Course No. & Title
Queensborough Community College/CUNY
Department of Social Sciences
Individual Course Assessment Report
Date Submitted: 5/14/2014
Course No./Title: Econ 102 / Introduction to Microeconomics.
Course Description: A study of determination of prices and the distribution of income under various
market conditions: government intervention in the market; a comparison of different types of economic
system.
Pathways Flexible Core Student Learning Outcome Assessed:
-Evaluate evidence and arguments critically or analytically.
More specifically:
Students were given a short reading assignment in which the results of a couple of prominent recent
studies on the economic implications of raising the minimum wage were presented. Students were then
asked 16 multiple choice questions that ranged in difficulty from the merely descriptive to those that
required significant critical evaluation, identifying both strengths and weaknesses of the studies whose
results were summarized in the short reading assignment.
Participants
No. Sections Assessed: 1 double section
No. Students Assessed: 60 students
Course Assessment Method: A reading was assigned (see Appendix 1), after which students were given
a 16 question multiple choice quiz (see appendix 2) based on the reading, and scores were derived
consistent with a critical reading rubric (see appendix 3).
1
Course No. & Title
ECON 102-Microeconomics-Course Assessment Results:
Rating Criteria
Emerging
Weak
Development
Strong
Development
2 correct
3 correct
0-1 correct
Constructing
Meaning
Mastery
Average
4 correct
% correct
x
76.25
Questions 1-4
Contextualizing
x
Questions 5-8
45.75
Using Other
Perspectives
and Positions
x
40.00
Questions 9-12
Evaluating
Evidence and
Drawing
Conclusions
x
31.25
Questions 13-16
Total
x
48.31
As can be seen in the table above, though the students evidenced a strong degree of development in
constructing meaning, they floundered thereafter in areas of contextualizing, using other perspectives and
positions and evaluating evidence. Indeed, the students tested progressively worse in each of these more
demanding areas.
Other than constructing meaning, the general performance of students was quite poor, with students
getting approximately half the questions posed to them correct. And so, the question is, “What is to be
done?”
2
Course No. & Title
Action Plan:
Though an analysis of such an exercise is inevitably fraught with speculation, I think it is safe to
conjecture a few things.
-One, teacher administration may have been sub-optimal.
The assessment reading assignment was distributed a week prior to the exercise with a brief discussion of
the meaning and purpose of assessment. Students were told that they could bring the reading with them
during the following week’s exercise. Students were also given an incentive to perform, being promised a
“bump up” 1/3 of a grade for the semester if they answered at least three-fourths of the questions
correctly.
During the next round of assessment, I would do all as above, except I would not allow students to bring
the reading with them to the exercise. Very few students seemed to have applied themselves in advance
and many students seemed to be as distracted by the copy beside them as aided by it.
-Two, teacher questions will be optimized.
Though I believe I did a fair job of finding a decent reading assignment and of fashioning questions to fit
the categories in question, I’m sure that some questions lacked clarity, or perhaps were too challenging
given the level of the class and the expectations of the assessment exercise.
During the next round of assessment, I would endeavor to hone questions further, improving clarity and
focus, and avoiding ambiguities wherever they may occur.
-Three, strict enforcement of assessment exercise protocols will be followed.
During this round, in an effort to increase participation, I was lax in my approach to the exercise, allowing
ill-prepared, late-arriving students to participate.
When inspecting answer forms individually, I realize that a disproportion of poor, badly or incompletely
filled-out forms came from this group.
In the next round, I will administer the exercise with precision to those who conform strictly to the
requirements of the exercise.
3
Course No. & Title
Appendix : 1 – Assigned Reading
Summary & Review from Employment Policies Institute:
A comprehensive review of two decades of economic research on the minimum wage by
economists David Neumark (University of California—Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal
Reserve Board) concludes that increases in the minimum wage reduce job opportunities for the
least-skilled workers.
As a consequence of this inconvenient truth, advocates of a higher minimum wage have increasingly
leaned on alternate arguments to make the case for additional employer mandates. Increases in the
minimum wage have been sold as a stimulus or a “shot in the arm” for both state economies and the
U.S. economy as a whole.
These claims have rhetorical appeal, especially in a troubled economic environment where
policymakers are desperate for a quick fix. The problem for those taking that line of argument is
that no hard evidence exists to confirm whether or not a higher minimum wage really helps the
economy.
Existing research tends to take a bird’s-eye view of business growth. Comparing industry-specific
employment growth in states with a lower federal minimum against those states with a higher statutory
wage, these studies are problematic and unreliable because they don’t control for state-specific
demographic or economic trends.
In this new study, Dr. Joseph J. Sabia (U.S. Military Academy at West Point) uses data from the Census
Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis to measure the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and
employment response associated with an increase in the minimum wage. Sabia shows that increases in
the minimum wage can actually have a negative effect on GDP—specifically, GDP generated by lowerskilled industries.
Sabia first examines whether increases in State and Federal minimum wages between 1997 and 2007
have decreased low-skilled employment (defined here as the employment-to-population ratio for 16-to19 year-olds). Controlling for economic performance and other unmeasured state employment trends,
Sabia finds that each 10 percent increase in a state’s minimum wage decreased employment for the group
by 3.6 percent. And because these employment losses were not accompanied by an increase in school
enrollment, they suggest that job loss caused by wage hikes is not offset by long-term productivity gains.
After determining that increases in states minimum wages did decrease employment, Sabia looks at data
on economic growth to determine whether job loss associated with a higher minimum wage has had a
negative impact on GDP; he focuses specifically on GDP generated by those industries affected most by
minimum wage increases. This includes low-skilled industries like wholesale trade, manufacturing of
durables, warehousing and storage, rental and leasing services, and administrative and waste services.
Sabia finds that each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a two to four percent
decline in state GDP generated by these lower-skilled industries.
4
Course No. & Title
Broadening the analysis to examine national GDP, Sabia finds that increases in the minimum wage
between 1997 and 2007 had a small, insignificant negative effect on the national economy overall. This
means mandated wage increases are far from the economic “shot in the arm” advocates claim them to
be.
This research is relevant for two reasons. Each year, states across the country increase their minimum
wages, or consider legislation to do so. Sabia’s findings suggest that these policies are unwise both in
good and bad economic times, because of the negative employment consequences for states’ low-skilled
workforce and the negative economic consequences for states’ low-skilled industries.
Additionally, the research suggests that exuberant claims about the positive economic benefit of a
minimum wage increase are not based on economic reality. Far from stimulating an economy, an
increase in the minimum wage has no discernible impact on overall GDP and could actually hinder
growth in certain low-wage sectors.
5
Course No. & Title
Appendix: 2 - 16 Multiple Choice Questions on Minimum Wage Reading
1) When the term "comprehensive review" is used in the article, it most closely means:
A) one study was analyzed
B) several studies were analyzed
C) many studies were analyzed
D) none of the above
2) The minimum wage is:
A) the lowest wage per-hour a teenager can be paid
B) the lowest wage per-hour a union member can be paid
C) the lowest wage per-hour that any worker can be paid
D) none of the above
3) In the article "policymakers" refers to:
A) politicians and government institutions
B) citizens and voters
C) judges and juries
D) all of the above
4) GDP stands for:
A) Gross Domestic Product
B) Gross National Product
C) both A. and B.
D) General Domestic Productivity
5) According to the article, the truth is "inconvenient" because evidence supports the notion that setting
the minimum wage higher:
A) increases the well-being of low-skilled workers
B) decreases the well-being of low-skilled workers
C) adds to the GDP of the nation
D) substantially reduces the GDP of the nation
6) Demography is the statistical study of:
A) populations and their characteristics
B) economies and their growth
C) incomes and their distributions
D) none of the above
7) The aim of the "minimum wage" is often portrayed as:
A) helping all working classes
B) helping the working poor
C) helping the unemployed
D) expanding individual freedom
6
Course No. & Title
8) Historically, most Americans have earned wages:
A) below the minimum wage
B) above the minimum wage
C) equal to the minimum wage
D) determined by the government
9) The Sabia study, has:
A) settled all issues regarding the minimum wage
B) has investigated a specific ten year period
C) has included all the low-skilled workers in its definition
D) has contradicted standard economic expectation
10) The Sabia study:
A) corrected for all demographic biases
B) though thorough, is not definitive
C) did not use state-specific data
D) did not use industry-specific data
11) The Sabia study may suffer from:
A) generalizing too much from a single sample
B) confusing correlation with causation
C) being mistrusted by groups whose findings it contradicts
D) all of the above
12) The Employment Policy Institute:
A) is completely unbiased like all other think tanks
B) may have chosen studies whose results strengthen its arguments
C) may or may not have funded the research cited
D) all of the above
13) Assuming the Sabia findings cited are correct, then raising the minimum wage:
A) benefits no one
B) benefits the targeted group at no cost
C) both benefits and costs the targeted group
D) none of the above
14) Assuming the Sabia findings cited are correct, then raising the minimum wage:
A) puts all low-skilled workers out of work
B) puts all workers' jobs at risk
C) is not an effective economic stimulus
D) none of the above
15) Assuming the Sabia findings are correct, then:
A) states will never again raise the minimum wage
B) states will abolish existing minimum wages
C) states will reinvest in training and educating their workers
D) states might do better to train and educate their workers
7
Course No. & Title
16) Assuming the Sabia findings cited are correct, we can assume that politicians proposing an increased
minimum wage are:
A) liars
B) idiots
C) both A. and B.
D) none of the above
Appendix: 3 – Critical Reading Scoring Rubric
Rating Criteria
Emerging
0-1
Weak Development
2
Constructing
Meaning
Derives meaning
from texts in a
confused or
inaccurate way
Derives meaning
from texts in a limited
fashion; makes sense
of written words but
no further analysis
Contextualizing
Reads written
language in isolation
or connects it to
irrelevant or
inaccurately
understood contexts
Using Other
Perspectives and
Positions
Takes text at face
value, showing
minimal awareness of
perspectives and
assumptions
contained within the
text
Conclusions are
inconsistently tied to
some of the
information; related
outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
oversimplified
Makes connections in
a limited fashion
between written
language and
contexts, such as
prior experience,
historical setting,
physical setting,
knowledge of the
discipline, etc.
Attempts to explore
perspectives and
assumptions
contained within the
text
Evaluating
Evidence and
Drawing
Conclusions
Draws conclusions
that are logically tied
to information
(because information
is chosen to fit the
desired conclusion);
some related
outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
identified clearly
8
Strong
Development
3
Mastery
4
Usually derives
accurate meaning
from texts by making
sense of written
words and analyzing
reading with respect
to prior knowledge,
research, and
experience
Usually connects
written language with
contexts, such as
prior experience,
historical setting,
physical setting,
knowledge of the
discipline, etc.
Consistently derives
accurate meaning
from texts by making
sense of written
words and analyzing
reading with respect
to prior knowledge,
research, and
experience
Consistently connects
written language with
contexts, such as prior
experience,
historical setting,
physical setting,
knowledge of the
discipline, etc.
Usually explores
perspectives and
assumptions
contained within the
text
Consistently explores
perspectives and
assumptions
contained within the
text
Draws conclusions
that are logically tied
to a range of
information (because
information is chosen
to fit the desired
conclusion); related
outcomes
(consequences and
implications) are
identified clearly
Draws conclusions
and related outcomes
(consequences and
implications) that are
logical and reflect
student’s informed
evaluation and ability
to place evidence
and perspective
discussed in priority
order