Period 1 - Julianna Ma

[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: 3/6
Total: 12/15

Comments: Thanks for your detailed reflection on how students engaged with the material! Please take care to properly format your student specifics. You did a great job discussing individual students' contributions to the discussions, just please make sure to report them as Students A, B, and C. For instance, "Student A pointed out that freedom of belief and religion is the same as our first amendment". I really appreciate your discussion of strategies to tailor future sessions to the class structure and look forward to hearing how these changes go. Please also make sure to paste without formatting (CTRL-SHIFT-V) to avoid the HTML tags in your text.

-- AW 10/5

Session 2 materials: Blood, Bones, and Organs “Red Market”; Two Worlds that Protect & Serve; 4W of IR worksheet
Focus Q: How do political or social organizations protect or threaten human rights globally?

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 11/1

Session 3 materials: Every Deed Makes a Difference Continuum; Remarks on Trayvon Martin by President Obama
Focus Q: What is Civic Engagement and Why is it important? What can your role be in civil society?

On time: 1/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 13/15

Comments: Nice job using technology and navigating through your bumps! I admire the way you improvised when your itinerary didn’t go exactly as planned. Thanks for getting your reflection in a bit earlier, but please try to submit it within 3 days. Thanks for taking the time to talk about specific students!

–AS 11/1

Session 4: Taking Sides & Finding Balance: China’s One Child Policy; Three Ethical Perspectives--Introduction
Focus ?: How do ethics motivate decisions? What are the trade-offs in policies like the one-child policy?

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

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

–AS 11/1

[Julianna Ma]

Session 1 materials: Human Rights Bingo; UDHR vs. Constitution Amendments
Focus Q: What are human rights? How was intuition different from or similar to legal frameworks?                                                                                                                                                                

We started with the UNICEF explanation of human rights excerpt individually where they scanned the text while students were filing in. Then we moved onto our warm-up: human rights bingo. Our goal was to gauge their understanding of human rights, and which topics they were more interested in. Students were unsure of discussing, because they usually do self-directed courses online, rather than as a class. We gave examples we had thought of to try to narrow down the task we placed on them. Then, student A asked about “rights sometimes denied to women.” After that, we also offered them to choose a random number if they didn’t have specific topic in mind, but in response to that offer, they started voicing ones that they were interested in and had questions about as well. Once the conversation included how protections of children versus limiting children’s autonomy, we started discussing about what decides what is a human right. That transitioned us into the UDHR vs Constitutional Amendments activity. We first revisited the background on human rights blurb, where we just highlighted that all rights are considered equal, legally, and it is more that the upholding/implementation that makes some rights look like privileges.  The students’ chosen squares were mostly in the bottom half, so if the squares were originally ordered by topic, then that would be interesting to look at. They chose ones that are more applicable to them, like children’s rights (student B), ones denied at school (student C), Americans not meeting, but they also chose some that were like, denial of emigration (student B).
                                                                                                           
For the second activity, we first asked which ones on the UDHR were surprising that they were considered basic rights instead of a privilege, and we looked at “Right to rest and leisure” and discussed how that is important for health (freedom from want). After some discussion, we turned to finding similarities or differences between UDHR and US Amendments. Student B pointed out that freedom of belief and religion is the same as our first amendment. We also realized that they didn’t understand the distinction between the UDHR and the US Constitution, so we explained that more in detail (after student A brought it up). We pointed out that each country’s constitution is within their own jurisdiction, while international declarations aren’t always enforceable through legal enforcement, but can be influenced with economics, which can hint at our future classes. The freedom of opinion and information was something they saw on social media. We discussed how that is celebrated, but also how that can be detrimental when it brings harm to others, or opinion suppresses information. We also talked to them about how UN infrastructure starts were basically from America, like where the right to a jury in the US Constitution is in the UDHR. We also put out the question of where is that good for the international community, but where can that be detrimental for the global community? Although not all of them were engaged verbally, they seemed present and actively listening, which isn’t too terrible for the first class.

We want to reframe our other three classes to be less activity freeform, so that we can give more information and sources before having to demand participation. I think maybe we can present first, then do think-pair-share, then have a bigger discussion. That also might help with different starting times, so they can ask their peers for catch-up with us supplementing walking around instead of trying to summarize every time a student arrives.

[Julianna Ma]

Session 2 materials: Blood, Bones, and Organs “Red Market”; Two Worlds that Protect & Serve; 4W of IR worksheet
Focus Q: How do political or social organizations protect or threaten human rights globally?

We started the class with the excerpts from the NPR transcript on the interview with Red Market’s author about kidney-selling in India and cut hair in temples being sold. Then we introduced the Two Worlds in global civil society to them. At the end, we returned back to the case study and looked at it through the 4W of IR worksheet. The wifi permissions caused a slight delay, so next time, we had the other two group members talk and introduce the topic while I can actually take the time to set up wifi and digital aids. We did anticipate that our students would need more warming up before engaging verbally, so that’s why we decided on the transcript first. Student A responded a lot more this second class than in the first class, and that student really started off the conversation after our prompting. Student A was able to summarize the implication that the organ market was extremely dangerous for the community AND that it was because of their financial difficulties in the first place. We also discussed what do they think SHOULD be the process instead for donating organs. Student C discussed the need for it to be voluntary, and that led us into also asking how much does the government need to do to ensure the socioeconomic conditions allow for voluntary versus coerced consent due to desperation. This issue was hard to answer, which helped us segue into the Two Worlds handouts.

We introduced what constitutes the political world (governmental organizations) and that social world were mostly NGOs, but also included a lot of individuals and grassroots organizations that didn’t seem as huge in the playing field. We asked them which aspects of society they wanted to discuss in particular, and student A chose Housing. When we compared political and social actors in that sector, we came across the concept that civil societal measures sometimes are forced to take care of what the government fails at. When nobody else had a suggestion, we quickly went over the human rights sector because that was what we looked at last class, and I saw some more recognition in their eyes. After that, we asked which aspect of society surprised them, and student A pointed to Recreation. We talked about how places like national parks or museums aren’t only for fun, but have an impact on societal development.

After explaining the Two Worlds, we went back to the case study to apply that in the 4W worksheet. Two students in the middle were chatting away, but we kept going without stopping the whole class to call them out. Student B, who had come in later, responded to our question about whether selling human parts could ever be ethical or allowed. Because a lot of governments would try to “solve” the problem by just simply cracking down on the organ harvesting and selling. That student brought up that, well, if the temple asked worshippers coming in for consent to sell their hair, then it can become a regulated market. With prompting from us, our class was able to sometimes explore the nuances in dealing with these weird situations that governments and societies will deal with. Also, we continued a little bit about governments needing to address the root causes of organ brokers exploiting desperation from healthcare costs rather than a “war on terror” type of response.

The concept of political and social world balances in power does still seem somewhat abstract to them even by the end of class, but a lot less abstract than when we started the session. When we were getting close to running out of topics to discuss, I threw a question at the two students in the middle, because it looked like Mr. Stern was becoming very unhappy with them. I asked if they had an opinion in response to something about a point that was brought up (it might’ve been about if they think it’s okay to keep human hair markets going). Overall, the classmates that were present and wide-awake were engaged, if not participating, and I felt their response to the material was insightful and at least introduced this weird global situation to them for the first time. Hopefully when it comes up again for them, it will be a little easier then to learn in-depth about it.

[Julianna Ma]

Session 3 materials: Every Deed Makes a Difference Continuum; Remarks on Trayvon Martin by President Obama
Focus Q: What is Civic Engagement and Why is it important? What can your role be in civil society?

We had to wait for a group member, so we didn’t get to campus until a few minutes before class started. We had a presentation prepared as well, so I took care of setting everything up digitally and asked my groupmates to introduce the topic and context while I took care of that. (It didn’t work out for the speech later because youtube, or that type of video on youtube, was blocked, and none of us nor the teacher expected that). But starting the context simultaneously helped us jump into the handouts once our presentation loaded. We started with the definitions in concepts related to civic duty because we all usually only have a vague understanding when we encounter these words in passing. When I asked if the class knew these terms or concepts, student D shook her head while they all remained silent, so I could base explanations off of her response. Student C started us off with comments on what differences the civic duty, virtues, responsibility, etc had. We then segued into the continuum to give more concrete examples that included the attributes in civic engagement. We first tried to explain the three groups on the continuum, focusing on how the different types are all civic engagement. We thought it was too vague this early in the morning, so we were going to start with the first example, but then student B jumped in and placed an activity listed they chose, showing that maybe they just are more used to processing internally rather than verbally. As we moved through the different letters, we started discussing how an activity could fit in two types of engagement, or all three. Student B found that confusing for the toys for tots example, and we used that to introduce how oftentimes, service/relief civic engagement work fills in the gaps governments leave, out of necessity. Student A pointed to an example that we expanded on about service work informing activism on the other side of the continuum. There was a lot more eye contact from the students this session, so I could tell if they were listening or just chilling out with us, which was fine either way. We got through all of the examples listed at the bottom, which was rewarding mentally. Also, we asked if examples like painting a mural seemed surprising to be considered civic engagement, and student A articulated how a mural can be used to communicate about issues. When we asked if they would choose painting a mural versus an activism pathway of trying to create change, many students nodded yes, showing that they did understand different acts of engagement are all still helpful for civic work.

We didn’t give the context of Trayvon Martin’s case while we were setting up the speech, which may have been a missed opportunity. But we were still able to have a discussion based off of the questions we chose/made and then expanded that discussion into how a lot of systemic problems need multi-pronged approaches. When we asked whether they thought Obama’s suggestion on changing how police react through trainings/lectures was enough, student A responded “no” and expanded that this intervention probably wasn’t enough and that the information on this approach wasn’t transparent nor analytical enough. So we took this intervention and talked about how adding on things like case studies in their mandatory trainings, or accountability, or alternatives in police force tactics could improve it to be a multi-pronged intervention. I did forget to put in the additional prong of having the police be involved in community life more and get to know the people they are serving, so when they become involved in a police case, the police officer will be less stigmatizing against them. It seemed that our follow-up questions were received well, so we will try to keep that part up in the last session.

[Julianna Ma]

Session 4: Taking Sides & Finding Balance: China’s One Child Policy; Three Ethical Perspectives--Introduction
Focus ?: How do ethics motivate decisions? What are the trade-offs in policies like the one-child policy?

We started with looking at the 4 continuums that Pranavi introduced while I tried to figure out the electronics. Also, that helped speed up when we used it for the case study in the second half of class. Then, we started with defining ethics with our presentation. When we asked what came to mind when they thought of the word ethics, Student A in the back row (who was very attentive in the first half of class) responded after calling on him, that his first thought was “google it.” That was exactly what we had on the next slides, so it matched the way of thinking of the person who first made the presentation! That coincidence also helped break the ice some more. So for today’s presentation, I ended up just showing them the trolley picture by walking my laptop around, because the HDMI connection kept spazzing, so it was just flashing way too much. With that example, we asked what motivated their decisions for what to do, and student D said how one was murder and the other was letting manslaughter/murder happen. So that distinction of allowing the disaster to play out or pushing someone into harm’s way also played into our ethical decisions (that was not planned, and added a lot of color to our discussion).

After introducing the notion of examining motivations behind decisions, we introduced the three ethical perspectives of ends-based, rule-based, and care-based. At first, I was going off of the slide’s names, but Pranavi pointed out the names on their handouts, and we stuck with those for continuity. We asked which one they feel they base their decisions off of the most, and not many raised their hands, which led us to ask if they feel they use all three perspectives at once (and almost all of them nodded or raised their hand). That reflected how these perspectives, being based in philosophy, may be too vague or too rigid for real-life. Like how ends-based takes out emotion, making it objective, but society and humans live off of emotion, making it less successful. The discussion was most diverse for this part, before case studies, which was interesting. We then read the case study of the Holmes guy throwing men off of the lifeboat. Student B did indicate he needed more time to read, which indicated he actually read it, and he had the comment that their verdict(manslaughter) was too lenient. Student C brought up how you can’t know how you will react in these extreme situations, and how the relationship to the sacrifices can change your decision. Student C and D agreed that it’s messed up that they chose men who did not have wives right next to them, to throw out into the sea. And I added that this type of situation isn’t left in the past, even though now there are helicopters and coast guard and international rescue efforts and communications. In the South Korean case of the boat-pilot-person leaving behind all the passengers, who were all minors, to escape to safety. Which that can be understandable in such extreme situations, but then he told the high-schoolers to stay put so that he had enough time to get away. And that got all of them saying, no, that is absolutely unacceptably horrid. Student D did ask, why was it coming up again if it happened in 2014, and we commented that it may be due to the trial and other repercussions coming up later, bringing the story up again (helps us understand why media coverage is like that). I also liked the point Student C brought up where: who are you to decide who gets to live and who should die? Even if it is saving the greatest number of people (ends-based). That power trip complicates ethical motivations for decision-making.

For the one-child policy case, I didn’t realize that this super-convoluted situation made my explanation fly over their heads until Student D pointed it out, so we then re-summarized it together, which helped a lot more. They understood the frameworks of three different ethical perspectives and the frameworks of the 4 continuums because they were able to apply it to our case studies. Also, we asked them to not only analyze the first one-child policy, but also the “reform” of allowing for a second child, which they identified as still being ends-based and how that didn’t help with China’s morality reputations because the motivation was still too utilitarian.