QCC / CUNY
Department of Social Sciences
Individual Course Assessment Report
for Labor and Management
(ECON 150)
Date Submitted: April 14, 2014
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 20 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 five 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 was needed; however, most of the preliminary
work for the debates was performed independently within student groups.
On April 11 2014, 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 2 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: 4/11/2014: 20 students
Superior – 4
Factual
Information
Comprehension
Used many facts to
support all
arguments.
60%
Demonstrated a
thorough
understanding of the
information.
Demonstrated accurate
understanding of most
information.
All arguments were
logical and
convincing.
20%
Delivery
Communicated
clearly and
confidently,
maintaining eyecontact and engaging
the audience.
55%
Rebuttal
Addressed all
opponent arguments
with counterevidence.
28%
Total Score
Used some facts to
support most
arguments.
15%
40%
Persuasiveness
Proficient - 3
32%
35%
Most arguments were
logical and convincing.
50%
Communicated clearly
and confidently most of
the time, often
maintaining eye-contact
and engaging the
audience.
35%
Addressed most
opponent arguments
with counter-evidence.
Satisfactory - 2
Used some facts to
support some
arguments.
20%
Demonstrated an
understanding of some
information.
25%
Some arguments were
logical and convincing.
30%
Only communicated
confidently and clearly
on occasion, not fully
engaging audience.
Poor - 1
Score
Used few facts to support
any arguments.
5%
2.85
Often demonstrated a
fundamental
misunderstanding of the
information.
0%
3.15
Few, if any, arguments
were logical and
convincing.
0%
2.9
Seldom communicated
confidently and clearly, with
little or no engagement of
audience.
3.45
10%
Addressed some
opponent arguments
with counter-evidence.
0%
Addressed few, if any,
opponent arguments with
counter-evidence.
33%
33%
6%
43%
24%
2%
2.55
2.93
ECON 150: Labor and Management:
* Weighted averages differ slightly as a result of a revised debate format as noted in the appendices.
Comparison of 2013 & 2014 results: 2013 Results in Red
Superior – 4
Factual
Information
Comprehension
Used many facts to
support all
arguments.
60% (54%)
Demonstrated a
thorough
understanding of the
information.
Demonstrated accurate
understanding of most
information.
All arguments were
logical and
convincing.
20% (17%)
Delivery
Rebuttal
Used some facts to
support most
arguments.
15% (29%)
40% (17%)
Persuasiveness
Proficient - 3
35% (50%)
Most arguments were
logical and convincing.
50% (50%)
Communicated
clearly and
confidently,
maintaining eyecontact and engaging
the audience.
Communicated clearly
and confidently most of
the time, often
maintaining eye-contact
and engaging the
audience.
55% (25%)
35% (42%)
Addressed all
opponent arguments
with counterevidence.
28% (28%)
Addressed most
opponent arguments
with counter-evidence.
Satisfactory - 2
Used some facts to
support some
arguments.
20% (8%)
Demonstrated an
understanding of some
information.
25% (29%)
Some arguments were
logical and convincing.
30% (29%)
Only communicated
confidently and clearly
on occasion, not fully
engaging audience.
10% (29%)
Addressed some
opponent arguments
with counter-evidence.
Poor - 1
Score
Used few facts to support
any arguments.
5% (8%)
2.85
(3.04)
Often demonstrated a
fundamental
misunderstanding of the
information.
0% (4%)
3.15
(2.79)
Few, if any, arguments
were logical and
convincing.
0% (4%)
2.9
(2.79)
Seldom communicated
confidently and clearly,
with little or no
engagement of audience.
0% (4%)
Addressed few, if any,
opponent arguments with
counter-evidence.
33% (33%)
33% (27%)
6% (13%)
43% (47%)
24% (24%)
2% (6%)
3.45
(2.88)
2.55
(2.73)
Total Score
32% (23%)
2.93
(2.86)
Caveats
Before making any assertions regarding the data collected, I believe it is important to state several
caveats.
One, the samples for each year are not terribly large, 24 individuals in one case, only 20 individuals in the
other. And though all subjects are drawn from a pool of Verizon employees, presumably based on similar
criteria, the criteria are not explicitly known to this instructor and so considerable variability could exist
between the two samples chosen and evaluated.
Second, anecdotally, I can attest to sensing almost immediately a different group dynamic within each
group. So, even if their intellectual abilities were generally of the same order, the degree of good-natured
camaraderie and collaboration seemed to differ sharply between groups. Such differences may be
reflected in the divergent results above.
Third, as my action plan was implemented but had several “moving parts”, it may be difficult to discern
the individual contributions that each element may have contributed to the new results.
Having stated these qualifications, let us proceed to the evaluation of evidence.
Evaluation of Evidence:
In general, the results reported above are good, with even fewer students logging poor performances in
any of the categories being measured. But there is little difference between the general performance of the
2013 cohort and the more recent 2014 cohort.
Of course, parsing more closely, one sees that the more recent group seems to have had a disproportional
number of students achieving at the highest level, i.e. superior, in areas of comprehension and delivery.
This may be attributable to the “One on One for One” exercises we used in class, which could have made
them more confident with constructive exchanges of diverse views. It could have been aided by a couple
of short, labor debates we viewed in-class, their styles mimicking those of the expert debaters they
observed. And certainly, a clearer debate format could have proven less distracting, possibly even serving
as a useful template for the arguments each team planned to mount.
I don’t doubt the efficacy of these techniques. At the very least, they seemed to increase class
engagement. However, the inherent strength of this group was their openness and much of what is
measured here could be due to that quality alone.
Additionally, I was less pleased that a slightly smaller proportion, though still a high proportion of nearly
80% of students, scored at least proficient in factual evidence. The 2014 cohort, though often confident in
delivery, persuasive and cognizant of crucial issues, often played “fast and loose” when it came to citing
the source of their arguments. I recall making the necessity for such citation clear on several occasions,
but it seems to have had little effect.
More disappointing than anything else, the 2014 cohort seems to have taken a step back in the area of
rebuttal, which from having witnessed and scored the debate I believe rested simply upon students
making their points, while neither possessing the mastery of material nor the aplomb to listen to other
views closely in a critical way.
It is something I tirelessly emphasized whenever multi-faceted discussions took place in class sessions,
but the lifelong habit of adopting a position and defending it without question is a hard one to break.
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 retain the streamlined debate format. (compare Appendix 2 to Appendix 1)
The simpler format, with improved clarity, met with significantly less confusion that the previous format.
Second, I will retain the technique of occasionally viewing a short, expert-based debate wherever it is
possible, partly to enhance the depth of understanding of particular sub-topics in labor and management,
but also with an eye toward modeling proper debate etiquette. The 2014 cohort seemed more polished
than the 2013 cohort, and I believe these viewings may have helped.
Third, I plan to retain “One on One for One”, which involves students being chosen on a weekly basis to
confront each other in one-on-one debates for one minute intervals.
But additionally, I will require students to make another pass at each other, based upon points that were
made in the first quick exchange. I will emphasize that the second pass should be one designed to rebut
previously made points. With enough practice, perhaps this will enhance flexibility in argumentation, as
well as their tendency to listen and respond actively to the points that surface. It is hoped that this will
reduce the unfortunate tendency for students to talk “past” each other, and will increase critical
engagement between and among students.
Fourth, on almost a regular basis, I will assign a “proposition” to be defended or rebutted with citation as
a homework exercise.
For example, the statement: “The minimum wage does more harm than good.” may serve as a
proposition, and at the onset of the following class, I will require students to agree or disagree with the
statement, but only students who cite evidence for their arguments will receive credit. I hope this will get
the next cohort in the habit of fortifying their arguments with evidence, as opposed to making arguments,
no matter how logical, that may be unfounded empirically.
Lastly, I will again 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.
The 2014 cohort did particularly well in the area of delivery, and though I’ve stated it may have already
been a strength they possessed, this exercise was well-received and could have only enhanced their
performance on debate day. It seemed well-worth the class time devoted to it.
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 hope that this should also increase the likelihood that my students leave my class
as better thinkers, speakers and collaborators than when they arrived.
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: 4/11/2014
Debate: 4/11/2014
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.