The effectiveness of the simulation-gaming method of instruction as opposed to the lecture-discussion method in teaching a college introductory economics course is examined. One hundred and twenty Ashland College freshmen were tested to determine their knowledge, interest, and training in economics; retention of knowledge seven weeks after the course; and scholastic abilities. Students were randomly assigned to one of the two types of courses. Using the lecture-discussion technique as the control method, two tests (the hybrid version of the Test of Understanding in College Economics and the Questionnaire of Student Attitudes Toward Economics) were used to measure the impact of the two methods of instruction. Tests were given pre-course, post-course, and seven weeks later. Four additional data were also analyzed: level of high school training, Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score, college course instruction method, and the instructor to whom the student was exposed. Findings showed that students with low pre-course knowledge, no previous economic training, and low SAT scores achieved a higher level of post-course economic knowledge and retention when instructed by the simulation-gaming method. The obverse is true for the lecture-discussion method. While neither method could be labelled superior, the relative effectiveness of each was dependent on certain student characteristics. When advising or assigning students to introductory economics courses, college instructors should be aware of these findings. (CK)