Samuel Obioha Okoro (PhD)


It is a well-established fact that Economics in the recent time is becoming a highly quantitative subject, borrowing a lot from mathematics. Disappointingly, not all students in Nigeria are aware of this feature of microeconomics programme, given that the mode lesson delivery is discursive and text-based rather than the use of analytical models. In a situation where teaching methodology departs clearly from the nature of the subject, it creates some learning difficulties, and poor performances, consequently watering down the quality of Economic graduates in the labour market. These learning difficulties are sometimes seen as students quit their programme of studies at the Department of Economics in our College, for other programmes, in say, political science or Social Studies. This becomes easy because of less stringent measures in the change of study programmes  in the College.  In order to arrest the declining students’ population in the Department of Economics, and also retain and improve students’ academic quality there is the need to re-examine Lecturer’s teaching methodology with a view to reducing the difficulties encountered by the students in the teaching and learning of microeconomics. To this end, this research work is geared towards developing microeconomics models for active and effective lesson delivery.  In doing this, two objectives were stated with a corresponding two null hypotheses and their alternatives. Sign test statistical analysis was applied on the hypotheses. The result suggests that there is significant difference in the student’s perception of their learning abilities when mathematical and graphic models are predominantly used in the teaching of microeconomics lessons as opposed to the presentation of learning materials in a lecture format. This work recommends that desperate effort should be made in helping to improve mathematical ability of students more especially at the early stage of their study programme.

Full Text:



Anderson, D. R,. Sweeney, D. J., & Williams, T.A (1996).Statistics for Business and Economics. New York, West Publishing Company.

Apel, H.J, (2003), Predavanje, uvod u akademeki oblik poucavanja, Zagreb: Erudita A.

Awh, R.. Y, (1976). Microeconomics, Theory and application. John Wiley & Son, Inc. New York

Barnett Liz,(2009) , Kay Aspects of teaching and learning in Economics, in Fry, Ketteridge, and Marchal, (eds). A Handbook for Teaching in Higher Education, Enhancing Academic practice 3rd ed. New York and London; Routledge,.

Barnett Liz, Key aspects of teaching and learning in Heather, F. Steve, K and Stephanie M (2009), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Enhancing Academic Practice (3rd Edition) New York; Routledge,

Bonwell, C.C & Eison J. A, (1991). Active learning, Creating excitement in the classroom. (ASHE – ERIC) Higher Education Rep 1) Washington DC: The George Washinton University School of Education and Human Development.

Boyer, E (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered; the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching , New York,

Case, K .E; Fair, R. C ;& Oster S M; (2009), Principles of Economics. Practice Hall Pearson Education International; Canada

Gruthrie, J. T, & Cox, K (2001). Classroom Condition for motivation and Engagement in reading. Educational Psychology , Review 13 (3), 283-302

Economic Network (2005); Relation Between Teaching, Research and Technology in Economics HE: result of the 2005 Economic Network Survey of Lecturers. Available online at

Economic Network, (2006). National Economic student survey (2006) Report: Available online at

McGlynn, A.P; (2005). Teaching Millennials Our Newest Culture cohort. Educational Digest 12-16.

Michel, N; Cater III, J.T; & Varela O. (2009). Active Versus Passive Teaching Styles: An Empirical study of Student Outcome, Human Resource development Quarterly, 20(4), 297-418

Mocinic , S .N (2012). Active Teaching Strategies in Higher Education , Metodicki Obzori 15(7),Department of Educational Science Juraji Dobrila University , Pula Croatia

Peck, A.C; Ali, R.S; Matchock, R.L; & Levine, M. E; (2006). Introductory Psychology Topics and Student Performance where’s the challenge? Teaching of Psychology, 33(3), 167 – 170.

Pindyck, R.S; & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2009). Microeconomics. London; Pearson Education Ltd.

Prince M; (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of Research Journal of Engineering Education, 29(3), 223 – 231.

Stewart-Wingfield, S, & Black G. S (2005). Active versus passive cause designs. The Impact on Student’s outcome. Journal of Education for Business, 81 (119-125)

Srivastava, U. K.,Shenoy, G.V., & Sharma, S.C., (1983). Quantitative Technique for Managerial Decision, 3rd Edition;New Delhi, New Age International Publisher.

Sukirno, S (2010). Microeconomics Introduction Theory, Jakarta: Rajawali .

Terhart E; (2001); Metode, Poucavanja I ucenje, Zegrab: Educa.

Tomcho , J . D; and Feel, R . (2008). A Meta- Analytic Integrated of Lesson Outcome, Teaching Psychology

Turner, P (2006), Teaching Undergraduates Macroeconomics with the Taylor- Romer Model; International Review of Economics Education 5(1): 73-82, Available online at 14 Jan 2008.

Whetten, D. A; & Clerk, SC; (1996). An Integrated Model for Teaching Management

Management skill, Journal of Management Education 20 (152 – 181)

Yoder ,J . D; and Hochevar, C.M; (2005). Encouraging Active Learning can Improve Student’s performance on Examination, Teaching Psychology , 32(2). 91-95p

Zanchin , M.R (2020) Le Strategie attive UAAVV, Le Interazioni Educative, Rome Armande


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2024 Samuel Obioha Okoro (PhD)



ISSN: 3027-0510 (Online)




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.