Big Think: A Model for Critical Inquiry in Economics Courses

Abstract

Economic educators often profess the goal of teaching our students to “think like economists.” Since Siegfried and colleagues (1991) coined this phrase, its meaning has been interpreted as a focus on analytical concepts and methods of economics as opposed to the broader goal of preparing students for independent, critical thought in the complex world beyond college. Colander and McGoldrick (2009b) argued that students are more likely to achieve both of these objectives when the learning process includes open-ended questions that encourage them to move beyond algorithmic application of textbook principles. In this article, the authors operationalize this “big think” approach through an instructional module on differential tuition pricing, the development of which was enhanced by careful attention to contemporary learning theory.

Keywords:

• critical thinking
• learning theory
• pedagogy

JEL codes:

• A10
• A22

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Teagle Foundation for their support of the Big Think Economics Initiative, and to the members of the Big Think advisory group (David Colander, Julie Nelson, John Siegfried, John Taylor, and Michael Watts) for their wisdom and encouragement. This manuscript is a testament to the fact that their guidance was often heeded, but sometimes a different path was chosen.

Notes

1. Colander and McGoldrick (2009b) defined “little think” questions as theory- or model-specific puzzles that can be specified with a high degree of completeness and solved with a high degree of certainty. They argued that undergraduate economic education tends to overvalue these narrower research questions. By contrast, they define “big think” questions as questions that “likely have no answers” and which are increasingly absent from the undergraduate economics curriculum “because they don't fit the disciplinary research focus of the profession” (5–6).

2. Context-rich problems were developed by the University of Minnesota Physics Education Research Group (http://groups.physics.umn.edu/physed/research.html).

3. One notable exception to this is the Web site, “Starting Point: Teaching and Learning Economics” (http://serc.carleton.edu/econ/index.html), which describes a range of pedagogic practices including case studies and provides supporting exercises to aid in their implementation.

4. Berg and Hoenack (1987) provided an overview of motivations for cost-related tuition from the institution as well as societal perspective that would be accessible to introductory students. Their analysis is based on a case study of the University of Minnesota's differential tuition pricing policy.

5. The differential pricing policy question is presented in a social issues text, Economic Issues and Policy, by J. M. Brux (2010). The discussion focuses on the issue of resource allocation using a simple supply and demand analysis.

6. In addition to the aforementioned follow-up topics, there are multiple ways to evaluate differential pricing schemes. Brief motivation for four additional supporting questions and sub-questions (covering implementation criteria, impacts and outcomes, market structures, and the role of government) is available upon request from the authors.