Period 2 - Daymen Liu Ao

[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 university record of service-learning efforts and impact in local schools.

Required Format:
Session 1 materials: [The first line of your report is the session number and full title of the database item(s).]
Focus Q: [On a new line, list your focus question from your TAP form. If you changed the question then add the new version after the TAP version.]
*** For the minimum of 3 student specifics, do not refer to students by name; instead call them Student A, B or C.
*** For the minimum of 500 words, guiding questions are here: https://www.forums.usc-calis.net/showthread.php?tid=297

Use clear paragraph structure. If you include too much focus on the step-by-step process of the lesson rather than substance, you may be asked to revise your report.
*** The webboard is public. If you include names, commentary or observations, you will need to revise your post.

To Post:
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 by midnight within 3 calendar days after each session.

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 report
On time: 3/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 15/15
Comments: This is a wonderful report, Daymen! You mentioned specific activities and database items that your team utilized in your session, as well as students responses and reactions. I would like to know more about the “more engaging tools” that you’re planning to use in the next session, but overall great job!
LY 10/24/2023

Session #2 report
On time: 3/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 5/6
Total: 14/15
Comments: Excellent report, Daymen! I like how your team uses different forms of materials to engage the students, including videos, handouts, and activities. You have also done a great job detailing specific student’s responses. However, I would like to see more about how the class reacted to specific student’s responses, and the subsequent conversations around the topic. But overall excellent job!

LY 10/30/23

Session #3 report
On time: 0/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 12/15
Comments: Great Report, Daymen. I’m glad the popcorn reading style worked out, as reading can be challenging for students to engage. Great job balancing cold-calling and fostering a welcoming environment as well!

LY 11/8/23

Session #4 report
On time: 3/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 15/15
Comments: I’m glad you enjoyed your TIRP experience and learned from this opportunity! Always welcome back to TIRP for the upcoming semesters!

LY 11/8/23

[Daymen Liu Ao]

Session 1 Materials: Name That Tune! Distinguish Levels of Analysis in U.S. Foreign Policy, PowerPoint to explain levels of analysis and prisoner's dilemma 
Focus Q: What are the different levels of analysis and how to identify and apply them? What are some factors that can lead to a war? How does the Prisoner's dilemma relate to International Relations? 

We started by introducing ourselves, then we explained what are the different levels of analysis and their distinction among all three (human, national, and systematic). Since the class is all English language learners, we made sure that everyone was on the same page before moving on. After presenting the different levels of analysis and what the prisoner's dilemma scenario is, we moved on to our first activity. This consisted of splitting students into pairs, and without discussing writing in an index car whether they would confess or keep silent for the prisoner's dilemma activity. Then we asked how this relates to international relations, making Student A raise their hand and mention that "just like everyone acts in their own self-interest, so do countries do when it involves policy making." We agreed and further explained the connection between the prisoner's dilemma and international relations. 

After explaining the different analytical frameworks such as cooperation, interactions, and bargaining. We also asked how can prisoner's dilemma be solved utilizing cooperation. Student B answered, "If we had more information about each other's decision and tried to inform ourselves better about the outcomes, wouldn't that be helpful to come up with the best solution?" This was also a good answer showing them the understanding of the different analytical frameworks and how to come up with a conclusion when two parties are involved. 

Moving on to the second activity was giving them the Name That Tune! worksheet. In the worksheet there were three paragraphs, each corresponding to one of the three different levels of analysis, they had to match the correct levels of analysis with the respective paragraphs and highlight keywords in the paragraph that relate to the level of analysis. This was used to test their knowledge of the different levels of analysis that we presented and went over throughout the presentation. We gave them 10 minutes to complete the Iraq and Iran section of Name That Tune. We were always engaging with students, asking them for their opinions, and asking why they chose their answers. 

In the end, we went over the answers while some volunteered, most of them we had to cold call. They were all correct answers. When asked what are their reasons for choosing the domestic attributes, Student C responded "Because in the paragraph it says that the country is ruled by one autocratic party and they have no freedom of speech". Overall, the session went great. There were some hiccups since a lot of students were not comfortable speaking up, but we managed to get the best out of them. Moving forward, we will use more engaging tools and less lecture heavy materials to make the students more active and participate in the class more.

[Daymen Liu Ao]

Session 2 Materials: Putin's War on Ukraine, Explained Vox Video; Powerpoint that explains levels of analysis 
Focus Q: What are the different levels of analysis? What are the different factors (individual, national, and systemic) that cause the Ukraine-Russia conflict and how do we identify those factors?

We started by re-introducing ourselves and lecturing an overview of the individual, national, and systematic levels of analysis. We thoroughly explained the definitions between the levels of analysis and how they relate using real-life examples. For example, when explaining the national level, we used countries like the United States to further enhance their understanding of the topic. In other words, make it more applicable to their real life. After we did a thorough overview of the different levels of analysis to refresh their memory on it, we moved on to showing a Vox Video named "Putin's War on Ukraine, Explained". Our goal in showing this video was to further apply these levels of analysis in a real and current event. We also instructed them to underline important phrases or words that the video might showcase. 

We passed them a handout with a transcript of the Vox video. After the 10-minute video, we elaborated on definitions that might be important such as sovereignty. We started asking questions about the video such as how does this apply to the individual level of analysis? Student A answered, "I believe Putin's ultimate decision to invade Ukraine is an individual factor". We agreed and further elaborated on that response. We explained more about the other levels of analysis (National and International).

Moving on we made them respond at the back of their handout to 4 questions relating to the video. The four questions were able to gauge their engagement with the video. We went around and clarified the instructions and answered anything they requested. We asked participants to respond to those questions after they answered all questions. When we asked the second question "How have NATO member countries responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?". Student B answered "NATO members presented economic sanctions to Russia and offered military aid to Ukraine including tanks from the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom. 

In the end, we went over the answers and wrote on the board separating all three levels of analysis. We asked questions such as what do you believe the Media role in the country belongs to which level of analysis? Student C answered "The media role belongs to the national level because the role in the media shifts the perception of the country as a whole or groups in the country. 

Overall I believe we did great. We were able to make the students visualize how to apply the different levels of analysis utilizing the Ukraine and Russia conflict. However, there were only a few students (6) who were answering over and over. This causes disparity in the student's level of engagement. Next time, we have to cold call them and make students who have not participated tell them.

[Daymen Liu Ao]

Session 3 Materials: World War I Textbook Passage Levels of Analysis 
Focus question: What methods can we use to discern the roles of different participants? How might we apply the various levels of analysis when examining the events of World War I?

In our third session, we delved deeply into World War I, a topic Mr. John noted hadn't been touched upon in their regular curriculum. We saw this as a golden opportunity to apply the principles of International Relations, given the many events and players that students easily identify such as the Zimmerman note or the Sinking of the Lusitania. After reflecting on feedback from our initial sessions, our group recognized the need to amplify student engagement. We observed that a handful of students dominated the discussions, while some seemed disengaged and very few using their phones. Our solution was to incorporate the "popcorn reading" approach, especially given the length of the WWI passage, ensuring wider participation and engagement. 

We kickstarted the session by informing everyone about this new approach, and the response was encouraging. Students eagerly listened, waiting for their turn and understanding the content that was being said. This strategy immensely boosted engagement levels, creating a better environment for learning and becoming more comfortable as it goes. However, due to the class being an English Language Learners class, a minor hiccup was the varied reading speeds and pronunciations, causing time delays. To maintain momentum, we started skipping some unnecessary reading and reciting the longer paragraphs ourselves.

The session commenced with Student A exploring nationalism, imperialism, and militarism. Highly needed concepts to understanding the undergoing of World War I. Post-reading, when quizzed about militarism and its potential as a war catalyst, Student A pointed out that European countries were building to expand and defend their countries, linking it to nationalism and how they want to protect their pride and their country. 

As we progressed, we tasked students with identifying answers to questions post-passage to validate comprehension, combined with pop questions to check understanding and make sure everyone was on the same page. Cold calling people allowed students to notice this productive pressure of actually paying attention so that when we cold call them they give a proper response. For instance, when we asked about what were some systemic levels of analysis, Student B commented that "countries were building alliances such as the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente this is because countries wanted protection from each other, and one way to do it is through alliance, which created conflict". Another question we asked was what were the United States' levels of analysis in this scenario; Student C quickly pointed at President Woodrow Wilson and how its neutrality affected the sentiment in the United States and it allowed for their reelection. Throughout all the questions we noticed that the students were understanding and keeping up with the material.

Our popcorn reading technique, complemented by on-the-spot questioning and consistent reference to the various levels of analysis, undeniably enhanced class involvement and material grasp. This session reinforced the importance of interactive teaching and set the tone for our subsequent ones. For the next session, we will strive to create a better group/interactive environment. We realized that cold calling can be daunting at times, but we made sure that the environment was productive and judgment-free, ensuring a great learning experience for all.

[Daymen Liu Ao]

Session 4 Materials: Three U.S. 19th Century Wars Case Comparisons, War of 1812, Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War textbook passages, Quizziz about Levels of Analysis
Focus Q: What are the different factors/levels of analysis that each war had? How do they compare with each other?

Walking into the classroom for our presentation, we were armed with a singular vision: to craft an inclusive environment where each student actively participates and integrates the levels of analysis we had introduced in our prior three sessions. It's no secret that understanding layered, historical concepts can be challenging for some, especially for high school students who have not heard about the idea of international relations, different causes of war, and level of analysis. Recognizing this, we set out to engage our students in a way that would both capture their interest and solidify their grasp of these analytical tools.

At the beginning of the session, we grouped students in trios and tasked them with dissecting passages from three significant wars in American history: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the Spanish-American War. Their objective? To identify and articulate the various levels of analysis - from the individual to the national, culminating in the systemic - within their designated passage.

As Student A stepped up to the plate, they shed light on the War of 1812 through the lens of the individual level of analysis. Their observation highlighted the actions of John C. Calhoun and his fervent support for the war. The passion with which Student A discussed Calhoun's motivations and subsequent impact on the conflict. Then came Student B, who talked about the Mexican-American War and provided a great systemic analysis. The depth of their understanding became evident as they delved into the U.S.'s decision to march into places near Mexico City and even to the heart of Chapultepec. This aggressive move resulted in significant sovereign issues and dramatically escalated the conflict. This demonstration of deep understanding allowed us to feel confident in our teaching method and how systemic factors can significantly shape the course of a war.

Lastly, Student C presented the Spanish-American War, once again using the systemic level of analysis. They emphasized the involvement of various international players, from Cuba and Puerto Rico to Guam and the Philippines. Student C's presentation was a reminder of how conflicts can encompass numerous nations, with some being compelled into the fray against their will or better judgment. After all presentations concluded, we tested their knowledge of everything we covered throughout the four sessions with an interactive game called Quizziz. Our expectations were higher, but a lot of people scored decently for the amount of information and difficulty of the topic in play. 

What made this entire TIRP experience exceptionally heartwarming for us was the transformation in our students. At the start of our sessions, few were proactive in participating, with hands hesitatingly raised. But as our lessons progressed, so did their confidence. By our final session, seeing them stand up for their group and present their findings to their peers gave us clarity was a reward in itself. Their journey is a product of the active engagement and the supportive learning environment we had strived to create. Watching our students flourish and evolve in their understanding and confidence was the greatest affirmation of our methods and efforts.