The Impact of Microeconomics: The Puzzle Game on Student Evaluations

Abstract

IntroductionThe use of supplements in academic classrooms is widespread. This paper isdifferent in that it tests whether or not course and instructor evaluations improve as aresult of the use of a new supplement, Microeconomics: The Puzzle Game(Lipscomb and Ostapski 2008), which utilizes crossword puzzles as tools toreinforce basic economic concepts. More importantly, this paper suggests thatregression at the mean does not provide the full picture with respect to theimpact of the use of supplemental materials on course and instructor evaluations.In fact, regression at the mean suggests that course and instructor evaluationssignificantly decrease when the crossword puzzle supplement is used. However,using the power of quantile regression, we stumble upon an interesting finding—that course and instructor evaluationsincrease as a result of the crossword puzzlesupplement in the upper quantiles of the course and instructor evaluationdistribution.The data used for this analysis come from the records of the author’s ECON 2106classes (Principles of Microeconomics), spanning seven semesters (Fall 2005 to Fall2008) and using the same primary textbook. Microeconomics: The Puzzle Game wasused for the first time in the Spring 2008 semester. So, of the 602 observations in thedataset, 185 (or 30.7%) used the supplement in their classes.To estimate the impact of the supplement on course and instructor evaluations, atleast three different ways to examine the data come to mind. First, to establish abaseline, we estimate two OLS regression models where the dependent variables arecourse evaluations (COURSE) and instructor evaluations (INSTRUCT). Indepen-dent variables used to explain variation in evaluations are a student’s average gradeon four class examinations (EXAMAVG) and whether or not Microeconomics: The