Comparative Impacts of Active Learning in Economics Curricula Worldwide

Thesis Abstract

The study addresses persistent concerns about the effectiveness of traditional lecture-centric instruction in economics curricula and investigates whether active learning (AL) approaches enhance student learning outcomes across diverse higher education settings. Specifically, it examines comparative impacts of AL modalities—problem-based learning, collaborative learning, and case-based simulations—on student performance, engagement, and transferable skills in introductory and intermediate economics courses. The aim is to determine whether AL yields superior outcomes relative to conventional instruction, and to identify context-specific factors that mediate or moderate these effects across global campuses. The research objectives are (i) to compare exam performance, concept mastery, and long-term retention between AL and traditional pedagogy; (ii) to assess differences in student engagement, motivation, and self-efficacy; (iii) to evaluate gains in qualitative competencies such as critical thinking, data interpretation, and policy analysis; and (iv) to explore institutional and cultural factors that influence the effectiveness of AL in economics education. A mixed-methods design is employed, combining quasi-experimental approaches with multi-site cross-sectional data collection. The population comprises undergraduate economics students enrolled in first- and second-year courses at ten universities across North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australasia during a single academic year. A stratified cluster sampling framework yields a total sample of approximately 3,000 students, with 1,500 exposed to AL interventions and 1,500 receiving traditional instruction, ensuring proportional representation by course level, modality, and institution type (public vs. private). Data collection instruments include standardized assessments of economics literacy and domain-specific concept inventories, validated scales for engagement (UCLES), motivation (MSLQ-adapted), and self-efficacy (SESES), course grades, and retention tests administered at mid-semester and end-of-semester intervals. For qualitative insight, semi-structured focus groups with 60 instructors and 120 students across sites capture perceptions of feasibility, implementation fidelity, and cultural adaptability. Instrument validity and reliability are established through pilot testing, Cronbach’s alpha checks (target >0.70), and confirmatory factor analysis. Analytical methods integrate quantitative and qualitative procedures. Descriptive statistics summarize central tendencies and dispersion across sites; inferential analyses employ multilevel linear models to estimate the impact of AL on exam scores and concept mastery, controlling for prior achievement, socioeconomic status, and institutional characteristics. Regression analyses examine variations by AL modality, course level, class size, and instructor experience. ANOVA tests compare engagement and motivation indices between instructional groups, with post-hoc corrections for multiple comparisons. Mediation models investigate whether engagement and self-efficacy mediate the relationship between AL and learning outcomes. For qualitative data, thematic analysis identifies recurring patterns in perceived benefits and barriers, triangulated with quantitative results to explain heterogeneity. The theoretical framework draws on Cognitive Load Theory and Self-Determination Theory to interpret mechanisms through which AL influences cognitive processing and intrinsic motivation, supplemented by the Theory of Experiential Learning to account for knowledge construction in realistic economic contexts. Expected findings indicate that AL yields statistically significant improvements in concept mastery and applied problem-solving, with effect sizes varying by modality and context. Collaborative and case-based approaches are anticipated to outperform problem-based learning in large-class settings due to higher interaction density, while traditional instruction remains superior for foundational recall in very large cohorts absent adequate AL support. Enhanced engagement and self-efficacy are expected to mediate the AL–outcome relationship, with cultural and institutional factors (e.g., assessment culture, access to digital resources) moderating effectiveness. The study contributes to knowledge by offering large-scale, cross-national evidence on the efficacy and scalability of AL in economics education, clarifying context-dependent contingencies and providing a calibrated framework for policy and curriculum design. It informs educators, administrators, and policymakers about the optimal deployment of AL modalities, resource allocation, and teacher development priorities. Practical recommendations include implementing blended AL with structured collaborative routines, investing in instructor training for facilitation and assessment alignment, and designing discipline-specific assessment instruments to capture higher-order economic reasoning. The study concludes that, when implemented with fidelity and contextual adaptation, active learning substantially enhances economics education outcomes across diverse higher education environments.