Authentic group projects for upper-level economics courses

Abstract

This article describes a method to introduce authentic group projects in upper-level economics courses. Such projects allow students to reflect and solidify their learning of the key economics concepts developed in a course and to experience the benefits inherent to authentic assessment, such as increased autonomy and depth of learning and development of the abilities needed in the workplace. Also, authentic group projects demonstrate to students that economics is a highly practical social science. These projects invite students to act as representatives with the goal of convincing a government official that their chosen issue warrants government intervention. These term projects require students to follow a scaffolded process designed to separate the more objective from the more subjective steps, both of which are essential to the project's quality. Instructors can use such projects in many upper-level courses.

Introduction

Demonstrating the connection of economic models in real-world settings is an ongoing demand for students; this is not new. Students in my cohort complained about it, and it continues with the current generation of students. Unfortunately, many students still doubt that connection is evident. A good example of students’ appetite for real-world understanding, which is not satiated in current economics courses, can be found in Bayer et al. (2020). They show that most students are not exposed to relatable examples by either the professor or textbook examples. This lack of relatable examples is especially pronounced for women and underrepresented racial/ethnic minority students. It is concerning that fewer than a third of students report having discussed “important real-world issues in class.” This emphasizes the need for methods, such as the authentic group projects proposed in this article, that offer exercises aimed at bridging this gap while enhancing students’ learning and engagement.

Hansen's (2001) proposition to target proficiencies demonstrates an evident willingness to develop students’ capabilities, including their capacity to connect their learning to real-world problems. This is best captured by Hansen's proficiency #5: Apply existing knowledge. However, Asarta et al. (2021) and the earlier surveys by Becker and Watts (1996, 2001), Watts and Becker (2008), and Watts and Schaur (2011) demonstrate that instructors have not significantly altered their teaching methods in typical US economics classroom, which remains dominated by the “Chalk and Talk” method and supported by textbooks. However, many innovative instructors have developed and shared various strategies and resources to alleviate these concerns, and multiple examples of practice are reviewed in Picault (2019, 2021b).

As Wiggins (1990) describes, authentic assessments differ substantially from the assessments typically used for in-class and online examinations. Rather than evaluating students on simplified proxies, students are assessed on substantial tasks directly reflecting the actual skills and knowledge utilization students should be assimilating. It forces students to go beyond simple knowledge recitation or simple mathematical and graphical skills application. Instead, students are invited to demonstrate their ability to critically engage with and apply various forms of constraints, tasks, or applications of the skills and knowledge the course aims to teach. Typically, they mimic real-world tasks and performance standards found in the labor market that professionals would normally encounter (Koh, 2017; Picault, 2021a; Villarroel et al., 2018).

Authentic assessments prioritize knowledge creation, utilization, and critical thinking. Typically, authentic assessments require students to make a sustained effort as they employ multiple creative steps, intertwining assessments and learning and providing guidance throughout their academic journey (Ozan, 2019; Tynjälä, 1999).

While authentic assessments are typically more time-consuming for instructors and students, they also have significant benefits. As shown by Villarroel et al. (2018) and Ornellas et al. (2019), exposure to authentic assessment improves the quality and depth of learning, and employability. They also give students more autonomy over their learning, as the required tasks allow for more flexibility and discretion when producing performance-based output. Authentic assessments also improve student satisfaction and the likelihood of students promoting a course via positive word-of-mouth (James and Casidy, 2018).

Building assessments become increasingly challenging with the progress of generative AI, as ChatGPT can easily pass economics standardized tests (Geerling et al., 2023). However, Thanh et al. (2023) tested various forms of economics assessments with various Generative AI software. They concluded that authentic assessments that target higher levels of learning, especially those with a creative component, are less at risk of being successfully completed by generative AI.

In this paper, I argue that not only the requested task matters but also the contextualization of the exercise is equally important. Authentic group projects allow students to co-create the contextualization of their group project to do an in-depth study of a real-world subject that concerns them. The idea is to provide a framework that creates an engaging opportunity for students to explore personal areas of interest.

For instance, rather than traditional industry analyses, I challenge students to produce a document to persuade a deputy minister that 1) a specific issue (of their choice) is a priority and 2) prompt action by the government is necessary. While this contextualization does not alter the task significantly, it does improve the relevance and fosters student engagement.

This paper is organized as follows: “Employability and Group Projects” reviews literature on student employability and group projects. “Method” outlines project implementation. “Group Composition and Dynamics” addresses group-project-related challenges. “Usefulness for Instructors” discusses instructor benefits. “Conclusion” provides final remarks.

Employability and Group Projects

Graduates’ employability is a long-standing academic discussion and an objective of a growing number of universities and governments (Clarke, 2018; Cranmer, 2006; Sumanasiri et al., 2015; Tomlinson, 2012). This trend is well captured by Cranmer's (2006) advice to redirect “resources from classroom-based initiatives seeking to develop employability skills to increasing employment-based training and experience.”

A potential response to this employability challenge is providing students with learning opportunities specifically designed to achieve the necessary academic learning and provide skills and knowledge to improve their employability. While these two objectives may sometimes be substitutable or considered a trade-off (McCowan, 2015), well-designed educational methods can help develop complementarity.

University instructors commonly use group projects to meet the growing demand for employability skills. Their rather wide adoption at universities is in part due to employers pushing for students and university graduates to develop their proficiency and experience navigating collaboration in teams (Colbeck et al., 2000; Fittipaldi, 2020; Riebe et al., 2016). Garcia-Aracil et al. (2021) show that the quality of collaborative work is a strong and significant determinant of students’ feelings of preparedness to join the workforce. Finch et al. (2013) found similar results when surveying graduates five to six years after graduation, as graduates confirmed the impact of problem-based learning, practical knowledge, and group work.

Significant literature has also investigated whether students develop academic skills and skills sought by employers when exposed to teamwork. This literature from various geographical locations and fields of study widely concludes the method's effectiveness for both employability skills and academic learning (Davidson, 2014; Gatfield, 1999; Hsiung, 2012; Johnson 1991; Millis, 2023; Slavin, 1996; Sofroniou and Poutos, 2016), even though not all studies confirm this result (Bacon, 2005; Delucchi, 2006, 2007). For instance, regarding employability skills, Colbeck et al. (2000) showed that exposure improved communication, conflict management, and problem-solving skills. In their recent meta-analysis, Zhang and Ma (2023) found that group projects improve students’ learning outcomes.

Method

The method proposed hereafter provides one way of implementing authentic group projects. The method was designed to fit the requirements of upper-level economics courses and can be adapted to various topics and methodological courses. For instance, I implemented authentic group projects in courses such as Cost-Benefit Analysis, Industrial Organization, and Women in the Economy. The project should be adapted depending on the course topic and skills to be evaluated. However, the main structure and the need for co-created contextualization remain the same.

The structure is based on a logical scaffolded process involving several student deliverables. ¹ The goal is to work on the topic/contextualization of the project first, then students gather the relevant knowledge for that contextualization and the realization of the project, and finally, they perform the relevant tasks to complete the project. This structure gives students the necessary steps to produce a good quality final project rather than creating a false impression that they can procrastinate most of the term and write the final report quickly at the end of the term.

As mentioned earlier, contextualization is of paramount importance. Here, it is not so much about which tasks students will do but more about who they feel they are working for and why. Many of my students are passionate about the idea of advancing and advocating causes of societal importance. It poses challenges in its implementation as typical assessments tend to be academic by nature and aim for objectivity rather than subjectivity. Authentic assessments help with these challenges as workers are expected to make decisions informed by evidence in the workplace, that is, make subjective decisions or recommendations based on “objective” information.

The scaffolded process creates four steps divided along the term. Each step contributes to creating the final project and provides opportunities for detailed feedback targeted to ameliorate performance throughout the following steps. Depending on the course, the final output is a report that either provides a cost-benefit analysis addressing the need to implement a project or a policy or a report that proposes modifying or creating a law or regulation. The four steps are:

Build the contextualization

Complete the preparatory work

Perform the project

Defend the conclusion of the project

1. Build the Contextualization

The project's contextualization comes from both the instructor's instructions and the student's choice of a topic to work on. Typically, students must follow a scenario in which they are instructed to act as representatives of lobbies, support groups, NGOs, or ministry staff. The project's objective is to convince a government official that their chosen issue requires (or not) government intervention. The scenario implies that the group will have a 15-min meeting to present their case to the government official. Following this meeting, the group will deliver the complete report justifying their recommendation.

The intent is for students to determine their topic within two weeks of initiating the group work. Typically, students come up with an idea they want to explore and receive feedback and guidance before the topic is approved. The role of the instructor's feedback is critical, as a correct framing of the issue has a significant impact on the success of the project. At this stage, they do not need to know what they will recommend, which typically comes later in the term. Instead, students must choose an issue, a project, or a policy related to courses that deeply interest them.

For students to enter the scenario, I usually asked them to impersonate a specific organization, such as a lobby, an NGO, or group representatives. This organization could exist or not, but students must research information about how this type of organization functions and advocates, that is, the documents and actions it produces. An example from my Industrial Organization class was students acting as a consumer representative group who decided to investigate domestic airline industry prices and represent airline passengers who consider airline tickets too expensive.

The first document, required for project approval, is due a week to 10 days after the group project begins. This outline is not graded but must provide enough information for the instructor to analyze the project's viability. It is required so quickly to allow students time to receive feedback before the project is approved. Often, students will tackle questions that are too broad, target the wrong jurisdiction, tackle issues beyond the scope of the course, or propose a project that would be infeasible within the course parameters. The goal is for the instructor to provide written feedback and, if needed, meet with the group to ensure students have chosen a topic consistent with course objectives and expectations. Groups not receiving approval after the first submission must resubmit a document until the project is approved. Typically, all projects are approved within two to three weeks of the project's start.

This first document normally includes the name and description of the organization they represent, a description of the chosen issue, which includes the jurisdiction(s) involved, and a signed team contract. ² The purpose of the team contract is to ensure that the group understands the expectations of the project and defines the rules that students must follow for group work. For instance, it includes compulsory deadlines and rules enforced by the instructor about group procedures, including those about free riding and other unfair practices among students. The contract also has room for additional rules and deadlines the group would want to include to ameliorate the instructor's rules and deadlines.

2. Complete the Preparatory Work

This step is the most important from an academic standpoint, as it requires students to examine the selected issue with an objective lens. Students must understand that during this second step, their goal is to become ‘experts’ on the chosen topic. It is an investigation and learning phase. Students are given three to six weeks to complete this step, depending on the course, and students must provide a report addressing the requirements of that step.

This step requires students to thoroughly investigate the existing literature on the subject and develop a comprehensive understanding of the associated legal framework. The goal is to produce a nuanced, well-informed assessment demonstrating a deep and comprehensive knowledge of the selected economic issue.

Before requesting this step in my projects, I noticed students mainly relied on information they had heard in the media or their private circle to form their opinions. They often did not bother verifying the information's credibility, authenticity, applicability, or veracity, negatively impacting their final grades. One critical aim of this step is to ensure students inform themselves about their chosen issue using quality information, including the relevant legislation and the academic literature. Through this process, they gain understanding and precision for the following steps in which they will need to propose a legislation change or the adoption of a project or a policy.

The instructions require students to question their own assumptions and preconceptions and justify every assertion they make with data or relevant research. They are also tasked with considering the various sides of an issue/argument, including those that will go against what they advocate for, so they can create compelling counterarguments. It is also clearly stipulated that they must offer a precise and thorough account of the existing legal framework governing the chosen issue.

The bibliography is essential at this stage because it is a testimony to whether students are deeply engaged with the project. Instructions require including and critically evaluating multiple and mostly academic and legal references. For classes where data will be even more critical in crafting the following steps, such as Industrial Organization and Cost Benefit Analysis, instructions require students to include a summary for each reference provided and a description of how it will be used in the report. This step aims to determine 1. whether students have gathered enough information, 2. whether they have a proficient understanding of the issue and the legal framework, and 3. the quality of their plan for the next steps. Those summaries and descriptions are essential to evaluate the third criterion. Reviewing this comprehensive information allows the instructor to provide accurate feedback and guidance so students can confidently undertake the more subjective part of the project.

3. Perform the Project

Students work on this step for about a month to six weeks. The goal is for them to incorporate the information they gathered in step 2 to craft their recommendations and justifications and to address potential counterarguments. During this month, one to two lecture periods are devoted to group work in class to facilitate discussion with all groups, provide guidance, and follow progress. Student groups are advised to make use of office hours regularly and to schedule appointments should they require further guidance. Because students are not used to this type of project, they would typically feel they need that help, and usually, most groups require meetings with the professor outside class time on several occasions. If students do not seek meetings outside of class time, it typically indicates a problem in the group, and this may provide an opportunity to enquire with these students about their project in class and reoffer to meet. This step is more about advising and guidance; the grading comes with the next step.

4. Defend the Conclusion of the Project

The fourth step concludes the group projects and relies heavily on the contextualization of the projects. As mentioned earlier, the scenario implies that the group will have a 15-min presentation with the government official to advocate for their proposal. Following this meeting, the group will deliver a complete report justifying their recommendations. It is important to note that the presentation and the report are due on different days to allow additional feedback.

One rationale for asking them to represent an organization in Step 1 is to help students prepare for this step. By choosing a type of organization, students can look at videos of how these organizations advocate, how their reports are formatted, etc. This preparation was completed in Step 1, and they can utilize the learning acquired to craft their report for Step 4.

Group presentations take place in class about one to two weeks before the end of the term. Students must carefully prepare their presentations and craft their arguments, as they are expected to advocate for their recommendations convincingly.

Following each presentation, the instructor provides detailed feedback suggesting areas for improvement, including areas requiring a significant amount of detail in the report, as well as the key sections/links in their development and any potential errors or oversights. Within this feedback, it is essential to consider that students were required to prioritize key points in their presentation to remain within the 15-min limit. This feedback is necessary because it guides students to target their efforts as the submission deadline draws nearer.

The final report is due on the last day of class. It must include a clear proposal and the appropriate justification. The methods used will differ depending on the course. However, the report must include detailed information explaining the viability of their proposal.

Students are instructed to determine the format of their reports independently. The goal is to simulate communication in the workplace by encouraging students to reflect not only on what needs to be said but also consider how best to say it. This helps improve their communication style and provides an invaluable opportunity to gain experience addressing a different target audience. In step 1, they reviewed the communication patterns within their organizations, which should inform them of the preferred format of their own document. To reflect this learning objective, the document's format is then evaluated for 5% of the total grade of the report.

Group composition and dynamics

Ensuring effective management of group projects, including students’ expectations and behaviors, is a crucial aspect of an instructor's role when designing and implementing group projects. Regrettably, as discussed by Watkins (2004) and Davies (2009), some students may not engage appropriately in group settings and might exhibit unfair behavior. Such unfair behavior is a significant factor leading some students to dislike graded group projects (Monson, 2019; Murray, 2017). For these projects, group procedures were designed to alleviate negative behavior and encourage fair and respectful practices between students. I typically use procedures similar to those presented in Picault (2021c) and based on advice from Davies (2009), Fittipaldi (2020), Hansen (2006), and Murray (2017).

I use a mixed model for forming groups. The rationale for the mixed approach is that a significant number of students did not favor being asked to form groups on their own or being randomly assigned to groups, advocating for the other mechanism to be applied when I selected one.

Students are requested to provide the names of the students they have agreed to work with. If they can form a group of the required size (4 to 5 students), then the team is complete. If some students agree to work together but do not reach the required group size, I may assign additional students to their team. Students who do not want or cannot find team partners are randomly assigned to a group.

To alleviate the risks of group Instability, as described in Koppenhaver and Shrader (2003), the deadline for submitting groups occurs after the drop date ³ , and group members remain together for the entire term, which also helps develop socialization and solidarity among them (Davies, 2009).

Before starting to work on their projects, groups are requested to fill out and sign a group contract. The goal is for students to set realistic goals and determine how their collaboration can be effective by discussing their expectations and determining how they will work together during the term. The contract includes deadlines and rules common to all, but also questions about how they plan to be organized, such as how they will communicate, store, and share information and data. Groups can also include any other rule or deadline they want to include.

By the end of the term, students evaluate their groupmates through individual peer assessments. These peer assessments are kept confidential, so other students cannot read them. The peer reviews must consist of a grade and a written explanation that clearly shows each team member's contribution, engagement, conduct, and respect for the contract.

Usefulness for instructors

Aside from the benefits that these authentic group projects bring to students, instructors also benefit from adopting such methods. Due to its versatile structure, this method can be adapted to a wide variety of topics and course levels, allowing instructors to incorporate these projects into various undergraduate courses. Using authentic group projects in multiple courses can help establish consistency and efficiency in the provision and execution of group projects. For instance, while the techniques and topics used and explored by students may vary, the overall structure and timeline remain similar, which helps establish routines and reduces the implementation costs for the instructor.

Another benefit to instructors comes from the interactive nature of these projects. As explained earlier, students and instructors should meet outside class time more frequently than with a traditional setup. This level of interaction helps break the ice and build quality relationships with students, which should not be overlooked, as building quality relationships with students is mutually beneficial to instructors and students (Eloff et al., 2023; Hagenauer et al., 2023; Snijders et al., 2020).

Conclusion

This paper presents a method for implementing term-long authentic group assessments in economics courses. The author has used this method in various upper-level economics courses such as Cost-Benefit Analysis, Industrial Organization, and Women in the Economy. The group project places students in the shoes of an organization that wants to convince a government official to intervene on their chosen issue. The instructor and the students co-create the contextualization of their project to foster student engagement. The project provides mock situations where subjective decisions or recommendations are made based on “objective” information. The method employs a 4-step scaffolded process to guide students through this authentic assessment, incorporating instructor feedback throughout the term. This regular feedback is particularly important for newer cohorts who seek and require more guidance (Plochocki, 2019; Schlee et al., 2020).

These authentic group projects also provide new tools to instructors and study programs aiming to empower students with employability skills while still contributing to students’ academic needs. Such an approach could be implemented at the program level. Similar to milestone courses like capstones, which are designed to enhance learning within a curriculum, programs could integrate projects that build professional skills along the curriculum. This would offer students more practical experience across various courses.

While this approach was initially designed for economics courses, it can be easily adapted for courses in other social sciences. The benefits of authentic learning and the focus on addressing important real-world issues can similarly be achieved when adapting such projects to other social sciences. The techniques and methodology used by students may differ significantly, but the structure itself, that is, the four steps presented thereafter, would still apply.