Accepted Manuscript

Title: Quantile Regression Analysis of Cooperative Learning

Effects

Author: Amanda Deerfield

PII: S1477-3880(17)30103-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2018.04.001
Reference: IREE 132

To appear in:

Received date: 3-1-2018

Revised date: 12-4-2018
Accepted date: 19-4-2018

Please cite this article as: Deerfield A, Quantile Regression Analysis of

Cooperative Learning Effects, International Review of Economics Education (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2018.04.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 Quantile Regression Analysis of Cooperative Learning Effects

Quantile Regression Analysis of Cooperative Learning Effects

Amanda Deerfielda
aDepartment of Economics, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, St. Mary’s City, MD,

PT
USA 20686
aldeerfield@smcm.edu
Notes: Corresponding Author is Amanda Deerfield, Economics Department, 47645

RI
College Drive, St. Mary’s City, Maryland, 20686, email: aldeerfield@smcm.edu

SC
This paper examines a quasi-experiment designed to analyze the

U
effects of cooperative learning on exam grades earned in Principles
of Macroeconomics. In this quasi-experiment, the researcher taught
N
three sections of Principles of Macroeconomics during one term and
randomly chose two treatment sections and one control section.
A
Students in all sections engaged in active learning by completing
problem sets. Students in the treatment sections were instructed to
M

share and explain their answers to problem sets with peers. The
results from OLS regression analysis suggest students in the
treatment sections earned higher grades on the Final Exam.
D

Quantile regression analysis suggests a positive relationship between

treatment and Final Exam grades for high-achieving students and a
TE

negative relationship between treatment and grades earned on Exam

1 and Exam 2 for low-achieving students.

Keywords quantile regression analysis, cooperative learning, economics

EP

education, active learning

JEL Code A2
CC

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
A

1. Introduction

A 2012 survey of principles of economics instructors found that two-thirds

of respondents believe students do not learn best from the standard lecture method

1
 of instruction (Goffe and Kauper 2014). Many studies, across disciplines, support
this belief and show improved student learning outcomes when active learning
techniques are used instead of passive instruction (Prince 2004). However, surveys
of principles of economics instructors (Becker and Watts 1996, 2001a, b; Watts and
Schaur 2001; Watts and Becker 2008; Goffe and Kauper 2014) consistently reveal
lecture as the dominant teaching method in economics. According to respondents,

PT
the reason for the disconnect between belief and action is that “students do not learn
best from lecture, but it is cost-effective” (Goffe and Kauper 2014, 360), a nod
toward the additional preparation time needed for innovative instruction

RI
techniques. While using experiments in class (Frank 1997; Emerson and Taylor
2004) and flipping the classroom (Olitsky and Cosgrove 2016) have shown to
improve student learning outcomes, these forms of active learning require a

SC
significant time investment on the part of the instructor. Another form of active
learning, cooperative learning, is less time-intensive and may be a better fit for
instructors to utilize innovative teaching methods under time constraints. However,

U
the efficacy of cooperative learning in economics courses has not been proven in
the literature, and only three studies have examined the effects of cooperative
N
learning within the discipline—with mixed findings (Marburger 2005; Yamarik
2007; Emerson, English, and McGoldrick 2015).
A
This study contributes to growing literature analyzing the effects of active
learning through a quasi-experiment conducted in an introductory macroeconomics
M

course that examines the relationship between cooperative learning and students’
exam grades. The aims of this study are to realize improvements in student learning
outcomes from cooperative learning as reported by other disciplines (Prince 2004)
D

but not yet found in economics and to examine if cooperative learning provides
varied effects for students with differing levels of achievement1. To examine the
TE

former, this study offered increased student exposure to cooperative learning

compared to previous studies in order to answer the question, does cooperative
learning affect student learning outcomes? To inform the latter aim, quantile
EP

regression analysis is used to answer the question, for whom does cooperative
learning affect student learning outcomes?
This study advances the literature in two ways. First, this study exposed
students to cooperative learning activities more frequently, for a longer duration
CC

throughout the term, and with a greater variation of peers than previous studies.
This study exposed students in the treatment group to 30 minutes of cooperative
learning activity during 30 class meetings throughout the term, compared to the
A

only other quasi-experiment conducted to examine the effects of cooperative

learning in economics courses, Emerson et al. (2015), whose study exposed
students in the treatment group to 20 minutes of activity during twelve class

1
In this research, achievement refers to scores earned on exams.

2
 meetings throughout the term. Further, this study instructed students in the
treatment sections to vary their partners throughout the term, while the study
conducted by Emerson et al. had students’ partners remain constant throughout the
semester. Results from the current study suggest students in the treatment sections
earn higher grades on the Final Exam than students in the control section, holding
all else constant. Secondly, this is the only study of active learning to utilize

PT
quantile regression analysis to find if the effects of treatment differ for students of
different levels of achievement. In recent research, Ordinary Least Squares
regression analysis is employed to estimate the relationship between student

RI
learning outcomes and active learning. While results produced by OLS estimate
the relationships between the dependent and independent variables based on the
conditional mean, quantile regression analysis describes these relationships at

SC
different points on the conditional distribution of the dependent variable. This
allows analysis of the effect of treatment on different portions of the dependent
variable distribution. Quantile regression analysis does not create subsamples but

U
uses all observations in each quantile regression, and asymmetrically weighted
residuals produce the quantiles (Koenker and Hallock 2001). Results show no
N
significant effects of treatment for students who earn the conditional 10th and 25th
quantile of Final Exam grades, while for students who earn the conditional 50th,
A
75th, and 90th quantile of Final Exam grades, there is a significant and positive
relationship with treatment and Final Exam grades. Further, for students who earn
M

grades at the conditional 10th quantile of Exam 1 and Exam 2 grades, there is a
significant and negative relationship with treatment.
D

2. Background
Cooperative learning is a form of active learning. Prince (2004) defines
TE

active learning as “any instructional method that engages students in the learning
process,” (p. 223). Active learning is contrasted with lecturing as a method of
instruction. In a class that is only lecture, students may not actively engage in the
EP

learning process but instead learn the material passively by listening to the
instructor. Cooperative learning is a form of active learning that requires students
to work in small groups toward a common goal, with the focus on student
interactions leading to learning--rather than learning the content independently.
CC

Table 1 shows the experimental design details, method of analysis, and

results from selected studies of active learning in economics courses. As shown,
several studies have found using experiments in class has a significant and positive
A

effect on student learning outcomes; however, creating experiments is a significant

time investment on the part of the instructor, which may dissuade their use. Also
shown in Table 1, Olitsky and Cosgrove (2016) examined the effects of flipping
and blending economics classes and found students in flipped classes earned
significantly higher student learning outcomes than students in the other sections.

3
 As noted by Olitsky and Cosgrove (2016), the pre-recorded video lectures used in
the flipped classes were a significant time investment on the part of the instructor.
This time investment may deter some instructors from utilizing this pedagogical
method.
As noted in Emerson et al. (2015), while cooperative learning is the most
researched innovative teaching technique in higher education, much of the existing

PT
research is descriptive. Marburger (2005) and Yamarik (2007) moved beyond
descriptive analysis to compare student learning outcomes in a lecture-based
section to a section utilizing cooperative learning. As aptly noted in Emerson et al.

RI
(2015), while these two studies were informative, they did not isolate the
cooperative learning as the treatment, as control sections do not work on in-class
exercises, while the treatment sections do. Therefore, any difference between

SC
outcomes could be caused by the exercises themselves (a form of active learning)
or by the cooperative learning. Emerson et al. (2015) seeks to address this with a
quasi-experiment investigating the effects of cooperative learning on learning

U
outcomes. These three studies offer the foundation for the current study and are
also included in Table 1. The current study is additionally included in Table 1 to
N
illustrate the contributions in terms of more intense treatment, novel method of
analysis, and findings.
A
M
D
TE
EP
CC
A

4
 PT
RI
SC
TABLE 1—SELECTED STUDIES OF ACTIVE LEARNING IN ECONOMICS

Study Course Class Active Frequency Duration Statistical Results

U
Activity Learning Analysis
Evaluated In Employed
Frank 1997 Public finance Tragedy of Treatment Once in a 5-10 Chi- Treatment
and
environmental
economics
the
Commons
experiment
Section
only N
term minutes squared group scored
higher
quiz
on
A
Emerson Principles of Bergstrom Treatment 11 class Entire OLS Treatment
and Taylor Microeconomics and Miller Section meetings class increased
M

2004 experiments only period TUCE score.

Dickie Principles of Bergstrom Treatment 7 class Not OLS and Treatment

2006 Microeconomics and Miller Section meetings reported Box-and- increased
experiments only whisker TUCE score.
D

Olitsky Principles of Flipped class Treatment Varied by Varied DID Flipped

and Microeconomics and Blended and section by section
TE

Cosgrove class control section increased

2016 improvement
on test.

Marburger Principles of Cooperative Treatment Each class Entire Proportions Treatment

EP

2005 Microeconomics learning section class test section

activities only period employed
using better
handouts economic
insight.
CC

Yamarik Intermediate Cooperative Treatment 9 class Entire OLS and Treatment

2007 Macroeconomics learning section meetings class 2SLS increased
activities only period exam scores.
using
A

handouts

Emerson et Principles of Cooperative Treatment 12 class 20 OLS No

al. 2015 Microeconomics learning and meetings minutes significant
activities Control effects
using think- found.
pair-share

5
 Deerfield Principles of Cooperative Treatment Each class 30 OLS and Treatment
2018 Macroeconomics learning and (30 class minutes quantile increased
activities control meetings) regression Final Exam
using think- grades for
pair-share high-
achieving
students and
decreased

PT
Exam 1 and
2 grades for
low-
achieving
students.

RI
SC
In Marburger (2005), one section of principles of microeconomics is taught
with a traditional lecture format, while cooperative learning replaces lecture in
another section. Using a proportions test, results suggest student performance on

U
multiple choice-exams across sections was similar. However, students in the
cooperative learning section better applied economic reasoning in a project
N
assignment. This suggests students in the section who participated in cooperative
learning experienced deep learning of the subject. Yamarik (2007) constructed a
A
similar study with two sections of intermediate macroeconomics—one section
remained a traditional lecture, while the other included exercises that students
M

worked on collaboratively. In contrast to Marburger’s (2005) study, Yamarik

(2007) chose the students’ groups and required groups to meet outside of class, in
addition to requiring students to work together in class. Using several methods of
D

analysis, including OLS to measure progress over the term, and two-stage least
squares to attend to possible endogeneity, results indicate students in the
TE

cooperative learning section scored higher on exams, after controlling for student-
specific factors. Yamarik (2007) posits that students in the treatment section may
have earned higher scores because these students studied more and asked for more
EP

guidance from the instructor than students in the lecture section. Neither study
explored the prospect that the relationship between cooperative learning and the
learning outcome might not be the same for all students. Additionally, while
seminal, these studies did not isolate the cooperative learning technique within the
CC

realm of active learning as the treatment. If students in the treatment sections had
improved outcomes, it could be due to active learning, as opposed to passive
learning during a lecture. In both studies, active learning is the treatment—not
A

cooperative learning.
Emerson, et al. (2015) address this issue by utilizing a quasi-experimental
design, as well as a larger sample to examine how cooperative learning affects
student outcomes. All sections were given problem sets during class, with students
in control sections working on these problems individually and students in the

6
 treatment sections utilizing the think-pair-share method to work on these problems
alone and then collaborate with a classmate to share and explain their answers.
Students in the treatment sections worked on in-class exercises for twenty minutes
twelve times throughout the semester with the same partner. OLS results suggest
that, in aggregate, students from the treatment and control sections did not have
significant differences in outcomes that measure student learning, after controlling

PT
for other factors.
OLS regression analysis assumes the relationships between independent
and dependent variables are constant throughout the dataset and quantifies this

RI
relationship with a coefficient, based on the mean relationship between the
independent and dependent variable. It is reasonable to infer that treatment may
affect students of different achievement levels differently, which implies that

SC
returns to treatment would vary across the sample population and not be discerned
using traditional methods of analysis, such as OLS. In fact, in education literature,
in a study of small-group interaction, Peterson, Janicki, and Swing (1981) observed

U
during groupwork, low ability-students were off-task more than high-ability
students and time spent off-task was negatively correlated with scores on exams.
N
While such observations are intuitive, henceforth, this has not been examined
empirically in regards to how cooperative learning affects students of differing
A
ability within economics courses. In the context of the current study, OLS assumes
the relationship between treatment and score earned on an exam is the same,
M

whether the student earned a high grade or a low grade on the exam. It is plausible
students who earned lower grades on the exam were affected differently by
treatment than students who earned higher grades on the exam (holding constant all
D

other explanatory variables), and quantile regression analysis will allow this
examination. To illustrate the differences between OLS and quantile regression
TE

analysis, this study presents results from both.

3. Methods
EP

Participants were registered in one of three sections of principles of

macroeconomics at a large public university in the mid-Atlantic region of the
United States in the spring of 2016 taught by the same instructor. Each section met
two days per week for an hour and fifteen minutes. All sections used identical
CC

syllabi, textbooks, and problem sets. In this research design, I randomly chose one
of three principles of macroeconomics sections as the control, with the remaining
two sections as treatment sections. All three sections were exposed to identical
A

content, problem sets, and multiple-choice exams. In all classes, I supplemented

each lecture with problem sets. Each problem set was presented to the class
following the lecture covering relevant material. I used problem sets from the
textbook website (Parkin 2014) and spent no more than five minutes prior to each
class meeting choosing, compiling, and uploading the questions to the online

7
 learning platform to be accessible via the classroom computer. For the entire term,
this process took less than two hours of preparation. This is an upfront cost; in
subsequent semesters, this preparation is unnecessary, as the same problem sets can
be used if teaching the same course.
As in Emerson et al. (2015), the cooperative learning treatment sections
completed in-class problem sets through the think-pair-share process, while

PT
students in the control section completed the problem sets individually. In the
randomly-chosen control section, students were instructed to individually complete
the problems sets, were given fifteen minutes for completion, and were randomly

RI
called on to provide answers to the class. In the treatment sections, students were
given fifteen minutes to individually complete the problem sets (think), then were
given fifteen minutes to share their findings with peers, ask their peers for

SC
clarification, and explain their findings (pair and share). Students in the treatment
sections were instructed to vary their partners throughout the term. Then, students
were randomly called on to provide answers to the class. This sequence occurred

U
during every class meeting, thirty times throughout the term and covered various
topics including: scarcity, supply and demand, price controls, the production
N
possibilities frontier, opportunity cost, comparative advantage, GDP, inflation,
unemployment, aggregate demand, the money supply, the banking system, fiscal
A
policy, monetary policy, international trade, exchange rates, economic growth, and
business cycles. Multiple-choice exams were given on the same days for all
M

sections, and exams were graded using a Scantron machine. All exams were
cumulative to the point in the term they were given.
In examining the effects of cooperative learning on exam grades, OLS
D

regression analysis is first used, and I follow convention from previous work to use
an education production function (Emerson et al. 2015), where student learning
TE

outcomes (Y) are dependent on a vector of student-specific factors (X), and the
cooperative learning treatment (D):

Y = α + δD +Xβ + u
EP

(1)

X includes conventionally used demographic characteristics (gender,

ethnicity, year), measures of academic ability (cumulative GPA and whether the
CC

student had previously completed principles of microeconomics), the percentage of

classes attended, and interest (a self-reported measure). Data were collected from
students via a survey at the end of the semester, save cumulative GPA data were
collected from the registrar’s office and attendance data gathered throughout the
A

semester. The student learning outcomes include the first exam grade, the second
exam grade, and the final exam grade.
Table 2 provides definitions of variables, and Table 3 displays summary
statistics for all participants by treatment status. The only significant difference

8
 between participants in the treatment and control sections were with respect to
ethnicity. In the control section, 65% of students identified as Caucasian, and in
the treatment sections, 80% of students identified as Caucasian. Using a Heckman
two-step procedure and Tobit estimation, the results are robust to controlling for
selection.

PT
RI
SC
TABLE 2: DEFINITION OF VARIABLES

Variable Definition
Cooperative learning = 1 if in cooperative learning section

U
Male = 1 if male
Year = 1 if freshman, 2 if sophomore, 3 if junior, 4 if senior
Caucasian
Attendance
N
= 1 if student identifies as Caucasian
= 1 if student attended all class meetings
A
Interest = 1 if student has very little interest in economics, 5 if
M
student has very high interest in economics
GPA = current cumulative GPA in college
Taken Principles of Microeconomics = 1 if student has taken principles of microeconomics
Exam 1 Grade = score on Exam 1 (percentage of points earned)
D

Exam 2 Grade = score on Exam 2 (percentage of points earned )

TE

Final Exam Grade = score on Final Exam (percentage of points earned )

TABLE 3: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

EP

Full Sample Control Group Treatment Group

Variable N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD
CC

Year 144 1.424 0.665 35 1.429 0.698 109 1.422 0.066

Male 144 0.618 0.488 35 0.543 0.505 109 0.642 0.482

Taken Micro 144 0.347 0.478 35 0.429 0.502 109 0.321 0.469
A

Caucasian 144 0.771 0.422 35 0.657** 0.482 109 0.807** 0.396

Attendance 144 0.826 0.198 35 0.808 0.208 109 0.831 0.195

GPA 144 2.778 0.561 35 2.773 0.562 109 2.780 0.563

9
 Interesti 142 3.225 0.965 34 3.221 0.940 108 3.227 0.977

Exam1
Grade 144 74.755 11.313 35 75.628 9.190 109 74.475 11.940

Exam2
Grade 144 73.050 12.239 35 74.165 8.895 109 72.692 13.149

PT
Final
Exam Grade 144 75.797 10.750 35 73.668 9.306 109 76.481 11.126

RI
**Means are statistically different between the treatment and control sections at the 5% significance level.

SC
4. Results and Discussion

U
Table 4 shows OLS results for equation (1), when the learning outcome is
the grades earned on Exam 1, Exam 2, and the Final Exam, respectively. Results
N
suggest students in the treatment sections earn higher scores on the Final Exam,
male students earn higher scores on the Final Exam than their female counterparts,
A
students who attended a greater percentage of class meetings earned higher grades
on Exam 2, students with a higher cumulative GPA earn higher scores on all exams,
M

students with higher self-reported interest in economics earn higher scores on Exam
2 and the Final Exam, and students who have previously taken principles of
microeconomics earn higher scores on Exam 2. This positive and significant
D

relationship between cooperative learning and student learning outcomes is

congruent with findings from cooperative learning studies in various disciplines
TE

outside of economics (Prince 2004).

TABLE 4—OLS RESULTS

EP

Variable Exam 1 Exam 2 Final Exam

Treatment -1.003 -1.571 3.216*
(1.865) (2.165) (1.672)
Male 0.0188 2.753 3.531**
(1.687) (1.955) (1.510)
CC

Caucasian -1.750 -0.086 -0.330

(1.942) (2.225) (1.741)
Attendance -5.126 12.249** 1.197
(4.634) (5.379) (4.154)
GPA 12.102*** 6.721*** 11.670***
(1.653) (1.918) (1.481)
A

Year -1.145 1.379 0.308

(1.220) (1.416) (1.093)
Interest 1.367 3.147*** 1.368*
(0.914) (1.061) (0.820)
Taken Micro 1.413 4.062** 2.058
(1.687) (1.959) (1.513)
Observations 142 142 142

10
 Adjusted R2 0.3331 0.2471 0.4215
Robust standard errors are in parentheses.
*significant at 10%; **significant at 5%, ***significant at 1%

While the OLS results show this positive and significant relationship between
treatment and final exam grades for the sample, these results do not provide

PT
information about for whom within the population this is true. The quantile
regression results shown in Table 6, 7, and 8 suggest important nuances throughout
the conditional distribution of exam grades. The quantile regression equation is
specified below, where tau indicates the specified quantile and student learning

RI
outcomes (Y) are dependent on a vector of student-specific factors (X), and the
cooperative learning treatment (D):

SC
QY|D,X(τ|D,X) = α(τ) + δ(τ)D + Xβ(τ) (2)
I selected the quantiles shown to illustrate the relationships for students at
various points along the conditional distribution, with results shown for the 10th,

U
25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th conditional quantiles. As detailed in Table 6, students who
earned conditional final exam scores at the 10th and 25th quantile, treatment had no
N
significant effect. However, for students who earned conditional final exam scores
at the 50th, 75th, and 90th quantiles, treatment had positive and significant effects.
A
This finding suggests cooperative learning is beneficial for high-achieving students,
while not conveying benefit to lower achieving students. This could be due to
M

Peterson et al.’s observations that low-ability students spend time in groups off-
task. Across some quantiles shown, males earned higher final exam grades than
their female counterparts and students with higher levels of self-reported interest
D

earned higher final exam scores. For all quantiles shown, students with higher
GPAs earn higher final exam scores. Students who scored in the conditional 90th
TE

quantile and previously took principles of microeconomics earned higher grades on

the Final Exam.
EP

TABLE 6—QUANTILE REGRESSION RESULTS WITH FINAL EXAM SCORES AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

QUANTILE
Variable OLS .1 .25 .5 .75 .9
Treatment 3.216* -0.959 1.242 4.297** 4.430** 4.752*
CC

(1.672) (4.428) (2.181) (1.864) (2.088) (2.655)

Male 3.531** 5.766 5.206* 3.392* 3.277 3.399*
(1.510) (3.879) (2.848) (1.913) (2.042) (2.045)
Caucasian -0.330 2.303 0.731 0.354 0.574 -1.750
(1.741) (5.237) (3.075) (3.364) (2.529) (3.032)
A

Attendance 1.197 -0.081 -0.923 3.109 5.607 6.479

(4.154) (6.133) (4.368) (5.625) (6.965) (8.369)
GPA 11.670*** 11.269*** 12.664*** 11.498*** 10.127*** 10.607***
(1.481) (3.886) (2.118) (2.079) (2.446) (2.733)
Year 0.308 -3.043 -1.349 0.464 1.426 0.792
(1.093) (2.330) (2.098) (1.823) (1.251) (0.931)
Interest 1.368* 3.162* -0.325 2.053** 1.832 1.167
(0.820) (1.671) (1.540) (1.027) (1.187) (1.234)

11
 Taken Micro 2.058 2.654 1.912 2.277 1.246 4.571**
(1.513) (4.368) (2.165) (2.245) (1.738) (2.262)
Observations 142 142 142 142 142 142

Adjusted or Pseudo 0.4215 0.1844 0.2890 0.3403 0.3290 0.3006

R2
Robust/Bootstrap standard errors are in parentheses.
*significant at 10%; **significant at 5%, ***significant at 1%

PT
Although OLS results do not show significant effects of treatment on scores

RI
earned on Exam 1 and 2, quantile regression analysis does, as shown in Tables 7
and 8. For students scoring in the conditional 10th quantile of scores on Exam 1
and Exam 2, treatment is shown to have a significant and negative effect on exam

SC
scores. This finding is consistent with observations from education literature that
low-ability students spend more time in groups off-task and time off-task correlates
with lower scores earned (Peterson et al. 1981). Students with higher GPAs

U
consistently earn higher scores on Exam 1 and Exam 2.

N
TABLE 7—QUANTILE REGRESSION RESULTS WITH EXAM 1 SCORES AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

QUANTILE
A
Variable OLS .1 .25 .5 .75 .9
Treatment -1.003 -6.429** -1.161 0.081 1.137 1.201
(1.865) (2.716) (2.843) (1.918) (1.783) (2.179)
M

Male 0.0188 -0.738 1.023 -0.474 0.827 1.997

(1.687) (2.798) (2.847) (1.828) (2.699) (1.667)
Caucasian -1.750 -3.514 -4.697 -1.040 -1.272 -1.270
(1.942) (4.288) (2.890) (2.085) (2.621) (3.508)
D

Attendance -5.126 0.168 -8.851 -8.079 -9.007 -10.955

(4.634) (8.932) (10.328) (6.060) (6.852) (10.260)
GPA 12.102*** 13.482*** 14.028*** 13.678*** 11.490*** 13.106***
TE

(1.653) (3.255) (3.458) (2.596) (1.813) (2.379)

Year -1.145 -0.042 -2.768 -1.883 -0.455 -0.108
(1.220) (1.649) (2.128) (1.956) (1.341) (0.951)
Interest 1.367 1.239 0.803 1.756 0.612 1.287
(0.914) (1.741) (1.884) (1.182) (1.191) (2.020)
EP

Taken Micro 1.413 1.937 2.055 1.218 1.758 3.591

(1.687) (2.289) (2.514) (2.021) (2.519) (3.579)
Observations 142 142 142 142 142 142

Adjusted or Pseudo 0.3331 0.2313 0.1716 0.2376 0.2610 0.2696

CC

R2
Robust/Bootstrap standard errors are in parentheses.
*significant at 10%; **significant at 5%, ***significant at 1%
A

As detailed in Table 8, across many quantiles, students who have taken

principles of microeconomics and students with higher levels of self-reported
interest earned higher scores on Exam 2. For higher quantiles, males earn higher
scores on Exam 2 than their female counterparts. Among students with Exam 2
grades at the conditional 10th quantile, students with more years in college earn

12
 higher Exam 2 grades. Significant positive treatment effects found only for the
Final Exam may be due to the cumulative nature of the exam.

PT
RI
2

SC
TABLE 8—QUANTILE REGRESSION RESULTS WITH EXAM 2 SCORES AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

QUANTILE
Variable OLS .1 .25 .5 .75 .9
Treatment -1.571 -6.537* -1.587 -1.861 1.496 1.689

U
(2.165) (3.375) (2.222) (2.390) (2.435) (2.483)
Male 2.753 -0.768 0.119 1.284 4.015** 3.560*
(1.955) (4.095) (2.986) (2.375) (1.764) (2.124)
Caucasian

Attendance
-0.086
(2.225)
12.249**
-0.428
(3.632)
18.485
N
-0.253
(2.717)
6.754
0.547
(2.421)
0.447
0.180
(3.553)
-0.558
2.367
(3.048)
-0.604
A
(5.379) (29.197) (15.964) (6.608) (10.697) (13.868)
GPA 6.721*** 8.507** 8.239*** 9.931*** 7.933* 8.462**
(1.918) (3.688) (2.979) (3.272) (4.040) (4.199)
M

Year 1.379 3.678* 1.907 2.196 1.329 0.995

(1.416) (2.212) (2.301) (2.388) (1.436) (1.465)
Interest 3.147*** 2.677 3.475*** 2.013* 1.980** 2.575**
(1.061) (2.320) (1.143) (1.124) (0.945) (1.154)
D

Taken Micro 4.062** 10.490** 6.721* 4.746* 5.123** 0.482

(1.959) (4.911) (3.106) (2.497) (2.171) (2.496)
Observations 142 142 142 142 142 142
TE

Adjusted or Pseudo 0.2471 0.1984 0.1818 0.1899 0.2027 0.1825

R2
Robust/Bootstrap standard errors are in parentheses.
*significant at 10%; **significant at 5%, ***significant at 1%
EP

5. Conclusion
This study adds to an increasing body of literature examining the effects of
CC

active learning teaching methods in economics. While time-intensive methods

such as flipping the classroom and classroom experiments have been consistently
proven to improve student learning outcomes, the effects of less time-intensive
cooperative learning on student learning outcomes have been mixed. Results from
A

OLS regression analysis of the present research suggest that students in treatment
groups earn higher scores on the final exam. This finding is consistent with findings
from other disciplines that have shown cooperative learning to enhance student

13
 learning, as well as being congruent with several studies of active learning within
economics. This is, however, contradictory to findings from Emerson, et al. (2015).
This difference could be accounted for by varying partners throughout the term and
the longer, more frequent sessions of cooperative learning employed in the present
research.
This study also contributes to the literature by examining the effects of

PT
cooperative learning on students of different achievement levels. Previous research
utilizing OLS to examine the effects of collaborative learning has been limited in
this regard because a consistent relationship between treatment and outcomes is

RI
estimated for all students. By employing quantile regression analysis, this research
examines relationships between treatment and student learning outcomes
throughout the conditional distribution of exam grades. While it is intuitive that

SC
low-achieving students may be affected differently by cooperative learning than
high-achieving students, previous research has not attended to this question
empirically. Results suggest that high-achieving students in treatment sections earn

U
higher grades on the final exam, while low-achieving students in treatment sections
earn lower grades on Exam 1 and Exam 2. This finding is consistent with
N
observational data from education studies that low-ability students spend more time
in groups off-task than high-achieving students do.
A
These results suggest potential extensions to the current research. Future
work could attempt to measure student time spent on- and off-task to find if this is
M

the mechanism through which these disparate effects occur. If similar findings are
found in future cooperative learning studies, discussions concerning equity
implications of employing a teaching method that provides positive effects for high-
D

achieving students and negative effects for low-achieving students will be

necessary. Further, future research could conduct similar quasi-experiments to find
TE

which component of this study influenced the efficacy of cooperative learning: the
frequency, the duration, or varied partners. Additionally, increasing the scale of
the quasi-experiment or conducting it in a different course would also add to the
EP

growing literature examining cooperative learning. The results presented here

suggest cooperative learning to be a less time-intensive method of employing active
learning techniques than other methods, while providing benefits to high-achieving
students. Finding ways to mitigate the negative effects of cooperative learning for
CC

low-achieving students will be a necessary future step in this research.

A

14
 PT
RI
REFERENCES

SC
U
Becker, W. and M. Watts. 1996. Chalk and talk: A national survey on teaching
undergraduate economics. American Economic Review: Papers and
Proceedings, 86: 448-454. N
A
Becker, W. and M. Watts. 2001a. Teaching Economics at the start of the 21st
century: Still chalk and talk. American Economic Review: Papers and
M

Proceedings, 91: 446-451.

Becker, W. and M. Watts. 2001b. Teaching methods in U.S. Undergraduate

D

economics courses. Journal of Economic Education, 32: 269-279.

TE

Dickie, M. 2006. Do Classroom Experiments Increase Learning in Introductory

Microeconomics? Journal of Economic Education, 37(3): 267-288.
EP

Emerson, T. L. N. and B. Taylor. 2004. Comparing student achievement across

experimental and lecture-oriented sections of a principles of
microeconomics course. Southern Economic Journal, 70(3): 672-693.
CC

Emerson, T. L. N., English, L., and McGoldrick, K. 2015. Evaluating the

cooperative component in cooperative learning: a quasi-experimental
study. Journal of Economic Education, 46(1): 1-13.
A

Frank, B. 1997. The impact of classroom experiments on the learning of

economics: An empirical investigation. Economic Inquiry, 5(4): 763-769.

Goffe, W. and D. Kauper. 2014. A survey of principles instructors: Why lecture

15
 prevails. Journal of Economic Education, 45(4): 360-375.

Koenker, R. and K. Hallock. 2001. Quantile Regression. The Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 15(4): 143-156.

Marburger, D. R. 2005. Comparing student performance using cooperative

PT
learning. International Review of Economics Education, 4(1): 46-57.

Olitsky, N. and S. Cosgrove. 2016. The Better Blend? Flipping the Principles of

RI
Microeconomics Classroom. International Review of Economics
Education, 21: 1-11.
Parkin, M. 2014. Macroeconomics. 11th ed. Essex: Pearson.

SC
Peterson, P., Janicki, T.C., and Swing, S.R. 1981. Ability x Treatment Interaction
Effects on Children’s Learning in Large-Group and Small-Group

U
Approaches. American Educational Research Journal, 19(4): 453-473.

N
Prince, M. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal
of Engineering Education, 93(3): 223-231.
A
Watts, M. and W. Becker. 2008. A little more than chalk and talk: Results from
M

a national survey. Journal of Economic Education, 39: 273-286.

Watts, M. and G. Schaur. 2011. Teaching and Assessment Methods in

D

Undergraduate Economics: a fourth National Quinquennial Survey.

Journal of Economic Education, 42(3): 294-309.
TE

Yamarik, S. 2007. Does cooperative learning improve student learning outcomes?

Journal of Economic Education, 38(3): 259-277.
EP
CC
A

16