Period 6 - Edith Conn

[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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Report 1

On time: 1/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student Specifics: 6/6

Good report Edith. I like how your team split the students up in to groups. However, I would encourage you and your team to find creative ways to keep your students engaged.
Side note: when including student specifics, please use the “student A said….” Format.

Report 2

On time: 3/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student Specifics: 6/6

Good report Edith. I like your team’s incorporation of healthy competition in this lesson. It seemed like it really helped over all engagement in the classroom. Keep up the competition and good work. – MS on 3/2

Report 3

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

Good report Edith. It seems like your students are really able to contextualize the information. Keep the lessons interactive and keep up the good work. – MS on 3/22

Report 4
On time: 0/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student Specifics: 6/6
Total: 12/12

Good report Edith. I like your groups idea to continue the competition to keep students engaged. Good work! – MS on 4/14

[Edith Conn]

For our first session, we wanted to open with the three levels of analysis of the causes of war before getting into the actual causes of war. We broke it down to individual, nation, and country so that students could better understand rather than the three categories on the paper, and described it as how individuals act, how the nation acts, and how nations interact with each other. We decided, based on the students' reactions, to go over individual together as a class, have them work in groups of 4 for the national level, reconvene to discuss the national level and then work on the international level together. So, for the individual level, we described Waltz's idea of realism and that people are generally self-interest focused and aggressive and how that can lead to escalation which could eventually lead to war. When getting to the prescription category, we asked the students what they thought would be a way to fix this. It was quiet at first, and we decided to give the example of education. When we asked the students why they thought education was a way to prevent war, and one student replied that education makes you smarter so you make better decisions instead of deciding on war. Another student gave the interesting answer that when people go to school they socialize with a lot more people and therefore don't like fighting as much--they become less aggressive and more willing to listen and compromise. I thought that was a great answer, as educated countries do turn out to be more peaceful.

When students got together in their groups to discuss the national level, and the description and prescription of that level, students were giving some pretty neat answers as we made our way around the room. One group said that countries create laws or have different government systems that stop war from happening. By helping them along, we came up with the answer that as a country becomes more democratic, it becomes harder for a country to go to war since there are so many barriers (trade interests, many different levels of leadership, etc.). When we reconvened as a group, we went over that as well as the international level. This was a little hard, but one student gave the example of treaties as a preventative measure to war.

After going over the three levels of analysis, we then did a case study of the Vietnam War. However, we only had ten minutes left, so we quickly did popcorn reading (a student had a bunch of flashcards and called people's names off so that popcorn reading went quickly). Every time one of the TIRP members saw something that might be related to the three levels, we paused and asked what level that represented, and the students were able to answer correctly each time which was nice.

Class went well but it was hard to engage the students. The worksheet was pretty difficult, even for the IR majors in our TIRP group. We're hoping next session will go well.

[Edith Conn]

Our second session went great! After our first session, my TIRP team and I realized we needed to add a bit more energy to the class, so we decided we'd play a game as part of our lesson. But before that, we wanted to go over the world order models very thoroughly. There were 5 models and we spent a good 5 minutes on each one. We used the flashcard system again as a way to call on students to get them to read the description under each model, then explained it a little further than the small description, and asked students for examples. The students have recently been reviewing Stalin in their actual class, and so when we asked the students for an example of a bi-polar world, one student, student A, gave US and Russia as an example. For the multi-polar world, student B gave the example European countries such as Germany, UK, and France around WWI and WWII. We asked the students which world order they think we have today, and most were unsure, so we went through each one and explained how each world order model could apply to today, whether US as the superpower in a uni-polar world, US and China as the superpowers of a bi-polar world, various European countries and US as the powers in a multi-polar world, regionalism where we have the different regional pacts such as ASEAN or EU or NAFTA, or World Law, where most countries work under the UN. Students shouted out their opinion of which they thought was right, and we said that it's hard to really say if there's just one world model, that all could apply.

After going through the world order models thoroughly, we told the students to get into their assigned groups and started passing out white boards. We decided to play a game where Katina would draw a world order model, students would then write down which model they thought it was, hold it up when we called time, and all the groups that wrote the correct answer would get a certain amount of points. For the first one, Katina drew a bi-polar world. Once we called time, each group held up their board. While most got it correct, a couple wrote regionalism. When I asked why the model Katina drew wasn't regionalism, student C replied that it was because there were only two main countries (circles filled in), and they connected to all the countries on their half but that the other countries they were connected to weren't connected to each other. Meaning, those two main countries had all the control. Whereas regionalism, there are more than two sides, and all the countries work together at the same level of power (all connected to each other). We continued doing this for another 3 rounds (and the final round, all groups got the correct answer), and decided to spend the next 10 minutes of class having students answer the questions on the last page together as a group, but mainly focusing on the last 2 questions, which were to design a world order model they thought the world should look like, and argue for it. When we only had a few minutes left, we asked if someone would like to come up, draw their model, and argue why the world should look like this. Student D volunteered, and drew what looked like a combo of world law and regionalism. She explained that countries would work together within their regions and report to the institution that governed those regions. She explained that would be more efficient as there are so many countries, it can be unorganized by not separating into regions. We all thought that was a great model, and decided to end the class there. This session was honestly great and I look forward to the next!

[Edith Conn]

For our third session we decided to come back to the three levels of analysis for the causes of war. We began with a pretty thorough review, covering each one extensively. We decided to stick to our point system too, as a way to encourage the students to answer questions. The students had a tough time remembering the three levels since it had been two weeks, and at first, when we asked what they were, no one could respond. But when we gave a short definition of the first, calling it more personal, student A said "individual." We explained that human behavior was the first level, and that it could also be called individual, so that was correct. This jogged students memories, and so when we asked for the next two, student B said "national and international." We then asked for examples for each level on how they cause wars, and student C gave the example for the individual level that humans can be aggressive or angry. When I asked for what the opposite of that could be but that would still cause war, the same student replied, "fear." Moving onto the state level, student D gave the example of countries making laws, or declaring war on other countries. On the international level, student E gave the example of allies.

After the thorough review, we decided to move onto the lesson for that day, which was a short reading on the Mexican-American War. We decided to do popcorn reading, and had one student call off students' names via the flashcards she had so that it was random. We were planning on switching off after every sentence, but students started reading the whole paragraph when their name was called, so we stuck with that. After every paragraph, we reviewed parts of it and looked for the different levels of analysis. For example, when we got to the paragraph about individuals in Mexico fighting on the US's side, and asked what level this is and why, student F said that it was allies because these individuals were allied with America. Another big, reoccurring one we found was public opinion, and how Americans were supporting the US president on expansionism and the Mexicans were supporting the president on defending their territory.

The reading itself took up a good half an hour since it was quite long and we stopped many times to be sure students were following along and understand what was happening, so we decided at the end that we would spend the next ten minutes having each group answer one question on the worksheet and then going over the answers together as a class (there were eight questions and eight groups). We spent about half the time walking around and talking to the students about their specific question. They were mostly speculative questions, what their opinion of the piece was, what they felt was missing, and what level of analysis they felt was most common and the driving force behind the war. Each student in each group had different answers, so when we came together as a class, there were multiple answers per question which I think helped students retain the knowledge and get different perspectives on each one. We luckily finished just as the bell rang.

[Edith Conn]

For our final session, we were delayed quite a bit because the class was finishing up a debate on immigration as an assignment. We thought it was interesting though, how engaged the students were with the debate, and decided we could use some competition in our final lesson. Also, we decided the winning group would get the bag of candy we brought to class. The competition would be on the three levels of analysis for the causes of war, where we would read a passage and have the groups write on the white board if it was individual, national, or systemic. Before we began, of course, we needed a review. It had been 2 weeks since we taught our third lesson (the students had a two week long spring break) so we figured they forgot a lot. So, we decided to do the first two passages together as a group. We read the first one aloud--a passage about Kim Jong Un, and asked the students which level it was. Student A answered "individual." When we asked <I>why</I> it was individual, another student, student B, replied that one, they were talking about a specific leader, and two, there were certain words and phrases in the passage that alluded to individual behavior, like what Kim Jong Un's personality was like (aggressive) and what he personally believed in/thought. The next passage was the National level, and the students had no issue getting it correct. So we decided to jump right into the competition. Each of us took a turn reading the passage quickly, and then gave the groups 15 seconds after reading it to write the answer on the white board. When we called time, they held up their board and we tallied up the points. It was incredibly fun and at the end of the passages, we came down to a tie between group 3 and 1. So we had each group come up to the front, hands under the desk, and told them to hit the desk to give an answer. The questions were simple: I would name an example, and the student would give me which level of analysis it was. I began with "fear" and student C from group 1 hit the table and replied individual--so we gave them a point. This continued on until finally, group 1 had 5 points and won the tie breaker.
We decided for the rest of the class time (approx. 15 minutes), we would have a Q&A session on all things college. Mr. Gonzalez had the great idea to have students write down questions on a scrap piece of paper and pass it to the front. Gershon, Katina, and I also wrote our majors on the board so students interested in our majors could directly ask us questions. I was really happy to hear a student ask me about my major, IR (Gershon is Cinema and Katina is IRGE), and gave them a run down of IR, what we do, and even got onto the topic of study abroad. I hope that my answer got them interested in IR--as interesting as the 3 levels of analysis for the causes of war are, I think that Q&A session did a much better job of getting students interested in college and more specifically IR!