QCC / CUNY
Department of Social Sciences
Individual Course Assessment Report
for Labor and Management
(ECON 150)
Date Submitted: April 15, 2015
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 14 2015, two debates were held on the following propositions:
Debate 1: Resolved: Walmart is Good for America.
Debate 2: 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 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: 4/14/2015: 24 students
Superior – 4
Factual
Information
Comprehension
Used many facts to
support all
arguments.
58%
Demonstrated a
thorough
understanding of the
information.
Demonstrated accurate
understanding of most
information.
All arguments were
logical and
convincing.
25%
Delivery
Communicated
clearly and
confidently,
maintaining eyecontact and engaging
the audience.
46%
Rebuttal
Addressed all
opponent arguments
with counterevidence.
9%
Total Score
Used some facts to
support most
arguments.
21%
17%
Persuasiveness
Proficient - 3
24%
71%
Most arguments were
logical and convincing.
50%
Communicated clearly
and confidently most of
the time, often
maintaining eye-contact
and engaging the
audience.
42%
Addressed most
opponent arguments
with counter-evidence.
Satisfactory - 2
Used some facts to
support some
arguments.
21%
Demonstrated an
understanding of some
information.
13%
Some arguments were
logical and convincing.
21%
Only communicated
confidently and clearly
on occasion, not fully
engaging audience.
Poor - 1
Score
Used few facts to support
any arguments.
0%
3.00
Often demonstrated a
fundamental
misunderstanding of the
information.
0%
3.04
Few, if any, arguments
were logical and
convincing.
4%
2.96
Seldom communicated
confidently and clearly, with
little or no engagement of
audience.
3.29
8%
Addressed some
opponent arguments
with counter-evidence.
4%
Addressed few, if any,
opponent arguments with
counter-evidence.
55%
32%
5%
55%
19%
3%
2.46
2.98
ECON 150: Labor and Management:
Comparison of 2014 & 2015 results: 2014 Results in Red
Superior – 4
Factual
Information
Comprehension
Used many facts to
support all
arguments.
Used some facts to
support some
arguments.
21% (15%)
58% (60%)
21% (20%)
Demonstrated a
thorough
understanding of the
information.
Demonstrated accurate
understanding of most
information.
All arguments were
logical and
convincing.
25% (20%)
Delivery
Communicated
clearly and
confidently,
maintaining eyecontact and engaging
the audience.
46% (55%)
Rebuttal
Satisfactory - 2
Used some facts to
support most
arguments.
17% (40%)
Persuasiveness
Proficient - 3
Addressed all
opponent arguments
with counterevidence.
9% (28%)
71% (35%)
Most arguments were
logical and convincing.
50% (50%)
Communicated clearly
and confidently most of
the time, often
maintaining eye-contact
and engaging the
audience.
42% (35%)
Addressed most
opponent arguments
with counter-evidence.
Demonstrated an
understanding of some
information.
13% (25%)
Some arguments were
logical and convincing.
21% (30%)
Only communicated
confidently and clearly
on occasion, not fully
engaging audience.
8% (10%)
Addressed some
opponent arguments
with counter-evidence.
Poor - 1
Score
Used few facts to support
any arguments.
0% (5%)
3.00
(2.85)
Often demonstrated a
fundamental
misunderstanding of the
information.
0% (0%)
3.04
(3.15)
Few, if any, arguments
were logical and
convincing.
4% (0%)
2.96
(2.79)
Seldom communicated
confidently and clearly,
with little or no
engagement of audience.
4% (0%)
Addressed few, if any,
opponent arguments with
counter-evidence.
55% (33%)
32% (33%)
5% (6%)
55% (43%)
19% (24%)
3% (2%)
3.29
(3.45)
2.46
(2.55)
Total Score
24% (32%)
2.98
(2.93)
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, with results that mimic those achieved last year in most categories.
But drilling down a bit further, it is interesting to find the distribution associated with comprehension is
significantly tighter than last year. To wit, there is a smaller proportion of those achieving superior, but a
much larger proportion achieving proficiency in the area of comprehension. And though the average score
attained is quite similar to last year, there is a larger proportion clustered in the top two categories. In light
of these two findings, it leads me to surmise that this difference may be largely due to something group
specific, or perhaps even due to my own disposition to the rubric and its application on the day of the
debates.
Also, one can observe that there were slight, but noticeable, improvements in factual information and
persuasiveness. This is especially gratifying with regard to persuasiveness, which last year had been
somewhat weak. Perhaps this is an indication that various techniques to stimulate intellectually coherent
exchanges during class sessions have been fruitful.
On the other hand, rebuttal still remains in the doldrums with the lowest total score for any category.
Having observed the debate firsthand, I believe I may have an idea as to why this is so.
Many participants in the debates relied upon copious prepared materials. And although I encouraged them
to use them sparingly and to be well-prepared enough to develop several points without strict reliance on
notes, few heeded my advice. Such over-reliance on prepared material, led to a lot of shuffling about for
one’s talking points, while giving little time for paying attention to others’ presentations. If one is not
well-prepared, and one does not listen to the points of their opposite number, it considerably hinders the
possibility for rebuttal.
So, what is to be done?
Action Plan:
Though the outcomes of the debates were reasonably well-achieved, there is always 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 retain the streamlined debate format which was well-received by students.
Second, I will retain techniques for improving group understanding of what constitutes a debate, its
forms, etiquette, evidence and reasoned analysis. These techniques would include, but not be limited to,
the FORA.TV debate screening and discussions, the One-on-One mini-debates between and among
students, and class session discussions regarding persuasive speaking. Each of these stimulated classinterest, and, quite possibly, enhanced student abilities to present reasoned arguments on the day of
debate.
Third, I believe I will stress the need for preparedness by limiting my students to a single index card of
debate points. This should reduce excessive shuffling about on the day of debate, as well as steeling some
student’s resolve to know their subject well enough to summarize it in a few distinct talking points for
amplification and development.
It is hoped, that with superior preparedness, improved attentiveness to the unfolding debate will follow,
and with it, the ability to respond more readily and specifically to the arguments of one’s alternate.
Appendix: Debate Format: ECON 150 VER2: 2015
Debate: 4/14/2015
Debate: 4/14/2015
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 Construction 5: 3 minutes
Negative Construction 5: 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.