Period 5 - Joshua Hwang

[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: NPR: Out of a Nigerian Slum, a Poet Is Born + Four Worlds
- On time 3/3
- Substantive 6/6
- Student specific 3/6
Comments: Awesome first report, Joshua! I really enjoyed your detailed explanation of the flow of the lesson, which truly demonstrates your understanding of the material. I would encourage you to include specific student’s responses (Student A/B/C) throughout different parts of the report to show participation throughout the whole lesson, but overall great job!

LY 11/2

Session 2:
- On time 3/3
- Substantive 5/6
- Student specific 3/6
Comments: Hi Joshua, I really enjoyed reading your report! you provided a very detailed account of how the session went, as well as explanations on situations that didn't go as planned. I'm still looking forward to seeing more specific reactions from students, such as their response of specific questions, how they reacted to certain activities etc. We ask volunteers to mention student A, B & C in their reports, so that we could have a better idea of how the students understand the contents.

LY 11/7

Session 3:
- On time 3/3
- Substantive 6/6
- Student specific 6/6
Comments: Great report as always, Joshua. I appreciated how you guys overcame the challenges with engagement, and put out your best effort demonstrating the activities to students. Excellent work!
LY 11/14

Session 4: NYT:
- On time -/3
- Substantive -/6
- Student specific -/6
Comments:

[Joshua Hwang]

Joshua Hwang
TIRP - Gloria Hernandez Period 5 - Session 1
Causes of War
October 29, 2023

Session 1 materials: NPR: Out of a Nigerian Slum, a Poet Is Born + Four Worlds

Focus Question: How do problems like government mismanagement and public dissatisfaction first arise? How do these problems develop into factors of violence (both domestic and foreign)?*

*Note: Given the impromptu nature of our teaching this week, the above focus question is not from the TAP form. 

We used the four worlds framework to break down the NPR article "Out of a Nigerian Slum, a Poet Is Born". Before delving into the more concrete "factors of war" (e.g. drive for natural resources, irredentism, etc.), it was decided that establishing a more fundamental understanding of conflict was necessary. To do this, an article about Nigeria was selected for students to read through. We had students read through the article by themselves for a few minutes before dividing them up into groups based on each category of the Four Worlds (around six to eight people per group). Two Think-Group-Share sessions were used as the basis for our class. 

Before actually discussing the Four Worlds, however, we solidified their understanding of the actual article by having them answer questions on the reading itself. Some were considerably easier than others (e.g. how metaphor was used in the article), while others required significant support from both ourselves and the faculty (e.g. how the international community might effectively come to the aid of Nigeria). We made an effort to walk around the classroom checking in on progress (usually once or twice for each group throughout). A teaching assistant in the classroom, in addition to Ms. Hernandez herself, also talked to students in their groups. 

Following a discussion on the questions, we moved onto our second Think-Group-Share session, based on the Four Worlds. We briefly checked that they had an understanding of the Four Worlds before asking them to rank each of their respective category's "factors" based on how present they were/how much of a priority they appeared to be in Nigeria. We then asked them to duplicate this ranking for the United States adjacent to the ranking for Nigeria. We hoped that by comparing two societies with drastically different indices of peace/stability, the factors of war would begin to emerge. 

A major concept that came up during the class was the "resource curse," identified as the paradox of plenty in the article. We stressed how resource mismanagement, and corruption as a larger force, often becomes a destabilizing contributor to conflict/violence. 

Students reacted fairly positively, though there were moments where participation died down. Most of the more valuable comments/questions/answers I received were during the ranking activity, though not exclusively: 

"I put 'mobility' higher for the USA because I think there's more of an opportunity here to become rich."
"I put 'infrastructure' low for Nigeria because the article mentions power outages." 
"Foreign aid, lots of investment, free elections..." (in response to the question on how the international community can help Nigeria)

They used the analytical tool well, making inferences (with help) such as ranking equity based on previously established rank for mobility. Though I was generally very satisfied with our first lesson, it did make me reconsider how we should approach future lessons. I think any significant portion of the class spent lecturing would be highly inefficient, so activities that sought to define certain concepts as an end goal as opposed to skipping over them with the assumption that everyone understood them would be important. For instance, instead of moving straight on to factors of war, perhaps a class spent discussing topic like nationalism, patriotism, or xenophobia, would be wise. 

Word count: 600

[Joshua Hwang]

Joshua Hwang 
TIRP - Gloria Hernandez Period 5 - Session 2 
Causes of War 
November 2, 2023 

Session 2 materials: Causes of War (Basic Factors), Name that Tune! Distinguishing Levels of Analysis in US Foreign Policy Making

Question: What are the usual circumstances for the onset of violent conflict? How do leaders' individual behaviors, state problems, and international forces interact to give rise to these circumstances? 

We began this session with introducing the causes of war, categorized into the three levels of analysis. We introduced a few key terms (as we did paradox of plenty/resource curse last week) before they began the discussion. This was surprisingly engaging, as students were eager to try to explain terms that did appear somewhat familiar, like anarchy; one particular student offered their definition of what anarchy usually meant (in a domestic context), which helped in our explanation of how such applies to the international system. 

We then divided the class into three groups and led them through popcorn reading of the individual entries in the Name that Tune! activity, starting with North Korea. Individual students were asked to read around two to three sentences before saying "popcorn" and then pass the baton to another, who would continue where the other student left off. This helped keep students on their feet and paying attention to where they were at, though we did find that some terms were a bit difficult and caused students to stumble. We intervened when this happened and guided them through it. After every "entry" (e.g. section a for the North Korea Name that Tune! activity), we asked if students had any questions and reviewed specific terms that came up in that particular section. For instance, we explained the concept of nuclear proliferation and NPT, as these featured prominently throughout the activity. 

We continued this activity until a, b, and c for one international crisis was complete. Then, we assigned one of the three sections to each group, and asked them to discuss to determine which level of analysis was most prominent based on the factors listed; we encouraged students to treat the listed factors as a "word/concept bank", and then highlight/circle relevant terms and phrases in their assigned entries. The decision to slightly modify this part of the activity was largely due to time constraints/perception of difficulty; we expected that trying to do a, b, and c all at the same time would be a bit challenging for the students given the large amount of reading. We walked around the classroom (one person per group) to help facilitate the discussion. After around six minutes of sharing, we asked students to circle back and provide their answer and rationale. This went fairly smoothly, as we had helped students reach conclusions beforehand. One student provided a pretty strong answer for section a for North Korea, pointing out the references to other states as their reasoning for identifying it as "Systemic / International". 

We repeated this activity for Iraq, but ultimately skipped Iran due to time constraints. We also provided a brief update on what the situation in each country looked like now, as we felt that some of the texts were a bit outdated. 

Students reacted positively, and I did feel that popcorn reading/being more proactive with walking around the classroom helped force more engagement. However, we still encountered difficulty with some students being off-task or not participating. Popcorn reading was also a bit disjointed at the beginning, though it grew smoother throughout the activity. 

I felt they used the analytic tool well given that the basis for the activity was taking from it; they regularly referred back to the "word bank" when working through an activity, though sometimes only after our encouragement. I think doing multiple country analyses was helped in this respect because it pushed them to work with different levels as well; instead of just thinking within a narrow individual context or a broad systemic/international one, they were asked to be flexible and think of how both could come into play.

That being said, there was definitely room for improvement. Engagement is still somewhat lacking and so we will have to experiment with activities that are more creative; perhaps something structured like a game/quiz show. I also felt that time became a hindrance. Though we had initially planned for a "circle back" time for a question like "Which of the three levels of analysis do you feel is most prevalent or influential?", we were ultimately unable to do this due to time constraints. I think having a nice "wrap up" moment after our activity is critical, and we should make more of an effort to include it moving forward. 

Word Count: 713

[Joshua Hwang]

Joshua Hwang
TIRP - Gloria Hernandez Period 5 - Session 3
Causes of War November 9, 2023 
Session 3 materials: World War II: Quoting the Causes, World War II - Making a Statement

Focus Question: What are the usual circumstances for the onset of violent conflict? How do leaders' individual behaviors, state problems, and international forces interact to give rise to these circumstances?

We began this session by showing a brief video about the start of World War II. In reality it was a longer video about the various important events/figures, but we decided to cut it short because 1) the video in its original form was too long at just over ten minutes and 2) we were hoping to discuss the causes of war as opposed to its features or provide a general history lesson. We proceeded to briefly recap the video (what happened, who were the Allies/Axis) and then reviewed the levels of analysis that we have been using for the last two weeks. This was particularly important because unlike in last week's handout, we were now dealing with four levels as opposed to three (global/systemic were divided into levels three and four). We encouraged students to consider them as one just for the purposes of today's activity. 

We also reviewed some difficult terms that we came across in the framework part of the activity, including "anarchy" (as it refers to international relations), bounded rationality, and political culture. We ran into some challenges here with participation, but were able to get past it by using real life examples (e.g. what happens if you break a school rule vs. what happens when a state acts in violation of customary/codified international law to explain anarchy). Responses once we did this were fairly positive. 

As today's activity was a bit difficult, we decided to do one activity as a group in front of the whole class. We conducted a brief popcorn reading session of the quote from Joseph Stalin (also reviewing who Stalin was). We then encouraged students to use the levels as a "word bank" for certain key phrases that appeared in the quote. Though initially participation was a bit slow, Student A eventually responded by pointing out the mention of "capitalist countries" in the quote. This helped us link the answer to national attributes, which we then linked to "economic system" in particular. We then divided the class into three groups and led them through two quotes each, with one TIRP member per group. We approached each quote in a similar way, often starting by explaining who the figure was (this was needed with people like Cordell Hull or Arita) and what "faction" they belonged to. This was a way for us to identify what their interests were in the war. then, we walked them through looking for specific buzzwords that might link back to a certain level of analysis. A moment of breakthrough in my group was for the quote from Minister Arita, when Student B stated how a mention of "free trade" implied the presence of multiple countries, thus rendering the quote a systemic/global one. Another student showed impressive knowledge (or intuition) when they identified Mussolini's Blackshirts as a military group. 

At the end of our time, we regrouped and reviewed each quote and filled out every box. 

I think use of the analytical tool is getting better with each week, which is encouraging. Now that students are familiar with it, they are used to looking for certain phrases and linking them back to a level of analysis. Still, I am hoping to improve participation, especially when we are together as a group. I have found that students are usually more willing to speak when in a small group, but then choose not to after we circle back for large group contributions. One of our team noted that building a rapport (with conversation) before delving into the matter at hand helped encourage productivity, which might be a good way to approach our next and final session. 

Word Count: 606

[Joshua Hwang]

Joshua Hwang
TIRP - Gloria Hernandez Period 5 - Session 4
Causes of War
November 16th, 2023

Session 4 materials: Vox article on the War in Ukraine + Levels of Analysis 

Focus Question: How do problems like government mismanagement and public dissatisfaction first arise? How do these problems develop into factors of violence (both domestic and foreign)?*

My apologies for the delay. 

We began the session by asking if anyone had heard of the conflict in Ukraine (which most had) and showing a Vox explainer video on the war in Ukraine, which went deep into the history of the late Soviet Union in order to explain the modern West-Russia relationship and what exactly motivated Russia to go to war. It also briefly examined Putin and the wording of his speech justifying Russian intervention. 

The video was a little heavy, so we did a bit of a check-in afterwards to see if everyone had been up to date on the conflict, and if they understood some of the concepts introduced in the video. We then divided into three groups to take on the Levels of Analysis article in a closer setting. Each TIRP member took on one group, and we conducted a brief review of the video (by going over the transcript). We sought to define specific terms like NATO, and explained the factors of the Cold War. Some of the questions in the activity were fairly simple (like when did Ukraine gain independence) which served as a good segue into explaining the circumstances of the collapse of the Soviet Union. One student, Student A, actually seemed somewhat familiar with the Soviet sphere of influence/historical power and was able to explain their thoughts on how Russia wanted to "be like the Soviet Union". 

When explaining concepts like sovereignty and self-determination, I tried to integrate concepts I had known had been covered by the teacher in her class-- specifically, the Haitian Revolution and struggle for independence from France. By connecting Haiti's desire to stake out and preserve a postcolonial identity separate from France to Ukraine and its own post-Soviet history, I think I was able to reach students a little better. One student (Student B) in particular was able to identify that sovereignty was often tied to independence. Another student, Student C, compared Putin to other autocratic leaders we have looked at in previous levels of analysis activities, which helped bring up justification for "individual" level of analysis. 

We ultimately ended with circling back and sharing group answers. We took a somewhat looser approach to some questions, specifically the one which asked to identify the most prominent level of analysis at play in Ukraine (we instead sought to provide rationale for why all three levels might fit). 

I do feel that this was our smoothest and most well-executed session of the four, as we brought a pretty tight curriculum with little room for error/sidetracking to begin with; I will be applying this experience in future lessons should the occasion ever arise.