Abstract
“Chalk-and-talk” techniques have historically been used as the predominant mode of economic instruction. In fact, until the end of the twenty-first century, deviation from “chalk-and-talk” was rare and the incorporation of active learning strategies was relatively unheard of. Since that time, there have been substantial changes in technology, the needs and expectations of students have shifted, and research on teaching and learning has highlighted the need to engage students with classroom material. As a result, the incorporation of alternative pedagogy has become increasingly common. Classroom experimentation has moved from a rarely used alternative form of material presentation to a mainstream format. When used effectively, classroom experiments can enhance students’ understanding of material that is technical or difficult to understand. It can also be used as a tool to incorporate economic theories from several fields into a single course. This article provides an overview of the benefits and challenges encountered when creating and incorporating classroom experiments into undergraduate economics courses. It also provides an example of an experiment that has been effectively employed in courses on game theory, sports economics, and principles of microeconomics. The motivation for and structure of the experiment are discussed and possible modifications and implementation strategies are provided. The experiment highlights the importance of randomized strategies by placing students in a scenario where randomization is an essential component of “winning the game.” At the end of the experiment students have shown a deeper understanding of and appreciation for randomized strategies as a solution to simultaneous-move, zero-sum games.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
FIFA is the governing body of association football, a sport known as soccer in much of the United States.
To help guide this discussion, students could be asked to independently complete the discussion questions provided in the Appendix. This can be a particularly helpful step in classes where students may not be comfortable thinking or sharing on the fly.
Levitt and Dubner (2014) conclude that a penalty kick shot high and down the middle of the goal (i.e., position five on the experiment’s diagram) is seven percentage points more likely to result in a goal than a shot to the corner of the goal.
Vetted experiments are available via on-line repositories such as Starting Point: Teaching and Learning Economics (http://serc.carleton.edu/econ/index.html), EconPort (http://www.econport.org/content/teaching.html), the Economics Network (http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/themes/games), VeconLab (http://veconlab.econ.virginia.edu/admin.htm), and Wikiversity (https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Economic_Classroom_Experiments).
References
Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (2001). Teaching economics at the start of the 21st century: still chalk-and-talk. The American Economic Review, 91(2), 446–451.
Brouhle, K. (2011). Exploring strategic behavior in an oligopoly market using classroom clickers. The Journal of Economic Education, 42(4), 395–404.
Dickie, M. (2006). Do classroom experiments increase learning in introductory microeconomics? The Journal of Economic Education, 37(3), 267–288.
Durham, Y., McKinnon, T., & Schulman, C. (2007). Classroom experminents: not just fun and games. Economic Inquiry, 45(1), 162–178.
Levitt, S., & Dubner, S. (2014). Think like a freak. New York:William Morrow, an Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers..
Malek, N., Hall, J. C., & Hodges, C. (2014). A review and analysis of the effectiveness of alternative teaching methods on student learning in economics. Department of Economics:West Virginia University.
Watts, M., & Becker, W. E. (2008). A little more than chalk and talk: results from a third national survey of teaching methods in undergraduate economics courses. The Journal of Economic Education, 39(3), 273–286.
Yandell, D. (1999). Effects of integration and classroom experiments on student learning and satisfaction. Proceedings. Economics and the Classroom Conference:Idaho State University and Prentice-Hall Publishing.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Julie Gallaway, Carlos Liard-Muriente, the participants of the 2013 Starting Point: Teaching and Learning in Economics Workshop, and the participants of the International Atlantic Economic Conference in Savannah, GA, 12-15 October 2014. for their helpful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are my own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Classroom Materials
Appendix: Classroom Materials
Tracking sheets
Game 1—semi-final | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Penalty kick # | Kicker placement | Goalie action | Outcome | Kicker’s payoff | Goalie’s payoff |
1 | |||||
2 | |||||
3 | |||||
4 | |||||
… | |||||
15 | |||||
Game 2—the final | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Penalty kick # | Kicker placement | Goalie action | Outcome | Kicker’s payoff | Goalie’s payoff |
1 | |||||
2 | |||||
3 | |||||
4 | |||||
… | |||||
15 | |||||
Discussion questions
-
1.
Prior to competing in the World Cup, teams often discuss and plan strategies for penalty kick situations.
-
Based on the information provided to you, can you predict the kicker’s optimal strategy?
-
Based on the information provided to you, can you predict the goalie’s optimal strategy?
-
2.
At the end of a game, it is natural for teams to reflect on the outcome and see what lessons they can take into the future.
-
Were your predictions above accurate (i.e., did you predict the optimal strategies for each)? If not, what might the kicker or goalie do differently in the future?
-
3.
If Levitt and Dubner’s observation that kickers have a seven percentage point higher probability of scoring a point by shooting toward position five is accurate, why is this the least chosen strategy in real game play?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Robinson, C. Classroom Experimentation and an Application from Sports Economics. Int Adv Econ Res 21, 423–432 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-015-9540-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-015-9540-1