Factors affecting economic literacy of college students: some additional evidence.
Shipley, Calvin ; Shetty, Shekar
INTRODUCTION
It is believed that college students who take principles of
economics may have some difficulty in understanding the economics
concepts taught in this course. The question then is whether previous
exposure to economic courses has any influence on performance and the
likelihood of students' success in the basic economics courses they
take at the college level. Previous research indicates that there are
conflicting results regarding the impact of prior knowledge of
economics, particularly high school economics classes, on student
performance in college level economics classes. Some studies report that
students do not benefit much in their performance in college economics
course by taking economics class at high school level. Other studies
suggest that prior economics courses in high school help them in
understanding the college economics courses.
For example, Palmer, Carliner, and Romer's study (1979)
indicate that college students who took an economic course in high
school did not begin their introductory economics course with
significantly more knowledge, nor did they learn significantly more
during the semester. These students actually received significantly
lower grades in the principles course than did those who had not taken
high school economics. Reid (1983) also found that students who had high
school economics achieved significantly lower grades in introductory
economics than those without the high school course.
On the other hand, Becker, Greene, and Rosen (1990) believe that
high school economics help the students better understand economics in
college based on pre/post-testing. However, the authors were doubtful
about its lasting effect on the students. Myatt and Waddell (1990)
report that the high school economics course is found to be
significantly positively correlated with students', grades in
principles of economics in college. A more recent study by Lopus (1997),
using a large nationwide database, found that students who had exposure
to macro or microeconomics in high school were better prepared to take
principles of economics classes than those with no high school economics
background.
In addition, Dale and Allen (1999) found no significant difference
in basic economic knowledge (as measured by the National Council on
Economic Education's Test of Economic Literacy) between a group of
elementary education majors and students enrolled in microeconomic principles. This was found to be true even though there are some
differences in the methodology and content of these two courses. In
addition, one might expect differences based upon differences in other
college coursework due to the requirements of the different major. Dale
and Allen also found that pervious coursework in economics, but not in
other business disciplines, had a very significant positive affect on
economic literacy, as measured by the TEL. However, it was not clear
whether this included coverage of economics prior to college in grades
K-12.
The purpose of this study is to gather additional evidence to help
clarify the conflicting results of earlier research by analyzing the
impact of various levels of prior economic training and students'
majors on their understanding of basic economic concepts.
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
During the spring 1997 through fall 1998 semesters, the Test of
Economic Literacy was administered to sections of Economics for
Elementary Teachers, Microeconomics and Macroeconomics Principles at
Henderson State University. Students enrolled in Economics for
Elementary Teachers are typically juniors majoring in elementary
education. Students in the sophomore economics principles classes are
primarily business majors but include some secondary education (for
social science certification) and liberal arts majors.
One purpose of the study was to determine what differences in test
scores, if any, exist between the two types of students. To ease
students concerns that this testing would impact their class grades,
individual scores were not identified by student; therefore a paired
t-test on individual improvement was not possible. However, an
independent-samples t-test found no statistically significant difference
between the two groups on pre-test or posttest scores. This indicates
that there is no difference in basic economic knowledge, as measured by
the Test of Economic Literacy, between elementary education majors and a
group made up primarily of business majors, but also including some
secondary education and liberal arts majors. When each of the groups was
tested to see if there was an improvement in scores (post-test versus
pre-test), no significant improvement can be concluded for either group.
However, a t-test comparing all pre-test scores against post-test
scores, all students combined, did show a significant improvement. The
mean pretest score was 26.30; the mean post-test score was 28.17. While
the mean improvement as only 1.87 points, the larger sample sizes (366
took the pre-test and 304 took the post-test) allow the conclusion that
improvement was statistically significant (probability of error is 3%).
As stated earlier, to maintain student anonymity, pre-test and post-test
scores were not paired, so no analysis of individual improvement was
possible.
Another issue of concern was whether or not a student's
previous education in economics had an impact on pre-test or post-test
scores. Students were asked to indicate which of the following
categories best described their background at the beginning of the
semester in which testing was conducted.
1. Only had a high school economics course (at least one semester)
2. Had one high school course AND one college course
3. No high school course AND one college course
4. Two or more college courses
5. No high school or college courses
Sample results for pre-test scores are given in the table below.
Basic one-way analysis of variance is based on assumptions of
normality and equal variance for each treatment. An examination of the
treatment distributions and Levene's test of homogeneity indicates
that all treatment distributions are not normal nor are variances equal.
However, analysis of variance is not appreciably affected if lack of
normality is not extreme (Nester, Wesserman, Kutner, 1985, 624).
A one-way analysis of variance was conducted on the difference in
pre-test scores by background. The F-test indicated a significant
difference. Because treatment variances were unequal, Tahane's test
of multiple comparisons was used to determine which treatment means were
different. The only significant difference in pre-test scores was
between the no high school/one college course group and the group with
no previous coursework (several other multiple comparison tests based on
unequal variances all produced the same results). Because the departure
from normality might be large enough to affect the results of the
analysis of variance, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was applied
to the pre-test scores of the five groups. This test showed very
significant differences in the five groups. However, this test does not
permit determination of whether the mean, variance or skewness of the
group is different (Neter, Wasserman, Kutner, 1985, 640).
To complete the analysis of differences in scores, two groups (one
high school/one college course and two or more college courses) were
dropped due to small sample size (10 and 5 observations). The remaining
three groups were compared using the independent sample t-test. No
significant difference in pre-test scores was found between those
students who had at least one semester of economics in high school and
those students who had no economics at all. However, the pre-test scores
of students who have no high school but one college economics course
were significantly higher than students with only a high school course
or no economics at all. These results imply that high school training
has no impact on pre-test scores. Whether this is due to the high school
course content or merely the length of the time that has passed since
the high school course was taken cannot be determined from this data. It
is also of note that the Krushal-Wallis test on post-test scores
indicated no significant different among the five groups.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The results confirm earlier findings of Palmer, Carliner, and
Romer's study (1979), that college students with at least one
semester of high school economics do not perform significantly better
then those without any economics background when tested on basic
economic concepts. Further research is necessary to determine whether
the length of time, which has passed since the high school course was
taken, has an effect on this conclusion. In addition, some public
schools had adopted a curriculum, which integrates economic concepts
across disciplines and is introduced beginning at the kindergarten
level. Research to determine whether such an approach, either
independently or in conjunction with a formal high school economics
course, has an effect on a college student's understanding of basic
economic concepts is needed.
Another area for further investigation is the impact of a
student's major in test performance. While elementary education
majors are clearly delineated in the study, no data was gathered to
separate business majors from other majors in the principles of
economics classes. A third and final area for expansion of this study
should focus on the split between macroeconomics and microeconomics, and
also whether the weight given to this decision on the Test of Economics
Literacy might impact test performance.
In conclusion, these results add to the evidence on factors that
affect college students' economic understanding, but further
research is necessary to identify the key factors involved. As knowledge
of these factors expands, curriculum improvements can be developed for
public schools and college economics professors can better serve
students in their principles classes.
REFERENCES
Becker, W., W. Greene, and S. Rosen (1990). Research on high school
economic education. Journal of Economic Education 21(3), 231-245.
Dale, L.R., and J. Allen (1999). Performance in economic and
economic education: Does familiarity breed contempt or commitment.
Proceedings of the Academy for Economics and Economic Education 2(1).
15-20.
Lopus, J. (1997). Effects of the high school economics curriculum
on learning. Journal of Economic Education 28(2), 143-154.
Myatt, A., and C Waddell (1990). An approach to testing the
effectiveness of the teaching and learning of economics at high school.
Journal of Economics Education 21(3), 355-363.
Netter, J., W. Wasserman, and M. Kutner (1985). Applied linear
statistical models. Homewood, Illinois, Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Palmer, J., G. Carliner, and T. Romer (1979). Does high school
economics help? Journal of Economic Education 10 (2), 58-61.
Reid, R. (1983). A note on the environment as a factor affecting
student performance in principles of economics. Journal Economic
Education 14(4), 18-22.
Calvin Shipley, Henderson State University
Shekar Shetty, Salisbury University
Table 1: Pre-test Scores
Economics Background Sample Mean Pre-test
Size Score
One high school course 35 25.46
No previous courses 250 25.71
No high school and on college 64 28.08
One high school and one college 10 29.20
course
Two or more college courses 5 32.60
