IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/amerec/v66y2021i1p29-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Test Format and Calculator Use in the Testing of Basic Math Skills for Principles of Economics: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie A. Fennell
  • Irene R. Foster

Abstract

Results from an experiment in Fall 2013 of 902 incoming students at this university are reported. In this experiment, after students were given a basic math assessment to ensure they had the necessary math skills to take a principles of economics course, they were randomly allocated to a treatment or control group to test whether there was a significant impact of test format, calculator use, and calculator type on students’ scores. The interaction of calculator use/type and test format was also tested. The results from this experiment suggest that each treatment had a significant positive impact on students’ assessment scores, with much variation depending on the type of question asked and the level of performance. JEL Classifications : A22, C23

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie A. Fennell & Irene R. Foster, 2021. "Test Format and Calculator Use in the Testing of Basic Math Skills for Principles of Economics: Experimental Evidence," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 66(1), pages 29-45, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:amerec:v:66:y:2021:i:1:p:29-45
    DOI: 10.1177/0569434520971212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0569434520971212
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0569434520971212?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William E. Becker & Carol Johnston, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(4), pages 348-357, December.
    2. Stephen Buckles & John J. Siegfried, 2006. "Using Multiple-Choice Questions to Evaluate In-Depth Learning of Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 48-57, January.
    3. Charles L. Ballard & Marianne F. Johnson, 2004. "Basic Math Skills and Performance in an Introductory Economics Class," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 3-23, January.
    4. Elizabeth J. Jensen & Ann L. Owen, 2003. "Appealing to Good Students in Introductory Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(4), pages 299-325, December.
    5. Mallik, Girijasankar & Shankar, Sriram, 2016. "Does prior knowledge of economics and higher level mathematics improve student learning in principles of economics?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 66-73.
    6. Becker, William E & Johnston, Carol, 1999. "The Relationship between Multiple Choice and Essay Response Questions in Assessing Economics Understanding," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 75(231), pages 348-357, December.
    7. Nixon Chan & Peter E. Kennedy, 2002. "Are Multiple-Choice Exams Easier for Economics Students? A Comparison of Multiple-Choice and “Equivalent” Constructed-Response Exam Questions," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(4), pages 957-971, April.
    8. Peter W. Schuhmann & KimMarie McGoldrick & Robert T. Burrus, 2005. "Student Quantitative Literacy: Importance, Measurement, and Correlation with Economic Literacy," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 49(1), pages 49-65, March.
    9. Durden, Garey C & Ellis, Larry V, 1995. "The Effects of Attendance on Student Learning in Principles of Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 343-346, May.
    10. Johan N. M. Lagerlöf & Andrew J. Seltzer, 2009. "The Effects of Remedial Mathematics on the Learning of Economics: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 115-137, April.
    11. Girijasankar Mallik & John Lodewijks, 2010. "Student Performance in a Large First Year Economics Subject: Which Variables are Significant?," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 29(1), pages 80-86, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mallik, Girijasankar & Shankar, Sriram, 2016. "Does prior knowledge of economics and higher level mathematics improve student learning in principles of economics?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 66-73.
    2. Ambrose & Cheryl A. Kier, 2017. "On Students’ Perception of a Multi-Scheme Assessment Method," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 17(1), pages 40-52, Spring.
    3. Girijasankar Mallik & John Lodewijks, 2010. "Student Performance in a Large First Year Economics Subject: Which Variables are Significant?," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 29(1), pages 80-86, March.
    4. Ann L. Owen, 2011. "Student Characteristics, Behavior, and Performance in Economics Classes," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 32, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Ken Rebeck & Carlos Asarta, 2011. "Methods of Assessment in the College Economics Course," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    7. W. Robert Reed & Stephen Hickson, 2011. "More Evidence on the Use of Constructed-Response Questions in Principles of Economics Classes," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 28-49.
    8. Büchele, Stefan, 2020. "Should we trust math preparatory courses? An empirical analysis on the impact of students’ participation and attendance on short- and medium-term effects," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 154-167.
    9. Thompson, Alexi S. & Jager, Abigail L. & Burton, Robert O., Jr., 2012. "Do Men and Women Perform Differently on Different Types of Test Questions?," 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2012, Birmingham, Alabama 119771, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. George Orlov & Douglas McKee & Irene R. Foster & Daria Bottan & Stephanie R. Thomas, 2021. "Identifying Students at Risk Using a New Math Skills Assessment," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 97-101, May.
    11. Stefan Buechele, 2019. "Should We Trust Math Preparatory Courses? An Empirical Analysis on the Impact of Students' Participation and Attendance on Short- and Medium-Term Effects," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201927, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    12. Stefan Buechele, 2018. "Bridging the Gap - how Effective are Remedial Math Courses in Germany?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201825, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    13. Christine Jonick & Jennifer Schneider & Daniel Boylan, 2017. "The effect of accounting question response formats on student performance," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 291-315, July.
    14. Neal Arthur & Patricia Everaert, 2012. "Gender and Performance in Accounting Examinations: Exploring the Impact of Examination Format," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 471-487, October.
    15. Tasnádi, Attila & Kánnai, Zoltán & Pintér, Miklós, 2010. "Matematikaoktatás a bolognai típusú gazdasági képzésekben [Maths instruction in Bologna-type economics tuition]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 261-277.
    16. Leiv Opstad, 2023. "The Relationship Between Norwegian Business Students’ Attitudes Towards Mathematics And Success In Business Education," International Journal of Teaching and Education, European Research Center, vol. 11(1), pages 47-60, December.
    17. Carlos J. Asarta & Roger B. Butters & Andrew Perumal, 2013. "Success in Economics Major: Is it Path Dependent?," Working Papers 13-11, University of Delaware, Department of Economics.
    18. Dino Alves & Ana Balcao Reis & Carmo Seabra & Luis Catela-Nunes, 2015. "Determinants of Academic Success in Economics and Management," Investigaciones de Economía de la Educación volume 10, in: Marta Rahona López & Jennifer Graves (ed.), Investigaciones de Economía de la Educación 10, edition 1, volume 10, chapter 17, pages 335-356, Asociación de Economía de la Educación.
    19. Johan N. M. Lagerlöf & Andrew J. Seltzer, 2009. "The Effects of Remedial Mathematics on the Learning of Economics: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 115-137, April.
    20. Ross Guest, 2013. "Towards Learning Standards in Economics in Australia," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(1), pages 51-66, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    economic education; teaching economics; math assessment; microeconomics; calculator use; test format;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A22 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - Undergraduate
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:amerec:v:66:y:2021:i:1:p:29-45. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/aex .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.