If You Build It, They Will Come: Kathy Parkison Margo Sorgman Abstract Economic standards have been set, are here to stay, and must be met. Therefore, professional development in economic education is vital. To that end, a three phase course for K-12 teachers was collaboratively designed and delivered by faculty members in both education and economics. It enhances teachers' knowledge and comfort with economic concepts and their ability to successfully implement and assess the economic learning and enhance the economic attitudes of their K-12 students. Introduction There is a national mandate in the United States to enhance the economic literacy of elementary and secondary students. To meet these expectations, classroom teachers must become knowledgeable about economics, comfortable teaching economics, and able to implement economics in the classroom. Studies by the authors (Authors, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004 forthcoming and 2004 working paper) reveal that the primary influence in teachers' economic literacy is taking a course in economics that teaches key macro and microeconomics concepts and requires them to develop, implement, and assess economic curriculum in their classrooms. While teachers may have the economic knowledge after some form of economic education training, they do not necessarily have the disposition towards both the importance of economics and how to teach the economic concepts to their students that result in their comfort with economics. Principle #1 of the INTASC standards (which shapes teacher education programs, licensure, and accreditation) says that, "teachers must understand the central concepts, the tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that makes these aspects of the subject matter meaningful for students" (INTASC, 1991). In addition, there are four dispositions that define comfort with teaching subject material:
The missing piece in the economics education literature and in the authors' research has been the implementation of economic curriculum and the assessment of its impact on K-12 student learning. The National Council for Economic Education (NCEE) has recognized this lack of scholarship and has called for additional research on this topic. The first step in filling this gap was made possible when a summer course for teachers became a Saturday class during spring semester. This Saturday class, designed and team-taught by faculty from both economics and education, is a unique partnership in the nation and the only one in Indiana, and was cited by the IU Kokomo Center for Economic Education's accreditation visitation team as a model for centers nationwide. Many of the teachers in our service area have not had any formal training in economics or the teaching of economics. Additionally it has resulted in campus and university awards, recognition by the Indiana Council for the Social Studies, selection for international travel by the National Council for Economic Education, and numerous presentations at the state, national, and international levels. The active learning approach in the course, (using simulations, role plays, games and other such active learning methodologies) for teachers makes a powerful impact on teachers' efficacy with economics content and curriculum. The purpose of the course is twofold: first, to examine how individuals make choices and how the price system plays a role in those choices; and secondly, to increase awareness of how the U.S. economic systems functions at an aggregate level. K-12 teachers who attend the course are underwritten by a stipend from the Indiana Council for Economic Education. These teachers typically are not economics teachers. So their lack of training in economics, coupled with the state mandates, results in their view these content mandates as challenging. The goals for the course are to enhance the teachers' economic literacy of major economic concepts and institutional structures; to develop economic reasoning by improving their ability to think logically and critically about economic approaches to behavior, analysis and issues; and to explore economic applications by studying how economics applies to situations. Upon completing the course, teachers should be competent on nine learning objectives. These learning objectives were developed in conjunction with the School of Business and the economics faculty members at IU Kokomo to ensure that major economics content inherent in a micro/macro survey course is mastered. They are as follows:
The seven Saturday 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. class is organized into three phases. In the FIRST PHASE teachers are introduced to nine learning objectives (listed above) via presentations, curriculum applications, and exposure to published economic materials and student-developed materials housed in the Indiana University Kokomo Center for Economic Education Library. For example, after Supply and Demand are introduced via lecture, the concept of market price is shown graphically with examples from the news to guide understanding. Then a simulation is played where teachers become buyers and sellers and through their trades begin to see the emergence of market price as it is recorded on the board. To learn the Impact of Regulations on Productivity, another simulation is played where teachers make friendship pins and then are required to wear gloves to protect their hands as a result of a fictionalized OSHA regulation. Finally, teachers end up wearing paper plate masks to protect their eyes, due to a second fictionalized OSHA regulation. This dynamic activity, designed by NCEE, and its follow-up analysis, shows the impact of regulations on productivity and models an interactive and hands-on learning approach. These active-learning approaches are central to the scholarship on best practices for teaching and learning (Zemelman et al., 1998). The SECOND PHASE of the course is the development of curriculum projects for implementation and assessment in K-12 classrooms. Of the six lessons, two may be adapted, at least one must have an international component, and a micro-macro concept balance must be evidenced. The curriculum must include a five page rationale which is a justification for the selection of the economic concepts, the goals for the curriculum, and objectives to be measured. Teachers are challenged to detail their instructional approaches and where possible link them to school district initiatives (such as using the Internet). A four page analysis of pre and posttest data assessing their K-12 students' economic literacy gains and attitudes toward economics are also required. Exemplars and demonstration lessons are provided to model integration of economic content with other subject areas.
Success of the Saturday Course was determined by multiple measures. First teachers were assessed by a series of mini-examinations on the nine economic learning outcomes. These course exams were designed to determine teachers' knowledge of economics so that teachers can connect the correct economics to their curriculum and meet the curriculum development requirement as suggested by NCEE and state economic standards. Second, teachers were given the National Council for Economic Education (NCEE) Test for Economic Literacy (TEL), Version 3, 2002) as a pre and posttest measure which is designed to assess the economic literacy of high school graduates. The TEL is designed to measure student understanding of basic economic concepts as listed in either the Framework for Teaching Basic Economic Concepts (Saunders & Gilliard, 1995) or the Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics (NCEE, 1997) It has been extensively used throughout the United States and around the world. The past history of the development of the TEL is well documented in the Third Edition's Examiner's Manual (NCEE, 2001) and can serve as a nationally normed measure of our teachers' ability before and after instruction in the economic content of the course. The TEL was administered to these teachers as a pretest to test basic knowledge of economics PRIOR to taking the course to determine the baseline knowledge of economics. This was done anonymously, resulting in aggregate scores as shown in Table 1. The TEL was a new addition to our assessment procedures in Spring 2004, therefore we do not have 2003 data.
The sample size is too small to do any standard statistical analysis, such as comparison of means. However, it is clear that while the teachers' average score increased, the standard deviation also increased. This will bear watching for the future. A future research study will compare teachers' post TEL scores with the quality of their curriculum and their K-12 student assessment data. Third, teachers were assessed on the quality of their curriculum projects, which varied widely with scores ranging from A's to D's. These curriculum projects were graded using the following criteria using criteria adapted from Connecting the Pieces: Building a Better Economics Lesson (NCEE, 1997):
Fourth, teachers completed a survey at the end of the course assessing their knowledge, comfort, and application outcomes. This self-report measure, shown in Table 2, has a small sample of 10 teachers for spring 2003 and spring 2004 semesters. The survey questions were clustered into three major categories: content and comfort; implementation and assessment; and course elements.
Some preliminary conclusions from survey data can be drawn. Teachers liked the Saturday format, especially with the content front-loaded and implementation time in the middle of the semester. They also felt that the course increased their knowledge of economics, comfort with economic content, and enhanced their implementation of economics curriculum. This survey confirmed our earlier research finding that a strong knowledge base of economics helps increase teachers' comfort with economics. Teachers rated highly the opportunity to work with others. Fifth, teachers were required to develop and administer assessment measures in their own classrooms. The assessments were both qualitative and quantitative in nature. For example, one teacher had the students rate their confidence level on both the pre- and post-tests. These self reported levels are listed in Table 3. Overall, this same teacher's students' scores improved 19.4% on economic content assessment measures from the pre-test to the post-test.
Other teachers gave paper and pencil pretest measures. One second grade teacher's students' scores improved from 40.5% average accuracy to 72.5%. She reported that, "Students approached the post-test with enthusiasm as they wanted to see how much they had gained. They enjoyed finding the economic concepts within the stories that were read to them. In fact, I noticed them using the economic vocabulary in other areas of the curriculum." She concluded by saying, "I never would have made this econ. connection without the class requirement. I will enthusiastically teach this unit in subsequent years, because the children have gained so much." These teacher comments confirm the Chen et al. research. They note that when in-service is characterized by needs assessment, classroom visits, and university credits, teachers have an increased sense of renewal and connections to their field. (Chen, 1990) In her study of money, a third grade teacher reported that the kids viewed money as, "something that helps you get good things and can hurt if you get bad things such as drugs or guns." She also reports that, "Money is not always seen as something to buy with, rather they are thinking about saving their money instead of spending it now." A high school teacher, who designed a classroom economic system to improve student dispositions, created a series of fines for questionable behavior such as sleeping in class, attention to non-class material, late work, noise pollution, not having the correct materials, and leaving the classroom. One of her students discovered that two absences left her without enough income to meet expenses. Powerful statements from her students include, "I studied harder to get more money. I didn't miss class as much and I learned about the economy from this project." And "I enjoyed that this was close to simulating real life."
According to Gentile & Lalley (2003), effective in-service for teachers should provide, among other things, opportunities for active rather than passive learning, opportunities for practice and feedback, a focus on content, a requirement that teachers think at higher levels of complexity, and a sustained focus on the content involved. This course was designed with these aspects in mind and in doing so, linked content, applications, implementation, and assessment. Since economic standards have been set and are here to stay, they must be met. Therefore, professional development in economic education is vital. To that end, a three phase course, collaboratively designed and delivered by faculty members in both education and economics, has been successful because it enhances teachers' knowledge and comfort with economic concepts and their ability to successfully implement and assess the economic learning and attitudes of their students. One of our teachers said it best, "While I become more proficient in bringing economic concepts into the classroom, the students will be gaining knowledge. This will help them into high school as more knowledgeable students, more efficient consumers, and wiser for their future."
Authors, (November, 1998). "Enhancing Economic Literacy of Classroom Teachers," International Advances in Economic Research, Vol.4, #4, 418-427. Authors, (1999). "The Impact of a Survey Course in Economics on Teachers' Curriculum and Personal Decisions: A Follow-up Study," Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, Vol. #3, 50-56. Authors, (December, 2000). "Internationalizing an Economics Curriculum for Teachers," Business Education Forum, Vol. 55 #2, 35-37. Authors, (2000 presentation), "Origins of Economic Knowledge: A Study of Factors Influencing Pre and In-Service Teachers," NCSS Great Lakes Regional Conference, Indianapolis, IN, April 2000. Authors, (forthcoming) "A Comparative Study of Area Professionals and Undergraduate Education Majors' Economic Literacy and Curriculum Applications," (accepted for publication in the Economics and Economic Education Research Journal). Authors, (2003) "Economics in Action: A SIFE, University, and Classroom," Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, pp. 77-85, Volume 6. Connecting the Pieces : Building a Better Economics Lesson, National Council for Economic Education, 1998. Gentile, J. Ronald & James Lalley. (2003). Standards and Mastery Learning: Aligning Teaching and Assessment So All Children Can Learn, Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press Inc. Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensure and Development: A Resource for State Dialogue, INTASC, Council of Chief State School Officers, 1991, pp. 10 - 11. Indiana Academic Standards - Social Studies, (Teacher's Edition). (2001). Indiana Department of Education. National Council for Economic Education April 2003. Survey of the States: Economic and Personal Financial Education in Our Nation's Schools in 2002. National Science Foundation, Historical Perspectives on Current Teacher Enhancement Programs in Science and Mathematics, downloaded on July 12, 2004, http://www.ehr.nsf.gove/ehr/rec/pubs/eval/tep/tep.html. Saunders, P., & Gilliard, (Eds.) A Framework for Teaching the Basic Economic Concepts, National Council on Economic Education, New York, 1995. Walstad, William & Denise Robson (1990). Basic Economics Test Form A, Second Edition, National Council for Economics Education. Zemelman, Steven, Daniels, Harvey, & Hyde, Arthur, (1998). Best Practice for Teaching and Learning America's Schools, 2nd Edition. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||