abstract
concepts more concrete.
Analogy
Glove is to hand as paint is to wall.
Metaphor
The lawyer grilled the witness.
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
People use analogies and metaphors so often in everyday
communication that they may not even be aware they are doing
so.
It is common to begin a statement with “Think of it as…” or
“It is similar to …” when explaining something that is
unfamiliar to a friend.
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
When students construct an analogy or metaphor they are
relating new information to information they already
understand.
Because the students’ own language is used to construct
analogies or metaphors, students can not simply regurgitate
definitions and examples from class.
An instructor can gauge a class’s understanding of a concept
by looking at the analogies that students come up with.
Analogies can help students overcome the linguistic and
physical mindset.
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
III. Evolution of Our Field Experiment
Version 1. After the instructor teaches a concept, students are
asked to come up with an analogy for a that concept.
- homework for the next class
- 3 to 5 answers were volunteered from students to
be discussed by class
We learned:
- some students don’t understand analogies in general
- by glancing through the submitted work, the
instructor could gauge the class’s understanding
- it is better to have analogies handed in so instructor
can process them before discussing as a class
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
Student examples for scarce vs rare:
Rarity is to scarcity as Francium is to Silver.
Rarity is hard to find, scarcity isn't often found.
During rush hour parking spaces are scarce to find at the light
rail station but finding a close one is rare.
Polar Bears are to scarcity as a Pink Polar Bear is to rarity.
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
Version 2. After the instructor teaches the concept, the
instructor offers an analogy for the concept, then the students
are assigned the task of coming up with an analogy.
- tried in groups in class and as homework
We learned:
- student answers fall into 3 types:
- clever/insightful analogy
- analogy very similar to instructor’s
- incorrect analogy
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
Complete Example:
Instructor’s Price Ceiling Analogy
Grocery stores often impose a limit on the number of sale items you may buy.


Analogy
Store policy is to let you buy only a maximum
number of a particular item that is on sale.
Some people would like to buy more than the
limit, but are not allowed to.


Price Ceiling
Legally, a price ceiling is the maximum price that
can be charged.
Some people would be willing to pay more in
order to be able to purchase the item, but are not
allowed to.
 Some transactions are prevented from taking
 Some transactions are prevented from taking
place.
place.
Student-Generated Price Ceiling Analogies
Correct
Incorrect
Many colleges have a maximum number of times you Some airlines allow you to check one 50 pound bag
may attempt a course. Some students would like to
free of charge. Some people want to bring more
attempt the same course more times, but are not
baggage but don't because they will have to pay for it.
allowed to. Some transactions are prevented from
Some transactions are prevented from taking place.
taking place.
Student Examples for other concepts:
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
binding vs non-binding price control
Price ceiling without binding constant is like artificial crab.
You would think there would be some crab in it, but there is
not. Same with the binding constant that is for a floor price
below equilibrium.
If you are on a scholarship, you must maintain, for example a
3.5 GPA,. If you drop below that is it binding because you
lose your scholarship. If you are trying to graduate without
scholarship, everyone knows “C” gets you a degree. But you
are not forced to get good grades, so it’s not binding.
Government sets limit that no one can be taller than 6 feet.
Non binding – government sets limit that no one can be taller
than 18 feet.
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
quantity demanded vs demand
Paycheck to 52 paychecks
A gallon of gasoline to a full tank
Demand is like people in the market for car and quantity
demanded is the people willing to pay a certain amount for a car.
The need of shoes is big, so we’ll get more shoes to sell
There are 80000 people in Colorado who want to buy an iPhone,
but there is only 10,000 available
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
Version 3. The instructor teaches the concept, offers an
analogy, then gives an assignment where students distinguish
between correct and false analogies.
- create worksheets from previous’ students analogies
- students work together and discuss the merits of
each analogy for a particular economic concept
We learned:
- TBD … we are working on this now
I. Thinking Errors
II. Strategies
III. Experiment
What’s next?
In the future, we’d like to formally investigate any
impact this has on student learning.
- experiment / control
- analogy assignments / traditional assignments
Questions for Discussion
What thinking errors have you observed in your principles
classes?
What concepts are continually difficult for you to convey to
your students?
Do you already use analogies in your lectures?
Would you be interested in using analogies in your lectures?
Comments? Questions?
To contact us:
Katie Sauer
[email protected]
303-556-3037
February 18th , 2011
Mariya Burdina
[email protected]
303-556-3131
22nd Annual Teaching Economics Conference
Robert Morris University/McGraw Hill - Irwin