Agricultural economists' use of classroom economic experiments

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Aug 2003 by Barnett, Barry J, Kriesel, Warren

Economic experiments, as opposed to other experiential learning techniques, have at least two other potential benefits. First, students see the instructor as more than just a lecturer. The instructor becomes a scientist subjecting theory to empirical tests (Wells). Second, experiments illustrate two major themes in economics: theory usually predicts well and institutions matter (Joyce; Ortmann and Colander).

Weaknesses

As with other experiential learning techniques, instructors often raise concerns about the opportunity cost of using classroom economic experiments. Experiments claim scarce classroom time that could be used to cover other material (Bell; Wells). Experiments can also require a significant amount of instructor time outside of class (Bell). Haupert (1996a), however, argues that a good experiment does not cost much time in net because it greatly reduces the number of examples needed to communicate a concept. Also, the time required for an instructor to set up an experiment is largely a one-time, fixed cost. Some argue that classroom economic experiments can become unmanageable with large classes (Shrader and Helgeson).

Among those who use classroom economic experiments, there is significant disagreement about the importance of performance incentives. Those who conduct research using experimental economics emphasize the importance of financial incentives to induce "real-life" behavior on the part of participants (Bolle). Some instructors provide financial incentives for classroom economic experiments (DeYoung), whereas others employ extra credit incentives (Bell; Haupert 1996a; Sorenson; Williams and Walker). However, some argue that if the experiment is well constructed, incentives should not be necessary (Stephenson and Langdon). Shrader and Helgeson report that in their experience, student evaluations of classroom economic experiments showed no statistically significant differences between those participating in treatments with real financial incentives and those participating in treatments without.

A number of ethical concerns have been raised about the practice of assigning extra credit based on student performance in classroom economic experiments. Experimental outcomes can be affected by luck (Bell) or the ignorance (or spite) of other participants (Sorenson). Stodder expresses concerns about the widely used voluntary contribution experiment described earlier. In debriefing students following the experiment, instructors might tend to discuss free-riding in an admiring normative sense (or alternatively make fun of those who contribute). Stodder argues that when observed behavior does not follow the predictions of theory, careful scientists should think about the validity of their assumptions. If instructors fail to do this, and instead ridicule or penalize (through loss of extra credit) students who choose not to free-ride, they stifle student interest and enthusiasm and present themselves as dogmatists rather than scientists.

Fels expresses frustration that although many instructors use classroom economic experiments, very few have used experimental techniques to test whether classroom experiments actually enhance student learning. Students generally claim that classroom experiments facilitate learning; however, results from the limited number of empirical studies reported in the literature have been inconclusive (Cardell et al.; Gremmen and Potters; Marston and Lyon; Wentworth and Lewis).