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

an A for ideology, an F for technique

In this article Greg Mankiw describes the argument behind a New York Times opinion piece written by Yoram Bauman, of "10 Principles of Economics, Translated" fame. The thrust of Bauman's thesis is that economics majors, by drilling ideas about incentives, private property, and self-interest into their heads for their classes, are thereby trained to be more selfish. It is supported, supposedly, by evidence showing how the economics majors were less likely to contribute to two charities presented to them when registering for classes.

Greg Mankiw doubts this implication of Bauman's findings. Mankiw basically takes issue with the following quote from Bauman's article:

You may question whether these groups actually serve the common good, but that’s mostly beside the point. Regardless of the groups’ actual social value, a purely self-interested individual would choose to free-ride rather than contribute; after all, a single $3 donation is not going to make a noticeable difference in tuition rates.

Mankiw, in criticizing this passage, makes a fair point: the supposedly positive externalities of any public good do need to be carefully examined and analyzed, even for small values of contribution, and someone with a social science background, particularly economics, may be well-equipped to do so. They might be less willing to dole out cash to a random charity, but their education is put to use in other ways that are beneficial to society.

While Mankiw may have a point, we at Anti-Mankiw strongly disagree that Bauman's essential claim that economics is ideological evaporates in the face of Mankiw's criticism. In fact, published studies have been done on surveys of students who have successfully completed an introductory course to economics in which the mainstream view is presented without any critical perspective, and these studies offer an interesting take on how ideology matters in the classroom.

The findings? The majority of students 6-12 months after taking such a course recall most quickly the normative aspects of the course but are relatively less able to solve simple problems related to these ideas (to see how they might work or not work in practice). Ideas like "taxes are bad for efficiency, though not for equity", and "prices not set by the free market lead to welfare losses and are therefore undesirable" are common, but give them a question to solve on calculating consumer surplus, for example, and they cannot deliver. These are consistent with our own experiences in teaching introductory courses offering a mainstream view, and indeed, on a certain level makes sense: most cases, you may just get the main point of an argument and not necessarily the details behind the argument. But nevertheless, it's presented as an argument, and therefore not of course the only perspective!

[See Bartlett, Ferber, and Green's "Political Orientation and the Decision to Major in Economics" in International Review of Economic Education; and Faravelli's "How Context Matters" in Journal of Public Economics for two resources. These ideas were also reflected on based on a correspondent's current dissertation research which we are not allowed to cite openly.]

The lesson learned?  That market-centric views and market-centric efficiency criteria are at the center of any policy evaluation of a student, leaving no room to discuss how efficiency is not a scientific concept. (See this article by Rick Wolff, entitled, "Whose Efficiency?" which does a great job of breaking down the different models. Duncan Kennedy and Frank Michelman also have a nice piece as well entitled "Are Property and Contract Efficient?".) Second, it is highly questionable whether an intro course "enlightens" the student in the way Mankiw believes it does. Admittedly, part of the problem here is with education itself -- how we train our students and so on -- but Mankiw, writer of the currently most successful textbook, is therefore part of the problem, not the solution.

It's a short step from this final point to the idea that a better economics textbook -- which either clears away the ideological content and works more like the seminar room or offers a critical approach that draws on many different worldviews (or both) -- is just on the horizon...

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.