If you do not like the background color, you can change it by highlighting the color you prefer in the scroll box below.

The poll consisted of a telephone survey of economics professors at universities in seven southeastern states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The sample was restricted to states accounting for the majority of members of the Midsouth Academy of Economics and Finance. The schools chosen included both four-year colleges and universities, and respondents included all academic ranks. A telephone survey was used as a way of assuring a consistent interpretation of questions among respondents. With the exception of the states represented, both schools and respondents were randomly chosen, with a sample of at most two respondents from each school. Due to the preliminary nature of the survey, the sample size was limited to the smallest size we believed could be used to draw some simple statistical inferences. Our sample therefore consists of N = 40 observations.

The questions asked were about the technology respondents used included its use in lecture presentation and in assigning technology-based homework. The definition of technology used in the questionnaire--which explained to the respondent--was quite broad, ranging from use of overhead projectors to direct Internet access in the classroom. (A copy of the questionnaire used in the survey is available from the authors on request.) The results of the survey are displayed in Tables 1 through 5. (They are shown below.)

Survey Results

Table 1 (below) is a summary of the general characteristics of the respondents. This table shows that 5% of the respondents were instructors. About the same percent of respondents were full and assistant professors. A slightly smaller percent were associate professors. The mean years of service of these respondents at their current institutions were 11 years.

The mean institution size reported was about 15,000 total students. Over 80 percent of the respondents reported that their economics department was located in the School of Business, with the remainder reporting that the department of economics was in the School of Arts and Sciences. Nearly all of the reporting schools offered Bachelors of Economics Degrees, with about one-half  of the schools offering some combination of a Masters or Ph.D. in economics, or a Masters of Business Administration (MBA).

About 9 out of 10 respondents reported teaching some level upper-division undergraduate courses, with about two-thirds of the respondents reporting teaching principles of economics. About 3 out of 5 respondents reported teaching Ph.D. level economics courses.

About three-fifths of the respondents reported using the Internet in their offices on a daily basis, with 80 percent of the respondents using the Internet at least once per week. Approximately 15 percent of the respondents used the Internet less often, while 5 percent of the respondents did not have Internet access in their office at the time of the survey (January 1997).

The sample was divided along lines of classes taught by the respondent. Summary statistics for technology use by class type were computed. These results appear in Tables 2 through 4 (below).

Table 2 (below) displays the results for those respondents who reported teaching some sections of Principles of Economics. The table shows that the distribution across academic ranks of principles instructors was about the same as the distribution across ranks of the sample population as a whole. The average size principles class taught was about 70 students. Although this is not  revealed in the tables, class size ranged from small sections of about 40 students to large sections of up to 300.

Table 2 shows a clear cut preference for use of overhead projectors in principles lectures, with 70 percent of the respondents reporting that they have used overheads for lecturing in their principles classes. Slightly over 20 percent of the respondents mentioned that they have used videocassette recorders in their principles lectures, while slightly fewer than 20 percent use Power-Point-type technology. The modal type of technology-based homework assignments was computer lab assignments, with one out of five respondents reporting this type.

Table 3 (below) summarizes the answers of the 37 respondents who reported teaching some upper division undergraduate courses. The mean class size for this group was about 27 students.

Table 3 shows a breakdown similar to the principles teachers' for lecture presentation methods. The majority (54 percent) reported a preference for the use of overhead projectors, with about 20 percent of respondents also mentioning that they show VCR presentations in class.

An interesting difference is that a greater proportion of upper division instructors mentioned incorporating data obtained from the Internet into their classes than principles. About 1/5 of the respondents mentioned that they use Internet data to supplement their lectures, while 1/4 of the respondents reported assigning Internet based homework.

Table 4 (below)summarizes the answers of the 24 respondents who reported teaching a graduate level economics course. This included Masters, Ph.D., and MBA level classes. The mean class size for this group was between 15 and 16 students.

Table 4 shows that at the masters level there was again a preference for the use of overhead projectors when lecturing, with 37 percent of the respondents mentioning using this type of technology. About 15 percent of the respondents also mentioned using Power-Point-type technology and Internet presentations in their lectures.

The use of technology in lecturing was much more limited at the Ph.D. level. Only 14 percent of respondents mentioned using an overhead projector in their lectures. Moreover, only one of the respondents mentioned using any other type of technology in class presentation. This was a combination lecture-lab in econometrics.

At the masters level, respondents assigning computer-based homework were equally distributed between those assigning spreadsheet-based and Internet-based homework, with 15 percent of respondents assigning these two types of homework. The same percentage of respondents also regularly corresponded with students about homework via e-mail. The percentages were again much smaller at the Ph.D. level, with only one respondent mentioning computer lab assignments and one respondent assigning work on the Internet.

The total use of technology for each respondent was measured. This was done by assigning one point for each particular type of technology mentioned by a respondent and summing the total number of technologies mentioned by each respondent. This technology use coefficient was computed for presentation methods and homework assignments separately. The mean total level of technology used was then computed for various classifications of respondent. These results appear in Table 5 (below).

Table 5 shows that years of service and academic rank had no significant impact on the overall use of teaching technology by the respondent. However, class levels and size of institution did impact the use of teaching technology.

Table 5 shows that there was a significantly greater total use of teaching technology for both class presentations (1 percent level) and assignments (5 percent) at the undergraduate level compared to the graduate level. In addition, the significant difference in presentation technology remained, although at a lower level (5 percent), after discounting for the use of an overhead projector with transparencies in the coefficient. This was done in an attempt to adjust for the possible bias in the use of overhead-transparency technology in large principles of economics lecture sections.

Table 5 also shows that there was a significantly greater use of technology in schools with total enrollments of 15,000 or less than at larger schools. This difference applied to both use of technology in presentation and for class assignments.

Although broad generalizations are dangerous, the results of this preliminary survey point to two primary inferences.

First, economists have been relatively slow in adopting new teaching technologies, particularly at the graduate level. The summary statistics for technology used suggest that, despite the availability of newer technology, the technology of choice for teaching economics is still an overhead projector with slides. This result is consistent with observations made by Delgaard, Lewis, and Boyd (1984) and supports the survey conducted by Becker and Watts (1996). Both authors report a general reluctance by the economics profession to adopt new technology in teaching.

The second inference is that institutional goals, in particular the emphasis on teaching relative to research, may be a significant factor in determining respondents’ use of technology in the classroom. This inference is supported by the fact that our sample showed a greater overall use of technology by respondents in smaller schools, which are more likely to be considered to be "teaching institutions." To a lesser extent this inference is supported by the significantly greater use of technology reported by teachers of undergraduate classes relative to graduate courses.

More explicit causal inferences concerning use of technology by economics teachers will require a more complete study.

Becker W. E., and M. Watts. "Teaching Tools: Teaching Methods in Undergraduate Economics." Economic Inquiry 33 (October 1995): 692-700.

_____. "Chalk and Talk: A National Survey on Teaching Undergraduate Economics." American Economic Review 86 (May 1996): 448-53.

Boyd, David W. "The New Microcomputer Development Technology: Implications for the Economics Instructor and Software Author." Journal of Economic Education 24 (Spring 1993): 113-125.

Dalgaard, Bruce R., Darrell R. Lewis, and Carol M. Boyer. "Cost and Effectiveness Considerations in the Use of Computer-Assisted Instruction in Economics." Journal of Economic Education 15 (Fall 1984): 309-324.

Gregorowicz, Philip, and Charles E. Hegji. "The Role of Economics in the MBA Curriculum," the Journal of Economic Education, forthcoming.