Use Backward Design to Help Your Students Get the Most Out of Your Courses

Backward design for Introductory Heterodox Economics

Many of us have our favorite books or papers (or even blog articles) which we think best capture the criticisms of mainstream economics. Naturally then, we want our students to follow in our footsteps: read the same critique and hope it sticks with them the same way it did with us. So, we design our courses around those readings and, well, "hope for the best" when it comes to what sinks in. Tests or other assignments "prove" to us how well they did that.

Backward design goes about things a bit differently. It says we should start with what we want to achieve from a class, and only design the syllabus and reading list until the end. What kinds of knowledge or skills would we like our students to acquire? We then figure out what would be sufficient evidence to prove that they had acquired that knowledge or those skills. Finally, we get to work on designing our syllabi in a way that meets those learning and assessment goals.

When looking at things this way, most of us will back up a bit and be more honest with ourselves: before we get to the good stuff on critique, we want our students to come away with some grasp of core economics. This helps them to become economically literate and it also allows them to appreciate our coveted critiques.

Goal: I want my students to have a solid grasp of the principles of demand and supply, of utility and production theory, and of what it means for an economy to be in equilibrium.

Evidence that I have achieved the goal: This could vary according to the instructor. For some, taking a multiple choice test about the definitions and themes from the above-mentioned topics and getting a passing grade is sufficient. For others, writing a complete paragraph or essay explaining a newspaper article using the themes and terms from class is sufficient. For others, solving problems is sufficient.

How I will structure my course to obtain the learning and assessment of the goal: You probably want to address a combination of the points made in the preceding paragraph. In addition to stimulating lectures, you might give a multiple choice exam or two because they urge students to master the material at the middle or end of a class. You might have a few in-class writing assignments as a way to challenge students to articulate and extend what they have learned to the real world. And finally, problems (done as a group or individually) are a great way of grappling with the inner analytical mechanisms of a theory in a way that multiple choice questions or essays simply cannot do.

Now that your students have a solid grasp of economic theory, you can then turn to critique. But how to go about it - just have them read articles and discuss the points in class, or do problems with modified assumption sets? Use the same method above (i.e., backward design), but tailor it to your own needs in the course. If articulation is an important value, you might consider seminars or writing assignments. If a solid grasp of the argument is what you're looking for, a writing assignment or problem set might be more suitable. But try to be as specific as possible and always remember to work backward - don't arrive at the specific readings or quizzes/assessments until you've figured out what exactly it is you want students to take away from your course.

Note: some of this information came out of discussions at the very-informative UMass Pedagogy Workshop in Academic Year 2011-2012. See the following link for more materials. http://egsoumass.org/courses

politics and methodology: alternative teaching resources

"Pyramid of Capitalist System"

We at Anti-Mankiw are no strangers to the idea that politics shapes economists' theories about how the world works. Unlike Mankiw, who regularly asserts in his textbook an ideal-type of "observation, theory, observation" method of economic science, the fact of the matter is that how we view the world often shapes our evaluation of the facts of that world.

Perhaps in no other place in economic theory is this fact more true, and thus more dangerous, than in the Marxian vs. non-Marxian (or neoclassical) theory of distribution. When Marx argued that the source of all wealth is the laborer and that surplus value, or profits, were taken from the laborer by the capitalist, neoclassical economists replied with a theory of distribution asserting that capital earns its fare share of the output, too.

The neoclassical response in the late 1800s offered a new theory, or new way of looking at the world. This subsequently helped shape how all neoclassical economists thought about the source of profits: instead of seeing them as fundamentally sourced from workers, these economists saw capital and entrepreneurs simply getting their fair share of the pie -- represented by the marginal price of capital multiplied by the marginal physical product of capital, or the value added by capitalists to production. This victory was a major one for capitalists because it essentially legitimated their control/monopoly over the means of production, which is really the main role capitalists play.

No more explanation for all the profit was necessary! And the political consequences were indeed severe. For one, the neoclassical response to Marx came in the 1870s, when labor militancy across Western Europe and America was reacting to a rapidly growing capitalist power in politics and the workplace. And the political victory is felt even up to today: even when compensation starts to be outstripped by worker productivity as it did in the 1970s, neoclassical economists could simply ignore it because in their baseline model, workers get what they put in, and so does capital. The rest was just minor details.

Why do we mention this now? Because Fred Moseley from Mount Holyoke College has written an excellent introduction to the neoclassical theory of distribution as well as some ways to critique it for an introductory- or intermediate-level class. Find it here. We highly recommend checking it out and trying it out in your own classes!

advanced pedagogical techniques: introducing the topic of exploitation

"The Intimately Oppressed": How to talk about exploitation in the classroom

 A few years ago, in a conversation one of us had with a fellow graduate student, the issue came to surface of how to approach certain issues that have become a mainstay of the mainstream curriculum over time. We were specifically discussing the issue of how easy it is to fall into the so-called "markets in everything" trap -- whereby you start thinking about how markets for everything from organs to healthcare could solve most of the problems of social inefficiency. But the issue is much more general than that, and exposing that generality is the topic of this post.

So when one of us was discussing how to approach the "markets in everything" issue, which is really quite widespread among the blogosphere (particularly Marginal Revolution, which has made a type of blog series out of the idea... but Greg Mankiw is also guilty of perpetuating the idea, not surprisingly), our friend made the point that, why not start from the other direction, and work your way back? Instead of beginning with the idea that everything should be marketized, begin from the idea and theory that nothing should be marketized, and then ask what would qualify something to be marketized. That is to say, we should expose students' inherent repugnant feelings about a market for body parts or healthcare from the start, and then work backward from there, adding in markets as a qualification of the general argument that commodification should not exist. (In fact, if you think historically, this is actually the way in which the debate occurred -- we didn't start out with a fully marketized society and we only got there from peeling off various layers of social-institutional control!)

It's simple, and it works remarkably well. Furthermore, such a logic can be applied to other ideas which are not easily raised in the classroom, such as the issue of class or exploitation. By starting with certain ideas of exploitation that are more easily recognizable to students (such as the treatment of women in the workplace vs. men), it becomes easier to identify general principles of exploitation that may be applied to workers.

Talking about how women have traditionally been discriminated against in the workplace is a clear example of exploitation. Or talking about how, when they were first integrated into the industrial labor force in the early 1800s, they were pulled from both directions -- into the home because of preconceived notions of women's place in a private sphere; and out to work because of the need to make enough money to feed their children and support their family; all the while not being allowed to vote -- shows vividly how gender norms shape capitalism and employer behavior more generally. The continued persistence and use of racism after formal political freedom had been established by emancipation is another example of using the tools of race or gender to strike at ideas and issues of class exploitation.

Similar arguments can even be made for immigrants. Here is an example of how one of us has incorporated gender into a story of industrial capitalism. We have found that through doing so, it then becomes easier to talk about exploitation in the workplace more generally, because now students have seen how management policy has affected women workers. It is just a small step (really!) from that point to then talking about workers in general.

we know what we're protesting

This Crimson article by Harvard undergraduates Rachel Sandalow-Ash and Gabriel H. Bayard from November 2011, addressing the fundamental issues underlying the Occupy Ec 10 movement, did not get nearly the amount of attention that it deserved. Published about a week after the walkout on Mankiw's class, very few sources on the walkout linked to it, instead choosing to focus on the open letter and Crimson editorial(s), which were good, but not very carefully articulated.

We think the exclusion of the Bayard-Sandalow-Ash piece is very unfortunate. The articles which Greg Mankiw chose to cite in this New York Times article "Know What You're Protesting" did not accurately portray the types of issues that most people who chose to walk out have with his course. It would have done more for discourse around the issue if Mankiw had actually spent time dealing with the substantive attacks, instead of largely arguing past the protesters.

For example, Mankiw chose to concentrate his Times article on the argument that economics is mostly a tool, not an ideology. In other words, Mankiw sees the standard introductory economics curriculum as introducing the student to a scientific framework in which students can approach any kind of problem related to public policy or current events. This is a very familiar argument to those of us who have taken an economics course or two -- the idea that we're equipping ourselves with tools to go out and change the world. Too bad those tools are stained with ideology. Let us explain

The issue which Sandalow-Ash and Bayard rightly point out is that the frameworks Mankiw presents are themselves value-laden and politically motivated. So while the efficiency-equity tradeoff seems to offer an analytical framework in which government intervention can be "objectively debated", underlying the framework is a market-centered approach that fails to point out how a more equal society, through promoting stability and long-run health, can help to promote efficiency. And though Mankiw goes to some length to present a consensus among mainstream economists about core issues such as the adverse effects of minimum wages and free trade in his book, both historical experience and a growing literature on these topics have already successfully taken on seemingly-unobjectionable tenets of neoclassical theory.

Overall, we strongly suggest you take a look at the piece by these two very intelligent and socially conscious Harvard students. This is where the Occupy movement's critique is truly located.

rodrik on occupy ec 10

Responding to the issues surrounding the Ec 10 walkout, highly acclaimed development economist Dani Rodrik weighs in on the particular question of the ideological content of mainstream economics here.

We at Anti-Mankiw are glad to see the debate moving past the difficult-to-support claim that mainstream economics is not political, or that Mankiw's ideology is "not at all obvious". As we tried to emphasize in a previous article, a key sign of an ideological approach, especially in economics, is when space is not opened up to a critical analysis of the economy.

We are hoping that Mankiw can begin to address the most important question behind the walkout, namely, why any group of students would choose to walk out on a course that has (in theory) so much potential for enriching discourse on the economy. Thankfully, Rodrik suggests to us an entrypoint. His premise is the vast set of  policy proposals often invoked in economic theory. As he states succinctly here:

Indeed, though you may be excused for skepticism if you have not immersed yourself in years of advanced study in economics, coursework in a typical economics doctoral program produces a bewildering variety of policy prescriptions depending on the specific context. Some of the frameworks economists use to analyze the world favor free markets, while others don’t. In fact, much economic research is devoted to understanding how government intervention can improve economic performance. And non-economic motives and socially cooperative behavior are increasingly part of what economists study.

It is not clear to us how Mankiw's particular assumption set -- i.e., his 10 principles -- makes him immune to Rodrik's point. Aren't they just another assumption set, chosen by a professor with certain political aims? The weakness in Mankiw's approach is in the level of critical analysis that takes place in discussing economics. And why should introductory students at Harvard be spared of learning about the tools necessary for critique? Rodrik continues:

Now let the reporter go undercover as a student in the professor’s advanced graduate seminar on international trade theory. Let him pose the same question: Is free trade good? I doubt that the answer will come as quickly and be as succinct this time around. In fact, the professor is likely to be stymied by the question. “What do you mean by ‘good?’” he will ask. “And good for whom?” 

In other words, economic policy proposals are much more nuanced than Mankiw seems to present. (A similar argument could easily be made for recent economics work on minimum wages.) And if we were to add such nuance, this does not necessarily make things to difficult to grasp. At UMass, we ask these kinds of questions to our undergraduates: we ask them how different efficiency criteria might change ones policy proposal, and we question the foundations of a hedonistic approach to economic theory. While such discussions admittedly require sources outside of the standard textbook, there is no need to go "too far" for a solid discussion of these issues. They are definitely in the reach of first year students.

We'll let Rodrik have the last word here:

Applied appropriately and with a healthy dose of common sense, economics would have prepared us for the financial crisis and pointed us in the right direction to fix what caused it. But the economics we need is of the “seminar room” variety, not the “rule-of-thumb” kind. It is an economics that recognizes its limitations and knows that the right message depends on the context.

That's right. Contrary to what Mankiw might say, there is much that students can learn about the financial crisis which would come from a different approach to introductory economics. Let's not speak so condescendingly of them!

Anti-Mankiw's Favorite Textbooks and Teaching Methods

Back in 2009, Mankiw fielded a question from an instructor who wanted to know whether the teaching of Principles of Economics would change in the wake of the financial crisis. We at Anti-Mankiw strongly disagree with Mankiw's reply. Mankiw's argument rests on the assumption that the building blocks of mainstream analysis are necessary and sufficient for understanding such an unusual event as the crisis. But was he right to defend mainstream economics on such grounds?

Let's go back to the basics. A common definition for "mainstream" is:

The ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion

It seems that, contrary to Mankiw's argument about the utility of the building blocks, mainstream economics is more appropriately defended as a convention or "common language". This poses a slight problem -- for understanding the "power" and prevalence of mainstream economic analysis, certainly -- but also for thinking about how to take a different approach in the classroom. As the reader might expect from this definition, teaching parts of economic thought considered outside the mainstream, ie. ideas that may be regarded as abnormal or unconventional or not the dominant opinion, can be a daunting task, particularly when attempted at the 'principles' level of economics.

Many principles courses, micro or macro, often provide perverse incentives to teach - and to learn - solely mainstream material.  Consider the teacher's perspective.  He or she would like to do what they think is best for their students by teaching broadly and discussing economic history and different schools of thought and how their assumptions may be different, etc.  Alas, textbooks to teach non-mainstream ideas at an introductory level are not very visible.  Mankiw of course has the largest market share of introductory textbooks and teachers often receive free complimentary versions for review not just from Mankiw but from a swath of other mainstream textbook authors - and department heads often encourage the use of these mainstream texts.

But it's more than encouragement. The final exam in many principles courses, partly due to their size, are departmental multiple choice exams. This means that the well-meaning pluralist teacher now has to dedicate most of his or her time teaching to the (mainstream) test or else risk students' grades suffering the consequences.  Because teachers are in large part evaluated based on their trending performance every semester relative to other teachers, the incentive is large to stick to the mainstream text throughout the semester.

But what about from the student's perspective?  Much like the teacher, their performance matters too.  Firstly, if they are in an honors program they often have to maintain a C or above, and even students who want to learn the heterodox topics a teacher may teach, does so at risk of a lower grade.  Here again, the final exam, and indeed perhaps other quizzes and homework in the case where the teacher may not cover pluralist topics for reasons stated above, are often geared toward the mainstream, and since study time is a finite resource (of which hopefully all economists can agree that there are only 24 hours in a day), the student has the choice to focus effort on mainstream study, or shift some of that precious time to studying heterodox material that may not benefit their grade.  The institution is set up in such a way so that  the student has incentive to choose the former.

Additionally, most students who take introductory econ courses are not economics majors.  Psychology, business, accounting, sociology, and political science majors take the course as well.  A more pluralist economics discourse would account for their own major's contributions to economics, which is often ignored or brushed aside in mainstream texts.  Thus, when such a student encounters their mainstream economics course, while try as they may to stay engaged, they are often found napping as the teacher goes over the concepts of utility maximization or preference ordering, etc.  This does not help anyone - student, teacher, or department.

Nevertheless, all is not lost. There are some textbooks that do exist that try to incorporate pluralist economics at an introductory or intermediate level.   One of the best set of resources is courtesy Tufts University's Global Development and Environment Institute.  They have recently (2008) published both micro and macro textbooks that speak not only to mainstream concepts but also to issues of environmental economics, serious discussion at both micro and macro level of income inequality, institutional and historical trends in the US macro-economy,  non-mainstream discussion of international trade, and alternative measures of economic well-being and growth.  Best of all, their supplemental materials and significant portions of their texts are freely available on their website.  And, the published textbooks are affordable at only $50 each.  Another great intro text, the Economics Anti-Textbook serves to pick apart the assumption of mainstream economic theory - exposing what are often taught as simplifying assumptions for what they really are - critical assumptions.   Another great macro text by Steve Cohn, Macroeconomics: A Critical Approach, serves to discuss mainstream theory but expands the discussion to how financial markets really work, financial instability, Marxist contributions to economics, and so on.

A more complete list of texts and pluralist publications in general can be found here.  While there are certainly institutional barriers to teaching a more pluralist kind of economics, and while there are certainly financial and other barriers to assigning multiple texts to students, using materials or pieces from some of these texts can at a minimum, enhance a student's understanding of economics in its many schools of thought.

Beyond textbooks, there is a plethora of non-conventional tools that a pluralist teacher could use to engage students.   Many economics teachers invite other professors within economics as guest lecturers. Some teachers may even branch out of economics and occasionally invite someone in a Business Finance field to lead a group discussion.  But we would venture to guess few mainstream teachers really embrace plurality enough to invite, for example, an I/O psychologist to discuss motivations for decision making in labor markets that may not be deemed to be 'rational'.

There are other tools a teacher who wants to expand the usual economics dialog can utilize.  How about adding some behavioral economics to the classroom by running the occasional group 'experiment'?   One of the best creators of such experiments is Prof. Denise Hazlett of Whitman College: experiments that show how the normal loan-able funds model can breakdown in times of economic and  inflation uncertainty, or how investment coordination failures can result in large recessions. 

Finally, we suggest mixing the typical lecture up with topics that go beyond the normal mainstream discussion by using a good podcast (radio is not dead!) or perhaps a YouTube video.  These mediums are particularly helpful at engaging a student - especially students from outside the economics department.