QCC / CUNY
Department of Social Sciences
Individual Course Assessment Report
for Labor and Management
(ECON 150)
Date Submitted: 5/9/2013
By Prof. J. Gilleaudeau
ECON 150 – Labor and Management
ECON 150 Labor and Management studies the labor force and the market for labor; theory of wage
determination; employment and unemployment, including structural unemployment; trade unions and
collective bargaining; the role of management and unions; emphasis on practical problems of labormanagement relations, labor legislation, and public policy.
Assessing ECON 150 was unique since it is part of the Next Step Program at QCC and as such is a course
with only one section, taught by one teacher, to one specific cohort of students. This particular cohort
consisted of 24 Verizon employees.
Student Learning Outcomes Addressed
The assessment exercise focused on the following outcomes from the flexible core of our recent
Pathways’ course submission:
-Gather, interpret, and assess information from a variety of sources and points of view.
More specifically: Students worked in groups to find supporting evidence that either affirmed or refuted a
proposal for debate. They used traditional as well as more modern media as research sources.
-Evaluate evidence and arguments critically or analytically.
More specifically: Students constructed and defended their assigned debate perspective, while rebutting
their opponents’ arguments with clarity and logic. They identified weaknesses in the arguments of their
counterparts, and were able to highlight these for their audience.
-Produce well-reasoned written or oral arguments using evidence to support conclusions.
More specifically: Students constructed and defended their assigned debate perspective, providing sources
and citations that bolstered their perspective and strengthened their arguments.
Evidence Used to Determine Student Achievement of Outcomes
Near the beginning of the semester, teams consisting of six students were chosen. During the semester,
each team collaborated to find data and arguments to support their position in a scheduled debate.
On occasion, class time was set aside to allow some direct interaction among group members, and for the
instructor to provide guidance or structure wherever it may be needed; however, most of the preliminary
work for the debates was performed independently within student groups.
On April 18 2013, one debate was held on the following proposition:
Resolved: Walmart is Good for America.
While on April 25 2013, another debate was held on the following proposition:
Resolved: The Telecommunications Industry is Over-Regulated.
The structure for the debates was shared with students early in the collaborative process, and was
reinforced by an oral presentation by the instructor. Proper form was emphasized, as it is essential to a
logical presentation of evidence and optimal learning outcomes. (See Appendix 1 for debate format)
On the day of the debate, a rubric (see below) that had been shared in advance with students provided the
basis for evaluating groups, as well as members within groups. The rubric covered competencies such as:
use of factual evidence, logical argumentation, cogency and coherency with regard to affirmative and
rebuttal positions. Students received evaluations ranging from superior to poor in each area, as well as a
summary grade. At debate’s end, groups were assigned points based on their general excellence, or lack
thereof, as evaluated in the rubric.
After grades were assigned, an extensive discussion relating to the debated subject commenced. The best
arguments were reiterated, citing individuals who contributed well to their team.
Below, you can view the rubric, as well as the calculated frequencies within each cell.
ECON 150: Labor and Management:
Debate Rubric: 4/18 & 25/2013: 24 students (Note: Rebuttal only applies to 15 students)
Superior - 4
Factual
Information
Used many facts to
support all
arguments.
29%
Comprehension
Demonstrated a
thorough
understanding of the
information.
17%
Persuasiveness
All arguments were
logical and
convincing.
Proficient - 3
Used some facts to
support most
arguments.
54%
Demonstrated
accurate
understanding of
most information.
50%
Most arguments were
logical and
convincing.
Satisfactory - 2
Used some facts to
support some
arguments.
8%
Demonstrated an
understanding of
some information.
29%
Some arguments
were logical and
convincing.
Poor - 1
8%
Delivery
Communicated
clearly and
confidently,
maintaining eyecontact and
engaging the
audience.
25%
Rebuttal
Addressed all
opponent arguments
with counterevidence.
50%
29%
Communicated
clearly and
confidently most of
the time, often
maintaining eyecontact and engaging
the audience.
Only communicated
confidently and
clearly on occasion,
not fully engaging
audience.
3.04
Often demonstrated a fundamental
misunderstanding of the
information.
4%
2.79
Few, if any, arguments were
logical and convincing.
4%
17%
Score
Used few facts to support any
arguments.
2.79
Seldom communicated confidently
and clearly, with little or no
engagement of audience.
4%
2.88
29%
42%
Addressed most
opponent arguments
with counterevidence.
Addressed some
opponent arguments
with counterevidence.
27%
33%
27%
23%
47%
24%
Addressed few, if any, opponent
arguments with counter-evidence.
13%
2.73
Total Score
6%
2.86
Evaluation of Evidence:
In general, the results reported above are good, with very few students logging poor performances in any
of the categories being measured.
But note there does seem to be a significant disparity between presenting factual evidence, versus more
analytical skills like comprehension and rebuttal, where results were generally weaker. Even
persuasiveness and delivery lagged simply stating the facts and backing it up with evidence.
Although I’m pleased that over 80% of students scored at least proficient in factual evidence, I’d like to
see more critical thinking being applied and reflected in the other categories mentioned. In fact, I suspect
the larger proportion of students being rated as merely satisfactory in categories related to presentation,
may rest upon a lack of mastery and confidence in the facts they had collected and presented on debate
day.
I believe that if students possessed a deeper understanding of the material, then their presentation scores,
such as delivery and persuasiveness, might commensurately improve.
Thus, more practice challenging propositions in a structured and logical way could move many of those
currently clustered in the satisfactory category to proficient…and those in the proficient category to
superior.
So, what is to be done?
Action Plan:
Though the outcomes of the debates were reasonably well-achieved, there is significant room for
improvement. To that end, I plan to take the following actions next spring when Labor and Management
(ECON 150) is once again offered.
First, I will revise the debate format with an eye toward simplifying and streamlining (see Appendix 2).
From my interactions with this semester’s cohort of students, I know that very few were familiar with
formal debate techniques. Moreover, I provided a somewhat cluttered format for them to follow in this
round, which may have led to some unnecessary confusion and trepidation among students. A simpler
format, with improved clarity, should go a long way toward minimizing these distractions while
increasing efficient learning.
Second, soon after the notion of group-work and debate has been introduced to the next cohort, I will
present a short debate on some labor-related topic via one of the reputable online video services, such as
FORA.tv.
I hope this will achieve several objectives, among them the following: familiarizing students with debate
format, enhancing student appreciation of crucial debate elements, reducing student anxiety associated
with their own collaborative efforts, and informing students with regard to the topic covered in the video
debate.
Amplification of certain points made in the debate will be achieved by a lengthy follow-up dialogue. If
this exercise is well-received, then this sort of exercise may be executed more than once prior to the inclass debates themselves.
Third, I plan to implement something I dub, “One on One for One”, which will involve students being
chosen on a weekly basis to confront each other in one-on-one debates for one minute intervals. Each
exchange will be based on a salient theme from the weekly class session that preceded it.
It is hoped that these exercises will serve to review material and crystalize thought, while simultaneously
providing students with a chance to practice staking out a perspective, considering it critically, and
defending it with evidence. By the time students will perform in their formal group debates, most
individuals will have participated in these one-on-one “speed debates” a number of times. Thus, I would
expect them to handle the rigors of the longer, more structured debates much better than without such
practice.
Lastly, as the debate date nears, I will perform a brief lesson in persuasive speaking. I will share tips and
best practices from my years as a teacher, as well as other techniques that I have seen to be used
effectively by others. Preparation, clarity, poise, energy and openness will be stressed. I will end the
lesson by setting aside time for students to make brief, free-form speeches employing techniques
discussed. Constructive criticism and encouragement will be offered.
With any luck, this exercise may enhance the comfort of my students, as well as their expositional
performance on debate day.
Though it is impossible to gauge the effectiveness of these measures prior to their actual deployment, I am
confident they will help me to more consciously aim for the achievement of the learning outcomes set out
above. And one would think that this should also increase the likelihood that my students leave my class
as better thinkers, speakers and collaborators than when they entered.
Appendix: 1: Debate Format: ECON 150 VER1: 2013
Debate: 4/18/2013
Debate: 4/25/2013
Resolved: Walmart is Good for America.
Resolved: The Telecommunications Industry is Over-regulated.
Affirmative Team: Defends the resolution.
Affirmative Team: Defends the resolution.
Negative Team: Challenges the resolution.
Negative Team: Challenges the resolution.
Action
Affirmative Construction 1
Negative Cross Examination 1
Negative Construction 1
Affirmative Cross Exam. 1
Description
A good introduction that attracts the audience’s attention
and interest…Clearly state the resolution…Clearly state
each of your contentions… support with
evidence…Conclude effectively
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a
direction to your questioning
A good introduction that attracts the audience’s attention
and interest…Clearly state the Negative’s position on the
topic….Clearly state the Negative’s
Observations…Support with evidence…question the
Affirmative’s evidence…Conclude effectively
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a
direction to your questioning
Time
3 minutes
3 minutes
3 minutes
3 minutes
Affirmative Construction 2
Similar to first Affirmative Construction, but also
respond to Negative arguments/attacks
3 minutes
Negative Cross Examination 2
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a
direction to your questioning
3 minutes
Negative Construction 2
Similar to first Negative Construction, but also respond to
Affirmative arguments/attacks
3 minutes
Affirmative Cross Exam. 2
You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a
direction to your questioning
3 minutes
Negative Summary
Rebuild the Negative case…Summarize how the
Negative position is superior… convince the audience the
Affirmative has failed to prove their assertions
4 minutes
Affirmative Summary
Respond to the Negative arguments…rebuild the
Affirmative case and contentions – extend arguments and
give additional support for them
4 minutes
Appendix: 2: Revised Debate Format: ECON 150 VER1: 2014
Debate: TBA
Debate: TBA
Resolved: Walmart is Good for America.
Resolved: The Telecommunications Industry is Over-regulated.
Affirmative Team: Defends the resolution.
Affirmative Team: Defends the resolution.
Negative Team: Challenges the resolution.
Negative Team: Challenges the resolution.
Affirmative
Negative
Affirmative Construction 1: 3 minutes
Negative Construction 1: 3 minutes
Make a good introduction that attracts the
audience’s attention. Clearly state the resolution.
Clearly state each of your contentions. Support
each contention with evidence and conclude
effectively.
Make a good introduction that attracts the
audience’s attention. Clearly state your opposition
to the resolution. Clearly state each of your
contentions. Support each contention with evidence
and conclude effectively.
Affirmative Construction 2: 3 minutes
Negative Construction 2: 3 minutes
Similar to Construction 1, but you may now
incorporate rebuttals to any previous statements by
the opposition.
Similar to Construction 1, but you may now
incorporate rebuttals to any previous statements by
the opposition.
Affirmative Construction 3: 3 minutes
Negative Construction 3: 3 minutes
Similar to Construction 2.
Similar to Construction 2.
Affirmative Construction 4: 3 minutes
Negative Construction 4: 3 minutes
Similar to Construction 2.
Similar to Construction 2.
Affirmative Shared Summary: 4 minutes
(two students share the summary duties)
Negative Shared Summary: 4 minutes
(two st (two students share the summary duties)
Respond to the Negative argument. Rebuild the
Affirmative case. Extend arguments and give
additional support for them. Conclude strongly
with a clear statement of a well-supported, major
contention.
Rebuild the Negative case. Conclude strongly using
evidence to prove to your audience that your
Affirmative Opponents have failed to prove their
assertions.