Period 2 - Hayden Brown

[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: 0142 Four Worlds: Social Science Factors & 0079 Foreign Policy and National Attributes: Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy
Questions: What is foreign policy and why should we care about it? What connections to the international community might you have?

On-time: 0/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 4/6
Total: 10/15

Comments: Thank you for your thorough reflection about your first session! I greatly enjoyed how you floated around the room and how your interactions with these students had a great impact on you as a first-time TIRPer. Please remember to submit your reflections within 3 days. After that, you will lose points; after 6 days you receive no credit for timeliness. I enjoyed hearing about students, but please remember to have at least three. I see you have Student A and Student B, but for full credit, you must also have a Student C. Overall, great job!

–AS 11/9


Session 2: 0007 International Priorities, supplemented with video explaining realism & liberalism, and slideshow explaining vocabulary
Focus Questions: How do different worldviews shape decision-making on an international level?

On-time: 0/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 12/15

Comments: Thank you for your thorough reflection about your second session! I greatly enjoyed reading more about your student specifics and I felt as though I was there with you! Please remember to submit your reflections within 3 days. After that, you will lose points. After 6 days you receive no credit for timeliness. Overall, great job!

–AS 11/13


Session 3: 0686 The Human Security Agenda – How Secure Are You?
Focus Questions: How secure are you? What elements of national security do you have personal connections to?

On-time: 0/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 12/15

Comments: Nice job on your thoughtful reflection about your third session! It was a pleasure reading about your experience and how you tied in your personal experiences to your session. Like last time, please remember to submit your reflections within 3 days. After that, you will lose points. After 6 days you receive no credit for timeliness. Overall, great job!

–AS 11/13


Session 4: 0286 NPR -- Jordan Accused of Harboring Sweatshop Factories
Focus Questions: How do NGOs and states interact to achieve shared policy goals? How do countries, private businesses, and NGOs influence the global political economy?

On-time: 3/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 15/15

Comments: Great job! I’ve seen immense progress in your reflections, and this one is by far the most impressive. Fantastic work.

–AS 11/13

[Hayden Brown]

Session #1: 0142 Four Worlds: Social Science Factors & 0079 Foreign Policy and National Attributes: Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy
Questions: What is foreign policy and why should we care about it? What connections to the international community might you have? 
 
For our first session, we wanted to introduce students to the concepts, language, and principles which are central to discussions about foreign policy. To do this, we wanted to open with the Four Worlds activity, with the goal of helping students make connections between what they know, experience, and understand, with more abstract concepts. One great example of how effective this strategy was happened after we passed out the papers and broke students into groups to discuss. After floating around the room for a bit, I was called over by Student A who was unfamiliar with what a “commons” was and where the management of such a thing would fall on the 4W quadrants. To explain, I asked Student A if they knew what pollution was and they said they did and that they had just finished a poster board project on the topic. I explained that when a factory emits toxic fumes into the air, they are polluting a commons: the air. In this way, I was able to further describe a commons as a good that no single person can reasonably own or control in its entirety. Being that this was my very first TIRP session, I appreciated this experience as it gave me a good understanding of how to effectively communicate difficult ideas to younger students by making connections to more foundational or basic topics that they have experience with.
 
After we finished the Four Worlds activity, we moved onto 0079 Foreign Policy and National Attributes: Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy. In this activity, Mia, Tia and I broke the students up into small groups and assigned them each a country profile with which they were supposed to get acquainted and be prepared to represent. Then, we moved through various scenarios and asked groups what type of policy or statement their country would respond with. In one of the first scenarios, we asked what each country would say to Interpol investigating their country for drug-trafficking operations. Student B, whose country had a drug trafficking problem, immediately exclaimed “this is targeted at us!” In an attempt to capitalize on this revelation, I sat down with this group and began posing follow-up questions like “why do you think that?” and “would getting rid of the drug traffickers be a good thing?” As I continued asking small questions to nudge them along, the group became lively with conversation, debating the interests of Interpol and the West, whether or not Interpol should be the one to conduct the investigation as opposed to domestic agents who may be more culturally sensitive (“but what if our country’s police are corrupt and take bribes from the cartels?” one student said, to which his group members gave a big “ohhhh dang!”). Watching this group engage with the activity with such excitement and focus was very impressive and heartening for me as a first-time TIRPer. After a different scenario about a separatist group in Iraq, another interesting comment was made by the group representing India: “we’ll do whatever America does” they said, when asked what their stance would be. At first, some other students laughed at this, but Mia and myself quickly jumped in to remind students that this is a very real foreign policy strategy! The students were surprised that we had endorsed that groups view so quickly, and I think that bit definitely resonated with them as a closing thought.
 
All in all, it was such a fun introductory session that I feel laid a great foundation for subsequent lessons.

[Hayden Brown]

Session 2: 0007 International Priorities, supplemented with video explaining realism & liberalism, and slideshow explaining vocabulary
Focus Questions: How do different worldviews shape decision-making on an international level?
[size=1] [/size]
For the second session of TIRP, my team and I decided we wanted to hone in more on the structural elements of foreign policy. Since we’d laid the groundwork in the previous session, our hope with this activity was to expand upon some of the vocabulary we’d discussed and make broader connections to various elements of policy formation. To begin, we opened the class with a brief recap of what “worldviews” are and how we understood them during the 4W activity. From there, we discussed what it means to be a system “maintainer, transformer, or reformer” and contextualized that with a video on liberalism vs. realism and the ways each ideology thinks about international structures of cooperation and interaction. The video was quite fast-paced and while I did worry a bit that some of the concepts may have been a tad too advanced, when we debriefed the video, Mia, Tia, and I asked students for some words they could associate with realism and liberalism. When asked about realism, Student A said “strength” and Student B said “suspicious” which I thought were two fantastic responses that showed the pros and cons to this particular geopolitical ideology.
[size=1] [/size]
From there, we broke the class up into teams and assigned them each a Worldview that they would be representing. Then, we told students that they had $200 million in aid to give away, but that the total amount being asked for was $380 million, to which Student C quickly shouted “but that’s not enough?!” Mia, Tia, and I immediately saw the promise of this student’s contribution and quickly used this example to explain that countries don’t have unlimited money to give away so, instead, they must decide what their priorities are and allocate funding accordingly. Then, we announced the first case of Country One and began floating around the room helping lead groups through various questions and ideas. When I went to the Western Security Organization group, I noticed they were a bit confused. I asked them if they understood their world view and quickly realized they did not, so I slowly walked them through the description of their view (“what is a realist? What do realists believe about other countries?” to which Student C responded “they don’t like working with other countries.” “why?” I said. “Because they don’t trust other countries to keep their promises.” Said Student C. “Yes!” I said, “so if you’re a Western group, and this country has a weak democratic system, weak economic profile, and is only sort of pro-Western, do you think this country will follow up on their promises to use your money the way they say they will?”) This exercise was a bit challenging for some students, but I was enthused by how easy it was to ask a few questions that got them debating amongst each other – it felt like once I steered them in the right direction, one or two students from each group could pick up my line of thinking and really start running with it. We went through each of the five hypothetical countries and had each group present its view and subsequent policy. Then, we wrote on the board how much aid each group would be giving each respective country, as well as the specific type of aid they would be awarding. At the end, we did a big debrief with the students and asked them what qualities made certain countries more attractive than others (students noted that they were more keen to award aid when the country had strong democratic institutions, oil, and potential for alliance). This session was very successful and was a super fun simulation that I think got all of the students engaged very meaningfully.

---

Session 3: 0686 The Human Security Agenda – How Secure Are You?
Focus Questions: How secure are you? What elements of national security do you have personal connections to?
 
Off the bat, we knew this class would pose a challenge since the teacher, Mrs. Torres, was out sick and the substitute was not informed we’d be showing up. However, we quickly took control of the class and began with our lesson plan. To begin, we reintroduced ourselves to the students, explained our goals for the day, and then opened the lesson with a video about the different types of security and the degrees to which one may feel secure or insecure. When we broke the students up into groups to discuss and complete the worksheet (filling in the table and spectrum), one group of girls called me over to ask a question. They were unsure of what “community” security was – while previously in the lesson I’d mentioned that gentrification would be an example of something that poses a threat to community security, I wanted to give a fresh example that would be more demonstrative of the concept. I said “okay well growing up, I went to church with my family. Being from a Native community, everyone at my church was also Native. If the government said I was no longer able to congregate at church with my community, that would be a threat to our community security.” Student A said “Oh I go to church with my family too! Our church is all people from our neighborhood, so if I couldn’t do that, that would be violating our community’s security?” “Yes!” I said, “If you weren’t allowed to enjoy that community space, your community itself would lack security.” This example took a while to explain and really tease out, but by the end, not only was I laughing and chatting with the girls about their community and experiences with it, I was also confident that they understood the concept. 
 
Next, we wrote the rankings of the various types of security on the board. To do this, we had groups come up with hierarchies of the types of security from most important to least important. One group of boys in the back was having a particularly interesting discussion that I was keen to stoke with further questions – student B said “no if people don’t have money, they can’t do anything. Economic security is the most important.” Student C said “but I feel like it has to be health?” to which Student B laughed at him for saying. “Well, if everyone is sick and weak, how can they make money?” I said. Student C immediately perked up “see!” he said. “Well,” I replied, “on the same vein, how do you pay for healthcare without a functioning economy? And even if everyone is healthy, what if they can’t make a minimum wage? What does that do to their quality of life?” Student B and C both lit up and jumped into a friendly, but passionate, debate with each other about the merits of each type of security. Asking those questions, in my opinion, was one of the best ways I’ve communicated a point thusfar in TIRP. In the end, economic and health security both ranked quite high on the students overall rankings, with environmental and political falling closer to the bottom. While the session was a bit hard since the primary teacher wasn’t there, I think we did the best we could and led a pretty successful class.

---

Session 4: 0286 NPR -- Jordan Accused of Harboring Sweatshop Factories
Focus Questions: How do NGOs and states interact to achieve shared policy goals? How do countries, private businesses, and NGOs influence the global political economy?
 
I was so pleasantly surprised by how well our fourth and final session of TIRP went. We jumped straight into the activity by passing out the papers and then playing the NPR audio for the students to follow along with. From there, we went through each of the discussion questions with the class and were able to foster some really great discussion. While the first question was quite obvious and thus was answered quickly, I got very excited when I posed question 2: “At line 7, the report cites that the 110 factories there in Jordan “produce duty-free and quota-free clothing for the U.S. market.”  This means that the U.S. government has no _____ policies against these Jordanian textile imports.” Much quicker than I was expecting, Student A said “protectionist,” to which I said “yes! Why would we say that the policy the US lacks is a protectionist one?” and Student A said “well it says 110 factories are producing clothing for the US, and if the US is taking that clothing and people are buying it, that means domestic workers aren’t being protected.” This gave Mia, Tia, and I a great example for a topic we felt was imperative to discuss: the race to the bottom. Using the example of competing lemonade stands, Mia and I simulated a race to the bottom by saying that Mia was selling lemonade for $5, but that I moved my lemonade stand right next to hers and was selling mine for only $3. We asked “whose lemonade would you buy?” to which a majority of students in the class responded “yours,” and then when I said “and so what is Mia going to do now that I’m taking all of her business?” to which two students, at the same time, said “make hers $2.” This example worked great and really landed with students, which I was happy about because the race to the bottom is an economic phenomenon I was unfamiliar with prior to college, so it was fun to be able to teach these high schoolers about such an important challenge within the global economy.
 
After going through the first part of the activity, Mia introduced the simulation, in which we broke students into seven groups and gave each group either a country or NGO to research and represent. We floated around the room helping groups understand their position – during this time, Student B, who was in the US group, asked me what I thought their group should do. I said “well as the US, you have the most money and power, so your possibilities are probably the most limitless.” Student B then said “could we just give some money to another group and tell them to deal with this [labor rights issues] to which Student C, in that same group, responded “no! we have to make a real policy.” I quickly jumped in and explained that while clear, detailed, globally-facing policy is great, the US has a lot of priorities that they have to balance, and that sometimes the government will choose to pay people or groups to solve some of the problems facing the nation in order to alleviate the load on policymakers plates. “Imagine you have a big garden that’s grown a lot of weeds. You could go out there yourself and pull out the weeds, plow the soil, and plant new flowers and fruits and such… or you could hire a gardener… what are some pros and cons to each of these ideas?” I said. The students then debated this hypothetical; some responses were “it’d be cheaper to do it yourself…” and “yeah but I bet a gardener would do it faster…” After the group had debated a while, I swapped out my hypothetical for the example of working with an NGO – “with groups like these,” I explained, “their only job is to solve labor rights issues and they’re probably going to be better and more efficient than the US government…” “but we’d have to pay for that” said Student C, to which I said “yes, you would. Is that worth it to you?” I left the group with that thought and watched them continue to debate amongst themselves.
 
After working with another group who was focused on using the NGO to promote cooperation between countries to set a “price floor” (a particularly innovative policy solution that I was quick to applaud the groups for coming up with), and then debriefing the activity with the class at-large, Mia, Tia and I answered some questions the students had about college. In the end, today was a very successful culmination of four weeks of hard work.