Diversity: Challenges, Opportunities and Successes
in Teaching Economics
Adelina Lees
Karen Jackson
Division of Economics
Introduction and Aims
Economics teaching has a history of ‘chalk and talk’ out-lasting many
other disciplines
The ‘maths issue’ is also well documented alongside the general
perception that an economics degree is ‘difficult’
The education literature contains a vast number of studies regarding
student performance
However there are very few published studies that specifically
analyse the performance of economics students in UK Higher Education
Division of Economics
Introduction and Aims
Economics teaching at the University of Bradford provides an ideal
case study given the diverse student body, in terms of the UK widening
participation agenda as well as attractiveness for students coming to
study from outside the UK.
Despite attempts to tailor provision for a diverse study body there
continues to exist differences in performance
This study aims to provide a number of key conclusions that may
prove helpful for economics departments/divisions with a more
homogenous cohort but where they seek to support students from
diverse backgrounds.
Division of Economics
Context
Sample size of 134 includes country of birth in the following
proportions (with 37 countries of birth in the sample):
- 25%: England
- 23%: China
- 10%: Nigeria
- 9%: Lithuania
4 cohorts beginning their studies between 2005-2008
Gender breakdown: M: 70%
F: 30%
Students who begin each academic year with exactly 120
credits
Division of Economics
Student Views
What are the main barriers to your learning?
• Language
• Culture and social integration
What are the main factors that have assisted your learning?
• Helpful and high quality staff
• VLE
• Social environment
What was most helpful when you first arrived?
• Induction
• Personal Tutor
• Study Skills Module
What could have been done to improve your learning?
• Social integration across year groups
• More interactive teaching
What are the positive aspects of diversity in the student body?
• Observing different learning techniques across diverse study body
What are the negative aspects of diversity in the student body?
• Language
• Dealing with diversity within group assessment
Division of Economics
Literature Review
attendance
socio
economic
background
motivation
class size
ethnicity
educational
and cultural
background
peer effects
pre entry
qualification
s
learning
support
Determinants
of
Performance
assessment
s and
feedback
physical
environment
first year
experience
curriculum
design
diabilities
age
language
skills and
communicati
on skills
gender
Division of Economics
Brief survey of literature: factors which
determine learning and performance
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student effort and study time does not always improve performance (Siegfried and Fels 1979)
Mathematics was the key school subject which influenced learning: (Attiyeh and Lumsden 1972)
Gender differences: (Siegfried 1979)
Physical environment: (Reid 1983)
Excessive absenteeism: (Romer 1993)
Cultural and institutional Settings: Tay 1994)
Pre university qualifications Durden and Ellis (1995)
Personality temperaments: (Zeigert 2000)
Attendance and excessive absenteeism (Durden and Ellis 2000)
Social class and family background (Smith and Naylor 2001
Curriculum design of assessments (Krieg and Uyar 2001)
Class size: (Becker and Powers (2001)
Ethnicity and Race: (Marburger 2001)
Race and Gender: (Borg and Stranaham 2002)
Age and ethnicity and geographic background: (Barrow, Reilly and Woodfield (2009)
Literature Review
UK studies typically use USR and HESA data
Few studies utilise institutional data
Very limited number of published studies focusing on studying economics
1984-98
Naylor and smith (2005)
Economics students studying in the UK
(USR and HESA)
Gender bias in favour of women getting a 'good degree'; +
Previous maths study; + Prior qualifications; + Parental
occupation and education; -Independent schooling; Black/white ethnic origin
Division of Economics
Empirical Analysis
Dependant variable: average mark in stage 2
Coef.
start2
-0.82
start3
0.96
start4
3.00
gender
3.70
country2
-5.89
country3
-4.93
country4
6.91
age2
3.75
age3
0.90
maths
0.00
_cons
53.07
R-squared = 0.1879
Adj R-squared = 0.1219
Std. Err.
2.73
2.38
2.29
1.82
2.82
2.47
3.19
2.04
2.92
0.00
2.42
t
-0.30
0.40
1.31
2.04
-2.09
-2.00
2.17
1.83
0.31
-0.91
21.93
P>|t|
0.77
0.69
0.19
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.07
0.76
0.37
0.00
[95% Conf.
-6.21
-3.74
-1.53
0.11
-11.46
-9.83
0.59
-0.30
-4.88
-0.01
48.28
Interval]
4.58
5.66
7.54
7.30
-0.31
-0.04
13.23
7.79
6.67
0.01
57.86
Division of Economics
Note:
1. No issues regarding
hetroscedascity
2. A significant number of
students born in
Nigeria have attended
UK schools/colleges
Country 1: UK (base)
Country 2: Nigeria
Country 3: China
Country 4: Lithuania
Country 5: omitted
Age1: 17/18/19 (base)
Age2: 20/21/22
Age3: 22+
Gender: M=0 F=1
Empirical Analysis
Superior results when dependant variable is stage 2 average mark, rather than stage 1/3,
or weighed average of stage averages
Use of dependant variable is sensible given settling in effect in stage 1 and stage 3
students do not have core modules across degree paths
Women perform significantly better than men
Students born in China or Nigeria perform less well than students born in the UK
Students born in Lithuania perform better that students born in the UK
Students aged 20-22 perform better than those aged 17-19
Robust results when re-basing the data
Division of Economics
Empirical Analysis
Difference of average
stage 3-2 results
Over-performing:
cohort 4 vs.cohort 1
(**catching-up**)
Falling behind:
China vs. UK
Division of Economics
Empirical Analysis
Difference of average
stage 2-1 results
Over-performing:
cohort 3 & 4 vs. cohort 1 (**catching-up**)
women vs. men
Lithuanian vs. UK
aged 20-22 vs.17-19
Falling behind:
Nigeria vs. UK
Division of Economics
Key Findings
We have highlighted that there are very few published studies focussing on the
determinants of performance of economics students in the UK
The literature highlights that language and communication skills, alongside social and
learning environment as significant in enabling non-UK students to overcome barriers to
learning
There have been attempts at the University of Bradford to assist non-UK economics
students to overcome barriers to learning e.g. learner support dedicated to economics
students, broader learner support (LDU), student mentoring scheme
Nevertheless, disparities in performance remain. These are particularly apparent with
respect to students born in China, Nigeria and Lithuania.
We also find a gender bias in favour of stronger female performance
Division of Economics
Limitations and Further Research
These results are may be driven by the entry qualifications of the students studying at
the University of Bradford
Further research could be undertaken:

considering students with a non-standard profile

to confirm the robustness of the findings across a range of institutions

widening sample to include non-economics students

considering students born in the UK by postcode/region
Division of Economics
Recommendations
Given the findings there needs to be further thought about the courses are delivered,
presented and assessed. Particular note should be taken of designing a wide range of
assessments to allow for gender, age, cultural and educational background differences
Most important is the delivery of learning materials, using ‘global’ examples to illustrate
economic concepts, guiding the students to embrace different ways of learning and
moving towards investigating and critically analysing ideas
Personal academic tutors best equipped to respond to international students’ concerns
could be selected to guide international students.
Welcome activities to ensure cohesion of year group of new arrivals as well as peer
mentoring from senior students
Division of Economics
References
Agarwal ,R. and Day A.E. (1998) Impact of internet on Economic Education. The Journal of Economic
Education. 29 (2) 99-110.
Anderson G., Benjamin D., and Fuss, M.A. (1994) The Determinants of Success in University
Introductory Economics Courses. The Journal of Economic Education, 25 (4) 291-301.
Arulampala, W., Naylor R.A. and Smith J. (2008) Am I Missing Something? The Effects of Absence
from Class on Student Performance. Discussion Paper 3749 Study of Labor (IZA)[Online] Available at
http://www.iza.org (accessed 1/9.2011).
Attiyeh, R. and Lumsden K.G. (1972) Modern Myths in Teaching Economics. The American Economic
Review, 62 (1/2)429-433.
Barrow,M., Reilly,B. and Woodfield,R. (2009) The determinants of undergraduate degree performance:
how important is gender? British Educational Research Journal, 35, (4) 575-597.
Becker, W.E. and Powers J.R. (2001) Student, attrition, and class size given missing student data.
Economics of Education Review, 20 377-388.
Division of Economics
References
Borg M.O.Malley and Stranahan H. (2002) The effect of gender and race on student performance in
principles of economics: the importance of personality types. Applied Economics, 34, 589-598.
Dolan M. and Macias I. (2009)Motivating International students learning Economics in the UK: The
Handbook for Economics Lecturers[online]http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/handbook.lectures.
Durden, G.C. and Ellis, V.C. (1995)The attendance on Student Learning in Principles of Economics
The American Economic Review, 85 (2) 343-346.
Grace, S. and Gravestock, P. (2009) Inclusion and Diversity:Meeting the Needs of All Students.
Oxford: Routledge.
Jarvis, P., Holford J. and Griffin C. 2003)The theory and practice of learning. London: Rougeledge
Falmer.
Hansen W.L. (2001) Expected Proficiencies for UG Economics Majors. The Journal of Economic
Education. 32 (3) 231-242.
Division of Economics
References
Harvey, P. (1982) The Impact of outside Employment on Student Achievement in Macroeconomic
Principles. The Journal of Economic Education. 13 (2) 51-56.
Heath, J. (1989) Role of Gender in Economic Education. The American Economic Review.
79 (2) 226-230.
Krieg, R.G. and Uyar B. (2001) Student Performance in Business and Economics Statistics: Does
Exam Structure Matter? Journal of Economics and Finance . 25 (2) 229-240.
Krohn., G.A. and O’Connor C.M. (2005) Student Effort and Performance over the Semester. The
Journal of Economic Education. 36 (1) 3-28.
Lage M.J. and Treglia M. (1996) The impact of Integrating Scholarship on Women into Introductory
Economics: Evidence from One Institution. The Journal of Economic Education. 27 (1) 26-36.
Lumsden K.G. and Scott A. (1983) The Efficacy of Innovative Teaching Techniques in Economics: The
U.K. Experience. American Economic Association. 73 (2) 13-17.
Division of Economics
References
Marburger D.R. (2001) Absenteeism and Undergraduate Exam Performance.
The Journal of Economic Education. 32 (2) 99-109.
Naylor, R. and Smith, J. (2004) Degree Performance of Economics Students in UK universities:
absolute and relative performance in prior qualifications. Scottish Journal of Political Economy. 51 (2)
250-265.
Rankin, E.L. and Hoaas, D.J. (2001) Does the use of computer generated slide presentation in the
classroom affect student performance and interest? Eastern Economic Journal. 27 (3) 356-366.
Reid, R. (1983) A Note on the Environment as a Factor Affecting Student Performance in Principles of
Economics. The Journal of Economic Education. 14 (4)18-21.
Romer, D. (1993) Do Students Go to Class? Should They? The Journal of Economic Perspectives.
7 (3) 167 174.
Seiver, D.A. (1983) Evaluations and Grades: A Simultaneous Framework. The Journal of Economic
Education. 14 (3) 32-38.
Division of Economics
References
Siegfried, J.J. (1979) Male-Female Difference in Economic Education Survey. The Journal of
Economic Education. 42 (2) 200-05.
Simkins S.P. (1999) Promoting Active Student Learning Using the World Wide Webb in Economics
Courses. The Journal of Economic Education. 30 (3) 278-287.
Tay R.S. (1994) Students’ Performance in Economics: Does the Norm Hold across Cultural and
Institutional Settings? The Journal of Economic Education. 25 (4) 291-301.
Walstead W.B. (2001) Improving Assessment in University Economics. The Journal of Economic
Education. 32 (3) 281-292.
Ziegert A.L. (2000) The Role of Personality Temperament and Student Learning In Principles of
Economics: Further Evidence. Research in Economic Education. 31 (4) 307-22.
Division of Economics