“Using Reflection Papers in Principles of Macroeconomics classes”
Jodi Olmsted and Stefan Ruediger
Preliminary Copy - February 2011
Abstract
Teachers constantly try finding better ways to help students apply the material learned in “Principles of
Macroeconomics” classes. Previous research (Powell and López, 1989) demonstrates deeper learning
takes place when students recognize how course content directly relates to their daily lives and when
they reflect on their own experiences, rather than memorize the content of textbooks. Facilitating
students’ realization of how much the topics in “Principles of Macroeconomics” relate to their daily lives
while giving them the chance to reflect on the material, we instructed students to write several
reflection papers over the course of a semester. We compared exam scores of students who wrote
reflection papers with students who did not write reflection papers to identify if writing reflection
papers help students retain significant amounts of material covered during class.
Rationale
Positions available in economics increasingly require students to possess fundamental writing and
critical thinking and discernment skills. Furthermore, writing in itself is an important assessment tool for
higher-level learning. Hence, several authors suggest including writing as a means of assessment into
economics classes to test higher-level learning skills while preparing students for the national job market
(Becker, 1997; Emig, 1977; Walstad, 2001).
Incorporating writing assignments into the economics curriculum also has the additional objective of
generally improving student learning. Research suggests writing benefits student learning (BangertDrowns et al., 1991; Butler and Winne, 1995; Langer and Applebee, 1987; Hayes and Flower, 1980;
Hayes, 2000; Winne, 1997, 2001) and has been found to improve learning in economics classes, because
of the active learning component involved with using writing (Crowe and Youga, 1986; Simpson and
Carroll, 1999). Furthermore Chizmar and Ostrosky (1998), Dynan and Cate (2005, 2009), Greenlaw
(2003), and Stowe (2010) identify various forms of writing assignments (one minute papers and more
comprehensive writing assignments) actually improve the exam performance of students in economics
classes.
Objectives
The study objective was determining if short reflection papers (150-300 words) had any effect on
improving student learning as measured through exam performance. This study looks at reflection
papers in the form suggested by Brewer and Jozefowic (2006). However, Brewer and Jozefowic (2006)
also suggested students write six reflection papers during a 15-week course. Since in this study
students were asked to write only three reflection papers, the objective of the study was also to
identify if effects on examination performance could also be achieved through fewer and shorter writing
assignments than compared to the studies of Brewer and Jozefowic (2006).
Methods
Students were asked to write three reflective essays during the semester. For each essay students could
choose a topic being covered on an upcoming exam. During the course of the study, two sections of
“Principles of Macroeconomics” completed the reflective writing assignments. The study also included
three sections of “Principles of Macroeconomics” as a control group. The study was conducted during
Spring and Fall 2010 semesters.
Motivation:
Writing improved the learning of students in economics, and improved exam performance. However,
empirical studies using one-minute papers were only done for one class as the treatment class and
hence the results of those studies could potentially be spurious (Chizmar and Ostrosky, 1998 and
Stowe, 2010). Furthermore, empirical studies using more comprehensive forms of writing required
students to write several (up to 10) longer papers and were labor intensive for evaluation and grading
by instructors (Dynan and Cate, 2005 and 2009; Greenlaw, 2003). This study used a smaller number of
writing assignments (three) asking students to reflect on material covered in class. The study was
conducted over two semesters, making the statistical analysis more rigorous.
Reflection Papers Guideline for Students:
The guidelines provided to the students participating in the Macroeconomics class are provided here.
Students (You) are required to write three reflection papers during the semester. Each reflection paper
is due the day after the review sessions for the exam. The papers should be 150-300 words long
explaining how one of more of the just-completed textbook chapters relates to your life. There are no
wrong answers, but a summary of the chapter is not acceptable. You are expected to reflect on the
material from the chapter and determine the way(s) in which it is meaningful to you either for the past,
present, or future. Your evaluation is based on the originality and insightfulness of your work and not
the quantity. The reflection papers need to be submitted into the appropriate dropbox on D2L (submit a
.doc or .docx file that includes your name and class section in the header – files that do not follow the
rules will not be graded). The purpose of the reflection papers is getting you used to applying the
language of economics, to creatively express your understanding of economic principles while
developing written communication and higher-level critical thinking skills. Please, use an appropriate
amount of time to finish the reflection papers (format for reflection papers derived from Brewer and
Jozefowic, 2006).
Grading:
Three forms of grades were given for the reflection papers: good performance - appropriate example
together with correct use of economic terminology; average performance - just providing example
without relating it to economics topic; poor performance - incorrect use of economic terms and not
inappropriate example.
Results:
Results of difference-in-means tests can be found in Table 1. The differences in means are calculated for
the exam scores (scale of 30 points) between the two students groups who wrote reflection papers
compared to students who did not write reflection papers. The tests show that writing reflection papers
only had a significant effect in one particular case. Final exam (not comprehensive) scores for students
who had lower scores than the class median had 1.25 points more on the final if they wrote reflection
papers. On average an additional 1.25 points increases the grade by 0.3 GPA and makes the difference
between a C- and a C. In no other case did the reflection papers have a measurable statistically
significant impact on exam performance.
Table 1
exam 1
exam 1 below median (25)
exam 1 above median (25)
exam 2
exam 2 below median (26)
exam 2 above median (26)
exam 3
exam 3 below median (22)
exam 3 above median (22)
Mean
Reflection
24.50
21.70
27.50
25.30
21.83
28.06
21.80
18.25
24.92
Mean No
Reflection
24.60
21.68
27.61
24.70
21.51
28.15
20.80
17.00
25.53
Difference
in Means
-0.10
0.02
-0.11
0.60
0.32
-0.09
1.00
1.25
-0.61
Significance
p-value
0.98
0.97
0.97
0.24
0.66
0.66
0.14
0.05
0.21
Conclusions:
Writing reflection papers influences students’ exam performance. However, the positive influence of
reflection papers in this study was limited to students who had lower than median scores on the final
exam. It is unlikely that these writing assignments actually only have such a limited effect, as the
literature has shown that writing influences exam performance positively. However, during this study
students completed fewer writing assignments than in similar studies in the literature (Chizmar and
Ostrosky, 1998; Dynan and Cate, 2005 and 2009; Greenlaw, 2003; and Stowe, 2010). Hence, it is
possible that this study does not find a larger influence of reflection papers on students’ exam
performance, because students did not write enough reflection papers. Thus, more research is
needed to find a balance between writing enough papers to generate a positive effect on students’
exam performance and the time constraints faced by the instructor.
References:
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C-l. C., Kulik, J. A. and Morgan, M. (1991) The instructional effect of
feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238.
Becker,W. E. (1997) Teaching economics to undergraduates. Journal of Economic Literature, 35 (3),
1347–1373.
Brewer, Stephanie M. and James J. Jozefowicz. (2006). "Making Economics Principles Personal: Student
Journals and Reflection Papers." Journal of Economic Education, 37: 202-216.
Butler,D. L. and Winne, P. H. (1995) Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis.
Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.
Chizmar, John F. and Anthony L. Ostrosky. (1998). “The One-Minute Paper: Some Empirical Findings,”
Journal of Economic Education, (Winter) 3-10.
Crowe,D. and Youga, J. (1986) Using writing as a tool for learning economics. Journal of Economic
Education, 10, 218–222.
Dynan, L. and Cate,T. (2005) Does writing matter? An empirical test in a college of business course
meeting AACSB
Dynan, Linda and Tom Cate. (2009). “The Impact of Writing Assignments on Student Learning: Should
Writing Assignments be Structured or Unstructured?” International Review of Economics Education,
8: 64-86.
Greenlaw, S. A. (2003) Using writing to enhance student learning in undergraduate economics,
International Review of Economics Education, 1, 61–70.
Emig, J. (1977) Writing as a mode of learning.College Composition and Communication, 28 (2), 122–128.
Hayes, J. R. (2000) A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano
and J. R. Squire (Eds) Perspectives on writing: research, theory and practice (pp. 6–44) Newark,DE,
International Reading Association.
Hayes, J. R. and Flower, L. S. (1980) Identifying the organization of writing process. In L. Gregg and E. R.
Steinberg (Eds) Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Langer, J. & Applebee, A. N. (1987).How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning.
(Research Report No. 21).Urbana, IL:National Council of Teachers of English.
Powell, A. B., and J. A. López. (1989). Writing as a vehicle to learn mathematics: A case study. Writing to
learn mathematics and science, eds. P. Connolly and T. Vilardi, New York: Teachers College Press.
Simpson, M. S. and Carroll S. E. (1999) Assignments for a writing-intensive economics course. Journal of
Economic Education, 402–410.
Walstad,W. B. (2001) Improving assessment in university economics. Journal of Economic Education,
281–94.
Stowe, Kristin, (2010), A Quick Argument for Active Learning: The Effectiveness of One-Minute Papers,
Journal for Economic Educators, 10, issue 1, p. 33-39
Winne, P. H. (1997) Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 397–410.
Winne, P. H. (2001) Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J.
Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical
perspectives (2nd edn., pp. 153–189).Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.