Period 1 - Catherine Horelick

[Catherine Horelick]

Our learning objective for our TIRP class was, “What is the necessary level of government involvement in American society?” We discussed competing perspectives and political parties in our government. We alternated with explaining concepts to the class, having the students work in groups, and discussing together as a class while summarizing concepts on the board.

To start the exercise, we each talked about the liberal, conservative, and libertarian perspectives. Once my team and I did this, we had the students break up into groups to determine where each perspective fell on the scale of level of government involvement of the economy, culture, and social services. When we asked volunteers to place each perspective on the scale, the students understood the perspectives fairly quickly and were able to evaluate them. When we asked Student A why she placed Conservatives high on the “Personal matters” scale, she told us she read in the text that Conservatives want the government to promote a traditional family structure.

After this exercise, we had the students break up into groups again and we had them read about different political parties, including the Republican Party, Democratic Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Peace & Freedom. The students already knew about the Republican and Democratic parties, but were less aware of the Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom parties. We gave them ten minutes to read by themselves within groups and prepare to summarize what they found.

Once they finished reading we had them share three views from their parties as we wrote each on the board. Once we went over all of the parties together we then ranked the parties in terms of where they would be on the scale for government intervention in the economy, culture, and social services. There was always a general consensus on where some of the parties fell, and others were debated. Student B placed Republicans low on the scale of government involvement in culture, but Student C thought they were higher on the scale and they promote traditional family values and want to be more involved in people’s personal choices.

For the last exercise we talked as a class about where each party fell in terms of the conservative, liberal, and libertarian perspectives. We were impressed that the students made the connections between the first and second exercises, as they guessed right for all of the parties except one. Student D and others thought that the Libertarian party fell under liberal, without realizing libertarian is a unique perspective and has its own category. We reminded the students that the Libertarians believe in no government intervention in the economy or personal matters, which is not completely consistent with the liberal perspective.

Overall we had a successful class and were impressed by how much the students already knew. When we came into the class the students were giving speeches of why you should vote for each presidential candidate, and I thought that our lesson was a great follow up to expand their knowledge of the candidates’ views. I am looking forward to the next session to delve deeper into a specific issue with the students.

[CALIS]

Thank you for participating in TIRP service-learning outreach!

Your reports are the basis for academic credit. Whether or not you are seeking a credit option, reports are required as a record of your teaching complex issues in local schools.

1. For each report, select Post Reply. (Do not select New Topic)
2. Copy/paste from your Word file and save a copy until after the semester is over.
3. Before pasting, confirm that you have met the minimum of at least 500 words.
4. Each report must be submitted within 3 days after each session.

Remember:
a. The webboard is public. Do not refer to students by name; instead call them Student A, B or C. If you include names, commentary or observations, you will need to revise your post.
b. Guiding questions for reports are provided in section F of the Requirements & Guidelines.
c. If you include too much focus on the step-by-step process of the lesson rather than content, you may be asked to revise your report.

A CALIS staff member will review your report each week and post a message below of the scoring for your performance evaluation.
We welcome any questions or concerns you have about scoring.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Session 1
On time: 2/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 14/15

Great first report, Catherine! I really appreciate the effort to include specific comments from a variety of students. Keep it up! -CT on 10/4

Session 2
On time: 2/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 14/15

Nice report, Catherine! Thank you for your careful consideration of how to include participation from a greater range of students. -CT on 10/12

Session 3
On time: 2/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 14/15

Good report, Catherine! You did a great job of using the four worlds tool to help the students better understand immigration issues. -CT on 10/20

[Catherine Horelick]

Session 2

The learning objective for our second TIRP class was, “How does immigration affect each candidates’ policies and how are they applicable in the four worlds?” We discussed how immigration fits into the four worlds of international relations, the two presidential candidates’ views on immigration issues, and which issues the students agree or disagree with. We began the lesson with a quick recap of what we talked about the week before then handed out the new worksheets.

We started the new lesson by explaining the four worlds of international relations, including the social, political, economic and cultural worlds. We gave one example for each world to get the students started. The students talked within their tables and came up with different topics of immigration that fit into the four worlds. Student A asked me if issues surrounding illegal immigrants could be included in the exercise, and I told her that that was completely appropriate as undocumented immigrants is a huge issue within immigration policy.

When we went over it as a group and asked for volunteers to explain their examples, many of the students found overlap within the worlds. Student B gave an example of immigrants not have access to certain services or opportunities, which could fit under the social world or the economic world. We explained to the students that there are many examples of issues that overlap between worlds, often times cultural and social, and social and economic.

After this, we assigned half of the tables to read about Trump’s position and the other half to read Clinton’s position. Within their groups the students discussed and summarized the policies and then we went over them in class. We wrote each candidate’s policies on the board under the following groups: Citizenship & Undocumented, Administration/Enforcement, Border Security, Deportation & Detention, and Restrictions & Refugees. We were impressed with the responses and the examples that the student volunteers provided. Student C pointed out that Clinton’s position hasn’t always been consistent—she voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006 and supported the deportation of thousands of child migrants from Central America in 2014, but now she also supports policies that allow path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and wants to them to purchase health insurance.

Once we finished filling in the groups on the board we asked the students whether or not they supported Clinton and Trump’s policies. Most of the students were in favor of Clinton’s, but a couple of the key policies of Trump that the students supported was defunding sanctuary cities and strengthening law enforcement for immigration.

Overall the class went well and it was interesting to dive deeper into a specific issue with the students after last week, when we talked about the spectrum of political perspectives. We did notice that it was the same students participating most of the time, so we are thinking of coming up with a new system that Mr. Almeida suggested for having students speak. We might assign specific students to report their group findings back to the class when we discuss the exercises in class, and switch those students for different activities. I believe this can increase the class participation.

[Catherine Horelick]

Week 3

This week our focus question was “Which environmental policies are promoted by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?” The week before, we talked about each candidate’s view on immigration policies, and our lesson this week followed a similar layout. We had the students place environmental issues in the four world of international relations, read Donald Trumps’ and Hillarys’ views, then summarize key points within environmental policy areas. Finally, we had the students think about whether they agree with Clinton and Trumps’ views.

For the first activity, we had the students break up into groups at their tables and figure out where to place environmental policies and issues in the four world of IR, the political, social, economic, and cultural worlds. Before they broke into their groups we gave an example for the environment in each world. After they were done brainstorming, we went over it on the board as a class. Student A brought up the fact that candidates talk about environmental policies in their campaigns, which belongs in the political world. Student B thought that carbon taxes would affect businesses, which belongs in the economic world.

After, we assigned half of the tables in the class to read Clinton’s position on the environment and the other half to read Trump’s. Afterwards, we summarized their points on the board under the categories of Clean Energy, Keep it in the Ground, Pricing Carbon, Adaptation, and International Commitments. For the category “Keep it in the Ground,” Student C said that Clinton wanted to ban drilling in the U.S. arctic and block further attempts to continue construction of the Keystone Pipeline. Student D illustrated that Trump feels the opposite from Hillary and wants to increase the usage of fossil fuels and finish the construction of the Keystone Pipeline.

When we finished going over each candidate’s positions, we asked the students to think about whether or not they agree with each policy. We ended up explaining things from the reading that students didn’t know much about, such as the Paris accords and fracking. Most students supported Hillary’s position, but one student in particular felt strongly about Trump’s. Student E said that we should increase drilling in our own country so that we don’t need to import as much from other countries. We were impressed by his knowledge, as this is the center of many debates concerning oil and international trade.

The last exercise we did was asking students where the United States falls on a scale from 1-10 of how involved our current climate change policies are. Most students’ opinions fell within the lower to average part of the scale and agreed that we have a long road ahead of us to becoming an environmentally clean country.

Overall, the students learned a lot about climate change and environmental policies, and it was a topic that they were genuinely interested in. Our method of choosing a group leader to increase participation was successful, and we heard from some students that had never spoken up during our sessions before.