Back in undergrad I took a topology course based on the Moore method. Which basically means you are given a list of definitions and theorems which need to be proved then spend the whole semester proving them and presenting your proofs in class. It was the most beneficial course for me in terms of building my proof writing skills and mathematical maturity. I was thinking of how I could implement a similar course for economics. I figured micro theory would make the most sense but no school would do it in the first year sequence and after the first year sequence I think the marginal benefit would be smaller and it would be harder to do. Think it would work for a small group of advanced undergrads?
Moore method

Nobody has seen or tried this in Econ?
I am not sure this would go down well with adcoms: "Moore would begin his graduate course in topology by carefully selecting the members of the class. If a student had already studied topology elsewhere or had read too much, he would exclude him (in some cases, he would run a separate class for such students). The idea was to have a class as homogeneously ignorant (topologically) as possible".

Back in undergrad I took a topology course based on the Moore method. Which basically means you are given a list of definitions and theorems which need to be proved then spend the whole semester proving them and presenting your proofs in class. It was the most beneficial course for me in terms of building my proof writing skills and mathematical maturity. I was thinking of how I could implement a similar course for economics. I figured micro theory would make the most sense but no school would do it in the first year sequence and after the first year sequence I think the marginal benefit would be smaller and it would be harder to do. Think it would work for a small group of advanced undergrads?
If you think it would work for first years. Then I don't see how you could not think it would work for selected final year undergrads.

While I haven't taken a class taught using the Moore method, it strikes me as the type of course you want to teach when it's the content of the proof (techniques, intuition, etc) that's important, rather than the statement of the theorem you're meant to prove. Typically, you also want said proofs to contain lots of insight about the structure of the field you're trying to study.
It's not clear to me that there are many theoretical results in economics that fit the above description.
Maybe you can teach an optimisation course this way, and that might be really useful. It'll be a math course rather than an economics course, however.

OP you have got me interested in this, have found a very interesting biography of Moore that I will read. Do you have any references to studies in the educational literature that evaluate the method? I have looked at some course material that employ the method and I must say it speaks to me.

While I haven't taken a class taught using the Moore method, it strikes me as the type of course you want to teach when it's the content of the proof (techniques, intuition, etc) that's important, rather than the statement of the theorem you're meant to prove. Typically, you also want said proofs to contain lots of insight about the structure of the field you're trying to study.
It's not clear to me that there are many theoretical results in economics that fit the above description.
Maybe you can teach an optimisation course this way, and that might be really useful. It'll be a math course rather than an economics course, however.You could teach an advanced theoretical micro this way. Like mech design, contract theory, game theory. But it still will produce unemployed PhDs.

While I haven't taken a class taught using the Moore method, it strikes me as the type of course you want to teach when it's the content of the proof (techniques, intuition, etc) that's important, rather than the statement of the theorem you're meant to prove. Typically, you also want said proofs to contain lots of insight about the structure of the field you're trying to study.
It's not clear to me that there are many theoretical results in economics that fit the above description.
Maybe you can teach an optimisation course this way, and that might be really useful. It'll be a math course rather than an economics course, however.You could teach an advanced theoretical micro this way. Like mech design, contract theory, game theory. But it still will produce unemployed PhDs.
I think you may be able to teach a lot more than that, but the fact speak against you, Moore's students did extremely well in the job market.

While I haven't taken a class taught using the Moore method, it strikes me as the type of course you want to teach when it's the content of the proof (techniques, intuition, etc) that's important, rather than the statement of the theorem you're meant to prove. Typically, you also want said proofs to contain lots of insight about the structure of the field you're trying to study.
It's not clear to me that there are many theoretical results in economics that fit the above description.
Maybe you can teach an optimisation course this way, and that might be really useful. It'll be a math course rather than an economics course, however.While you have a point, I disagree: a lot of stuff especially in urgrad is derived once in class and then people only remember the final result. While proofs of some mathematical theorems really luck insight, in economics almost all derivations are important. You model things in certain way for reasons. It's note some beautiful property of functional spaces you observe and want to prove. You set up a model for it's assumptions and premisses to reflect the reality but also for it to get you the desired solution. It's to a certain degree a reverse engineering: the input and output are observable, the black box in the middle is what's interesting. And you should know any piece of derivation you used to construct the model thay kind of explains what's in that black box.
So the most obvious for me would be to teach people modern macro via Moore's method. Unfortunately you need really nice math background for that which most of 1st year students lack. They learn more math in their core courses than econ.
Still you could do following (and this applies to every subject, not only macro): derive the technical part, or give it to them without a proof and ask them to apply it to a certain problem and explain the result. I guaranty, it would provide much more inside than some derivation they've seen once and then only needed the final result for the exam. 
It's worth looking at this guy's logic course to see how he set's it up: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~vl/teaching/
Interesting is that papers like this http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1#.VQdgs2SsVOg slam inquiry based teaching methods although they seem to pool them together with problem based learning my impression is there are some subtle differences.
Agree with the above that this is more widely applicable. I think you need to think very carefully about using this method and about your subject and I think I would not recommend it to inexperienced teachers but if employed by an experienced teacher and well executed I think this could be extremely effective.

There's a great video Challenge in the Classroom that shows Moore in action. I think it's put out by the AMA. Also, try to find an interview with Mary Ellen Rudin, I think it's in a book called Mathematical People.
is this the one: http://legacyrlmoore.org/Reports/2005/sample.html