Department of Economics
Assessment Report
May 1998
1. General goals
Economics' goals for student learning were developed in spring 1996 by discussions among faculty, students, and alumni. These goals were updated in spring 1998 during a series of faculty meetings.
1.a General goals for ECON 103/104:
ECON 103, Principles of Microeconomics, and ECON 104, Principles of Macroeconomics, serve two purposes. They are introductory courses for majors and they also are survey courses taken by most Ohio University undergraduates. For example, about 77 percent of Ohio University undergraduates take ECON 103.
Students in ECON 103/104 will obtain an understanding of economic principles and preparation for more advanced courses that build on these principles.
Students in ECON 103/104 will be exposed to basic analytical concepts such as supply and demand, elasticity, surplus, money, aggregate demand, international exchange, interest rates, and the differences between real and nominal variables.
Students in ECON 103/104 will acquire a basic understanding of economic institutions and markets.
1.b General goals for Undergraduate Majors’ Learning:
Majors will have a basic understanding of markets, market structures, and the world economy.
Majors will have an understanding of basic research methodology including literature surveys, data gathering, data analysis, and policy implications.
Majors will be familiar with basic data sources in both printed and electronic libraries.
Majors will have a basic understanding of economic institutions such as the Federal Reserve, stock markets, and financial intermediaries.
Majors will be prepared for master's-level studies in economics or related fields.
Majors will be prepared for employment in the public and private sectors at levels appropriate for baccalaureate holders.
Majors will be able to use current technology to access economic knowledge and information and interpret economic relationships.
1.c Goals for graduate student learning
Graduate students will achieve proficiency in analyzing microeconomic and macroeconomic problems.
Graduate students will be able to draw on their understanding of economics in order to explore new economic problems.
Graduate students will be able to measure economic relationships empirically using appropriate statistical tools.
Graduate students will be prepared to enter the workforce in positions above the entry level.
2.a The search for assessment methods.
Following last year’s assessment report, Economics decided to reconsider its goals and assessment methods. A faculty meeting in fall 1997 revealed little enthusiasm for assessment which was widely perceived as self-serving "make work" with a limited possibility of helping departments improve. Some members of the department noted that Ohio University faculty members with national reputations for creativity or scholarship were under-represented on the committee that evaluated assessment reports. Others in the department questioned why grading was not included in assessment, not as a measure of student learning, but rather as an indication of faculty expectations. In other words, faculty in Economics who give Fs to students who learn nothing question the expectations of those in other disciplines who apparently give Bs to students who learn nothing.
Nevertheless, the department met with Maureen Weissenrieder, associate dean of Arts and Sciences, who convincingly showed that other departments had benefit from assessment. She also suggested that we consider assessment methods used by other departments at Ohio University and by respected economics departments in other institutions.
During the academic year, the department established written goals and revised its promotion and tenure standards. Though there was little enthusiasm for assessment, the department did explore other units’ assessment tools. We looked at two award-winning assessments from within Ohio University and at assessments from two institutions with successful paradigms: Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Overall, looking at other assessment reports produced mixed results.
One of last year’s award-winning Ohio University assessment documents drew statistical inferences and presented tabular data based on a non-random, self-selected sample of nine students in 1996 when the program had 315 majors. Such a small sample gives anecdotal information that may be useful. But within economics, presenting such a result in tabular form is considered intellectually dishonest. Reading the report further reduced the department’s enthusiasm for the assessment process.
Assessment reports from economics departments in other universities proved more useful and encouraging. Southern Illinois University has an elaborate institution-wide assessment system. Its economics department has a vague set of goals, which are measured by how well students perform in senior level courses that require students to write and present publicly a research project. There is no indication of a link between assessment and the students’ projects. It appears that because students are able to complete the projects, the program is judged a success at meeting its objectives. Nevertheless, Southern Illinois altered us to the possibility of using students’ senior papers as assessment tools, an idea that had not occurred to us in our earlier assessments.
The University of Colorado at Boulder has a more precise and meaningful list of goals and has tried multiple assessment strategies. Overall, Boulder’s Department of Economics appears to be genuinely trying to assess but has not yet found a successful paradigm.
First, the Boulder department constructed tests that it administered as required parts of upper level courses. The department abandoned these tests when it encountered high failure rates and large differences among classes. In other words, some instructors were teaching to the test while others were not.
Second, the Test for Understanding College Economics, TUCE, was administered to students completing a freshmen introductory course at Boulder. It is unclear how testing freshmen, few of whom are economics majors, is a useful assessment tool. Although TUCE is produced by the Joint Council on Economic Education, many in economics question whether TUCE is accurate because students are often confused by the wording of questions. Thus, the TUCE results, though interesting, failed as an assessment tool at Boulder.
Third, an outsider was hired to examine student portfolios. The evaluator thought the portfolios showed that students "thought like economists." However, the small number of portfolios made it difficult to establish links between the Boulder department’s goals and students’ achievements.
Finally, Boulder’s economics department decided to revise its paradigm to include more student work in portfolios and to search for methods of measuring learning via portfolios. It is unclear whether portfolios will be required of all majors and how they can be expanded. Apparently, they now consist of term papers, tests, and homework assignments.
We were encouraged by Boulder’s economics department’s sincere efforts at assessment and its willingness to admit failure and try something new. Boulder’s attempts to find empirical measures are consistent with how economists approach output measures.
2.b. Assessment Methods
This year’s assessment tools include two used in previous years: job market success rates and interviews with majors and graduate students. In addition, we borrowed ideas from other economics departments by using the TUCE (Boulder) and senior papers (Edwardsville). We did not use any information provided by Institutional Research because the samples were too small.
3. Results
All graduate students and majors were sent personal letters requesting that they sit for interviews with the department chair, Jan Palmer. They were promised their comments will remain anonymous and offered T-shirts as inducements. In addition, all seniors were encouraged to contact the department if they need help finding permanent employment or applying to professional schools. Although economics majors are notoriously unreceptive to request for interviews, eighteen students sat for interviews, fourteen undergraduate and four graduate students. Last year, the numbers were sixteen and five. The interview process is subjective and anecdotal. Nevertheless, certain comments are made by most interviewees.
Most students were happy with instructional quality and believed they were well prepared for careers and/or graduate study. Students expressed some concern about the lack of informal interaction with other students and with faculty. This concern has declined with the department's improved space and several students stated that the department’s computer lab had been useful as a research tool and as a way of meeting students and faculty. Interviewees also asked for more electives, especially those emphasizing practical topics. Students were satisfied with advising, but again requested more informal contacts with faculty and fellow majors.
An assessment measure that appeals to economists is the "market test." This test indicates that Economics’ programs are doing well. During spring quarter, we knew of only one unemployed graduating major. Some of our students sought our advice in selecting among multiple job offers. Employers contacted us with offers for which we had no appropriate graduating seniors or graduate students.
We purchased the TUCE, which has two parts: macroeconomics and microeconomics. After looking at both tests, we decided not to use the macroeconomics portion because the questions were poorly worded. We sent personal letters to all economics majors requesting that they come to the departmental office to take the test. They were assured that they could take the test anonymously and offered T-shirts as compensation. Only two students took the test. Thus, TUCE was an assessment failure.
We decided to use ECON 385, Introduction to Research Methodology, as an assessment tool. The course, which requires a research paper and presentation, is typically taken by senior economics majors and serves as the capstone of the undergraduate curriculum. Because the decision to use the course as an assessment tool was made late in the academic year, only the spring section is included in this analysis.
In spring 1998, eleven students completed research projects in Dr. Kurt Schwabe’s ECON 385: Jason Warren, An Econometric Model of Natural Gas Production: A Study of the Length of Time until Profit is seen; Nathan Boyd, Cross States Abortion Rate Analysis; Mitchell Alderson, To Move or Not To Move: Net Domestic Migration Within the United States of America;
Jed Robertson, Estimating the Value of Your Used Car; Abdul-Rahman Jamaal Howard, The Pollution of the Poor; Robert Kerns, Solid Waste Management Among States And Their Citizens’ Involvement; Jason Geers, Explaining College GPA: An Examination of the Relationship of Nonscholastic Variables on College GPA; Jason Savage, The Effect of State Educational Appropriations Policies on Average Standardized Test Scores; Brian Fenik, Bottom’s Up: An Economic Study of College Drinking; Jeff Lauderdale, Death on the Highway: An Economic Study of Motor Vehicle Fatalities in America; Shaun White, To Illegit to Quit.
Seven of these eleven students sat for interviews. All seven agreed that their undergraduate experience had prepared them to write a research paper. The instructor, Dr. Kurt Schwabe, rated about half the papers as "good" and the other half as "excellent." Although students had some initial difficulty organizing their projects, the end results showed that students could successfully apply economic theory and statistical tools to a wide variety of topics.
4.a Changes recommended for undergraduate education.
Develop more interaction with other departments.
Establish an economic track within sports administration.
Develop 200-level course sequences designed for non-majors as well as majors.
Every faculty member is encouraged to develop a new course or a new preparation of an existing course during the next three years. These new courses should be designed to provide diversity in the undergraduate curriculum.
Restructure the undergraduate major to provide a stronger sense of economic analysis and its use.
Make economics more accessible to non-majors. Specifically, add more 200-level courses of a topical nature that would appeal to non-majors. Also, these courses could give majors more experience with economics before they tackle ECON 303/304.
Integrate the content of ECON 381 into other courses. Explore the possibility of converting ECON 381 to ECON 281. Encourage students to take ECON 381 as sophomores.
Establish an internship program with specific criteria for evaluating student-initiated internships. Also, establish eight to ten quality internships that can be filled by our best students.
4.b. Changes recommended for graduate education.
Involve more faculty so graduate students normally take no more than two required courses from the same instructor.
Establish a MFE (masters of financial economics) with the College of Business.
5. Space Situation
Any assessment of the Department of Economics' teaching is impossible without an understanding of the department's space situation. Although still inadequate and a hindrance to the department's teaching effectiveness, the department's space has improved substantially during the two last years.
From 1955 to 1992, Economics was located in Copeland Hall, where its inadequate space was listed as a reviewers' concern in the Five Year Review (1986-1990) approved by the UCC in 1993. In 1992, Economics was "temporarily" moved to Haning Hall, where it now occupies the entire second floor and one room of the first.
Following the move from Copeland, the department's space situation deteriorated. In a memo dated July 6, 1994, John Kotowski, director of facilities planning, stated that Economics should receive 8,278 net square feet (nsf) according to the Board of Regents (BOR) formula. In November 1995, Institutional Research listed Economics' space as 4,908 nsf, which is about 60 percent of what is appropriate according to the BOR formula. In May, 1998, JBA Architects identified Economics’ needs as 7,350 nsf plus three classrooms.
The move to Haning had several negative effects on Economics' teaching effectiveness that lingered until winter 1997. The department had no computer lab although computers are essential to both graduate and undergraduate teaching. Because Economics had no Haning classrooms, faculty members never taught near their offices, which reduced spontaneous interactions between faculty and students before and after classes. Graduate students had no place to gather and were therefore denied much of the fun of graduate education: interaction with fellow graduate students. Likewise, undergraduate economics majors had no gathering place and, except for advising, rarely entered Haning.
Since spring 1996, the quality, though not the quantity, of Economics' space has improved. A room on the first floor, Haning 110, was converted to a classroom and received better lighting and a chalkboard salvaged from Gordy Hall. Although not assigned to Economics, Haning 110 is now frequently used by the department.
Renovations completed during summer 1996 converted the labyrinth on the second floor into a computer lab, Haning 210, and a classroom, Haning 222. These renovations were paid for by Economics and the College of Arts & Sciences. The computer lab was equipped with 10 computers purchased with "House bill" funds received via Arts and Sciences.
With Haning 110 and 222, available as classrooms, classes can be taught near faculty offices and near the department's computer lab. Haning 207--which seats only 15, but was until recently used as teaching space--has been converted to a multipurpose room where graduate and undergraduates can gather. The computer lab also allows for spontaneous and very positive interactions between students and faculty.
Though the department's space is still inadequate, the recent renovations have improved both student and faculty morale. The frequent out-of-class exchanges between students and faculty are reinvigorating teaching and starting to build a sense of community among students.
The department upgraded the computer lab in spring 1998 and will upgrade it again in summer 1998 following the release of Windows 98.