How should economics curricula be evaluated?
Andrew Mearman ()
International Review of Economics Education, 2014, vol. 16, issue PB, 73-86
This paper explores the evaluation of economics curricula. It argues that the dominant approach in economics education, experimentalism, has serious limitations which render it an unsuitable evaluation method in some cases. The arguments against experimentalism are practical, ethical and also rest on a view of the world as a complex, open system in which contexts are unique and generalised regularities are unlikely. In such an environment, as often found in educational contexts, alternative methods are advisable, at least as part of a suite of approaches in a realistic, case-based, mixed-methods approach to evaluation. Thus, economics curricula should be evaluated using a method or set of methods most appropriate to the particular object case. As such, there is no single answer to the question posed.
Keywords: Case-based evaluation; Realism; Experimental method (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A20 A22 B4 B5 C80 C9 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
Working Paper: How should economics curricula be evaluated? (2013)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ireced:v:16:y:2014:i:pb:p:73-86
Access Statistics for this article
International Review of Economics Education is currently edited by Guest, Ross
More articles in International Review of Economics Education from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Dana Niculescu ().