Case Summary
Case 1 for Teacher: LHGH07
General Information
Task title: Oligopolic Pricing Free Response Questions
Collection Date: Feb 8, 2010
Class period: 2010 Spring – Period 1: 12 th
Grade AP Economics
Identifiers:

Technology-enhanced

Lecture

Other
Observation Scoring: [Enter numerical scores for the primary and secondary rater]
Rating Type Researcher
High
Order
Thinking
Deep
Knowledge
Substantitive
Conversation
Connectedness
2 Primary Rater –
Initial
Secondary rater-
Initial
Consensus
Howell 2 2 3
Task Scoring: [Enter numerical scores for the primary and secondary rater]
Rating Type Researcher
Construction of
Knowledge
Elaborated
Communication
Connection
Scored
After
Observation
2 2 1 Yes Primary Rater
- Initial
Howell
Secondary
Rater – Initial
Consensus
Lesson Summary Narrative:
Yes

This lesson took place towards the end of the ½ semester covering Economics during Spring,
2010. The lesson focused on oligopolistic pricing structures and competition. The class was AP
Economics and normally has six students. Four students were present at the beginning of class – three white males and one black male. Approximately 15 minutes into the period, a 5 th
white female joined. The lesson was the 3 rd lesson covering factor markets. Prior lessons discussed pure competition and monopolies and were heavy on mathematical graphing. The 4 th
lesson will cover monopolistic competition. Although the classroom had 27 desks in it, the 5 students sat in two rows of three seats facing the projector screen. The teacher informed me that the five students were the brightest in the school and that the class had dropped in number from approximately 15 to 6. The teacher also emphasized that he chose the “most complicated” assignment for me to observe which contrasts with the directions given that asked for an opportunity to observe students doing challenging social studies material.
The teacher began the lesson by projecting a power point covering the “3 rd
Factor Model” – oligopoly. Oligopoly was defined via a slide – few large, interdependent producers who control all production. High entry barriers prohibit others from entering the marketplace. The teacher provided examples of OPEC and cereal manufacturers and then began a series of questions designed to examine high entry barriers including a question about economies of scale and the difficulties of entering the power production business (the example he used.) Student responses during this period were brief, one-word responses and were appraised as right or wrong.
The teacher then introduced game theory - oligopolies are not concerned with economies of scale but are concerned with what the competition is doing in terms of price. Using a new slide, the teacher explained that game theory is used to determine how people will react in strategic situations. “We will look at initial action and then reactions by the competition.” The teacher emphasized that game theory has been on past AP exams. The teacher used an example of a soccer player driving and the defense’s response to illustrate game theory. The teacher then moved to a new graphic slide containing a 2x2 chart that presented two prisoners’ (Bonnie and
Clyde) options in response to police questioning. The teacher used the chart to illustrate that the two criminals would choose the option that maximized personal benefit regardless of what the other did and that a dominant strategy would therefore result for both competitors. Using a new slide, the teacher summarized that if both have dominant strategies, a Nash Equilibrium results.
The lesson momentarily digressed hereafter to a brief discussion of cheerleading.
The teacher refocused the lesson with a three-minute video depicting a game show – Friend or
Foe - as an example of game theory. Participants work together for money then decide if their partner is friend of foe. Two friends results in splitting of the money; two foes results in no money. If there is one friend and one foe, the foe keeps the money. The teacher debriefed the clip by asking what the dominant strategy should have been. The teacher then segued to a discussion of two businesses shown on a new slide. Here the teacher successfully engaged the students in a discussion of dominant strategy. The teacher got students to identify the dominant strategy for both. The teacher explored with students what one company would do if the other raised or lowered prices. During this phase of the lesson, the teacher asked the students

questions that guided them to interpreting the oligopoly presented. The teacher used a student comment about cheating to discusses “collusion” within an oligopoly and the fact that it is illegal in the U.S. 4 successive interchanges were counted during this discussion and constituted a sustained conversation. The teacher further expounded on dominate strategy by using a local example (initiated by a student comment) of pizza. Papa John’s holds the dominant market share, lowers prices, and forces the other pizza places in the area to lower their prices. The teacher connects this to an actual occurrence of this taking place locally over Super Bowl weekend. Thereafter, however, the conversations drifted from dominant strategy or oligopolies to local pizza.
A second three-minute video in the power point was shown of The Princess Bride during which a masked man competed for a woman. The masked man challenges the other man to drink from one of two cups – one of which has poison. The teacher stated that clip illustrates the choices oligopolies make. After the video, the teacher continued with the power point lecture by describing collusion. The teacher periodically asked questions of students and received responses that he labeled as correct. The teacher then discussed a job he held at Foot Locker where company officials concerned themselves with daily profit. No connection to the prior discussion was made and the conversation eventually digressed into a discussion of fast food.
The teacher continued with options for presenting oligopolic pricing including a kinked demand curve and a price leadership model. The teacher explained again that collusion is illegal but that companies can follow dominant strategy [Discussion topics changed rapidly.] The teacher reviewed the Price Leadership Model – that the company with the largest market share acts first in an oligopoly and that temporary price wars can result when there is no clear leader. Together with students, the teacher examined a price war using a similar 2x2 chart as before. In algorithmic fashion, the teacher asked questions about the graph and how competition would react. 4 interchanges were counted here during the discussion of the price leadership model.
The lecture portion of the lesson (1hr. 2 min.) concluded with slides on cartels – colluding oligopolies. Again, the teacher asked questions about drug cartels in Mexico and used student responses to show that demand is inelastic when dealing with dependent drugs. The teacher asked for any more questions and then transitioned to the assessment.
The assessment task for the lesson (30 min) was two free-response questions (FRQ) taken from prior AP tests. Students were given information about an oligopoly in both questions and were asked to respond to five to six questions in writing. Students completed Question 2 (see task) individually. All 5 students completed Question 2 in less than 4 minutes. The teacher then revealed the correct answers by asking students to report their answers. The responses were judged as right or wrong and little discussion ensued. The teacher then placed Question 3 on the projector and the same process was repeated except this time, students exchanged papers and graded them using an AP rubric (see task) before discussing their answers. Students spent more time on the second question and the reporting out / discussion of its answers took considerably longer than the first because of some confusion about whether there was a dominant strategy or not. When reporting responses to both questions, the teacher asked the class whether the

responses merited points according to the rubric. In most cases, both students and teacher agreed that they should be awarded. The class concluded with the teacher announcing a test that would follow in approximately one week and also a reminder to students that the tasks for the lesson were pulled from prior AP exams. A quick glance at student papers showed that student responses were as short as one word and as long as two sentences.
Observation: Higher Order Thinking - 2
Students were primarily engaged in LOT; two students performed HOT as a minor diversion.
The lecture and assessment task emphasized the 2x2 algorithm needed to predict oligopolic behavior. Although the concept of oligopolistic competition and pricing is complex, students were asked to approach the topic using an algorithm explained and practiced during much of the lecture. During the lecture, one student performed HOT when he generalized the definition of an oligopoly to the behavior of local gas stations. Another performed HOT when he recognized the potential for cheating within an oligopoly. Other student responses to teacher questions and to the assessment task were call and response style with clear correct answers that resulted from application of the algorithm. There was no uncertainty in this process. A score of 3 is not warranted because there was not a significant question or activity presented to the class for consideration. In essence, students were doing guided practice.
Observation: Deep Knowledge - 2
Although the key concept of oligopolistic pricing and competition were examined, only a trivialized understanding of them was evident. Lecture topics changed frequently and digressions occurred often. The presentation of oligopolic pricing focused on the application of an algorithm and not, for example, on the advantages or disadvantages of oligopolies or the possible societal consequences for oligopolic collusion. A score of 3 is not warranted because there was no evidence that the significance of oligopolies was grasped. Oligopolies were not presented as problematic in democracies or in capitalists markets and the lesson was not focused on any central question or problem.
Observation: Substantive Conversation - 3
The teacher successfully engaged the students in a discussion of dominant strategy that featured
#2 (sharing) and one sustained conversation. The teacher guided students to determining the dominant strategy for two companies in a new example. The teacher explored with students what one company would do if the other raised or lowered prices. The conversation flowed from teacher to student and from student to student. The teacher used a student comment about cheating to discusses “collusion” within the oligopoly example and the fact that it is illegal in the
U.S. 4 successive interchanges were counted during this discussion and constituted a sustained conversation. The teacher further expounded on dominant strategy by using a local example
(initiated by a student comment) of pizza. Papa John’s holds the dominant market share, lowers

prices, and forces the other pizza places in the area to lower their prices. All features (#3 – collective understanding of a theme or topic) of a substantive conversation were not present so a
4 is not warranted.
Observation: Connectedness to Real World - 2
Throughout the lesson, the teacher emphasized the need to understand oligopolies and the 2x2 algorithm in order to do well on the AP Exam. However, in choosing examples from local contexts and from situations students might encounter (prisoner, pizza), the teacher made an attempt to connect the topic to students’ experiences. There was little to no evidence, however, that connecting to students’ lives was the teacher’s intention or that the teacher succeeded in doing so. The teacher did not mention, for example, that the knowledge of oligopolies gained in the classroom could be used to understand the behavior of companies beyond those presented in the classroom examples. When connections were made to students’ experiences, it was usually in understanding company behavior using the algorithm, not in understanding the possible personal or societal consequences for oligopolic pricing and competition. In the end, I have concluded that preparation for the AP Exam was the teacher and students’ primary concern.
Task: Construction of Knowledge - 2
To complete the task, students must interpret the word problem given as well as the chart provided. It would be impossible to answer the associated questions by cutting and pasting from the chart or the word problem. However, the task does not require interpretation of nuance but instead requires application of algorithm-like steps. A score of 3 is therefore not possible.
Reading for subtext / inference making is not required and alternative views are not examined.
Task: Elaborated Communication – 2
According to the provided rubric, points are awarded for single word and one-sentence answers with the exception of one question that asks for explanation. The dominant expectation, therefore, is a short-answer style response. The task does not require generalization or any meaningful support.
[Glancing at student work during the lesson confirmed the fact that all answers were brief usually consisting of one line but never more than two. A conversation with the teacher revealed that the College Board (AP) does not require complete sentences or lengthy answers.]
Task: Connection to Students’ Lives – 1
The task is essentially a word problem that requires application of steps learned during the lesson. The task is not framed in a way that a connection to students’ lives is likely.
Determining how oligopolies would behave alone is not likely a problem most students will confront in their lives. To score higher, the task might have been framed as a real world, business problem. Students could have been asked to determine how the companies would likely behave and then decide what, if anything, should be done about the company’s behavior. While

students might make personal connections themselves without these changes, the algorithmic nature of the task would likely discourage such connections.