Implementing a "Policy Lab" workshop

1. Overview

This article outlines an innovative teaching practice implemented in a final-year undergraduate Labour Economics module: the Applied Labour Economics Debate Workshop. This structured format moves beyond traditional lectures to transform students from passive recipients of content into active, critical practitioners. Students engage in facilitated debates and online forum discussions on contentious, real-world labour market issues, such as the efficacy of training levies, the demographics of immigration, or the distributional consequences of Skill-Biased Technical Change (SBTC).

2. Rationale and Theoretical Foundation

The primary rationale for introducing this workshop was to bridge the persistent gap between economic theory and practical application. Final-year students possess the theoretical toolkit but often struggle to articulate and debate nuanced policy positions, a critical skill for both the job market and informed citizenship.

This practice is grounded in constructivist pedagogy, where knowledge is actively built by the learner through experience (Freeman, et al., 2014). Furthermore, it leverages collaborative learning and Socratic dialogue to deepen understanding (Kennedy, 2009). By allowing students to argue from evidence and consider opposing viewpoints, the workshop mitigates the Dunning-Kruger effect (where novices overestimate their understanding) and fosters deeper cognitive processing, as supported by the concept of desirable difficulty (Bjork, 1994). The online forums, which bookend the live debate, create a blended learning environment that extends engagement and allows for more reflective, less spontaneous contribution, catering to diverse student participation styles (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008).

Student evaluations consistently highlight this workshop as one of the module’s most valuable components.

3. Implementation and Structure

The practice is a multi-stage process:

1. Topic Selection & Framing: I select a current, polarizing labour market issue and frame it as a debate proposition (e.g., "Illegal immigration does not create a net drain on the host country's economy").
2. Pre-Workshop Online Forum: Students are required to post initial thoughts on the module’s Moodle forum, identifying key theoretical concepts (e.g., complementary vs. substitutable labour, fiscal externalities) and sourcing empirical evidence to support their position. This ensures foundational preparation.
3. The Live Workshop: The session is a facilitated debate, not a lecture. Students are assigned to argue for or against the proposition. I act as a moderator, prompting students to justify claims with economic logic and evidence, steering the conversation back to core module concepts, and ensuring a respectful exchange.
4. Post-Workshop Online Forum: The debate continues asynchronously online, allowing students to refine their arguments based on the live discussion, incorporate new evidence, and reach a more synthesized conclusion.

4. Challenges and Evidence of Effectiveness

A significant challenge in implementing these workshops was overcoming student passivity and incentivizing thorough preparation to ensure vibrant debate. Despite the pre-workshop online forum being mandatory, some students contributed minimally, arriving at the live session unprepared to engage substantively. This often created a reliance on a few confident, vocal students, while more timid individuals were hesitant to volunteer arguments, fearing being incorrect in a complex, nuanced domain. Mitigating this required deliberate strategies, such as cold-calling based on forum posts to reward preparation, structuring small-group discussions before the full debate to build confidence, and explicitly framing the workshop as a low-stakes learning environment where imperfect arguments are a valuable part of the analytical process.

This practice has been refined over three years and its effectiveness is demonstrated through multiple channels:

• Improved Exam Performance: Exam questions requiring critical evaluation of policy, rather than memorization, show a marked improvement in the depth of analysis, use of evidence, and consideration of counterarguments.
• Direct Student Feedback: Student evaluations consistently highlight this workshop as one of the module’s most valuable components. Qualitative comments praise it for "making theory make sense," "preparing us for job interviews," and "teaching us how to think like an economist."
• Development of Transferable Skills: The activity directly hones the skills most demanded by employers: critical thinking, persuasive communication, evidence-based argumentation, and the ability to engage with complex problems with no single "right" answer.

In conclusion, this Debate Workshop is a powerful, evidence-based pedagogic tool that successfully prepares economics students for the intellectual and professional challenges they will face beyond the university.

References

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. Metacognition: Knowing about knowing, 185-205. https://augmentingcognition.com/assets/Bjork1994.pdf

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118269558

Kennedy, R. R. (2009). The power of in-class debates. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787409343186