Period 4 - Julia Kempf

[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: 4/6
Total: 13/15
Comments: Great report Julia! I am glad to see your implementation of the ethics dilemma. You have also included two great student specific example. However, you need three student specific example to score full points. Remember to add what student C did. Otherwise, good job! -- OL 11/3

Session #2 report
On time: 0/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 5/6
Total: 11/15
Comments: Thank you for your report. Remember to put the session material and focus question in your report next time. Good report on the one-child policy lesson. Again, as mentioned above, please have a third student specific comment to score full point on that. -- OL 11/3

Session #3 report
On time: 1/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 3/6
Total: 10/15
Comments: Thank you for your report. It is very substantive and I love reading how you use the NPR case to encourage discussion about homelessness. Although you included student A's response and some other students' responses, we want two more student specific examples. Anyway, thank you for your service and lessons! -- OL 11/10

[Julia Kempf]

Session 1 Materials: Three Ethical Perspectives
Focus Question: How does a deeper understanding of various ethical principles and perspectives impact our ethical decision-making?

In our first session, our small group of around 10 students embarked on an exploration of ethics. To kick things off, we asked students to share their immediate thoughts upon hearing the words "ethics" or "morals." Their responses typically revolved around notions of "being a good person" or "doing what is right." We drew a connection to the popular TV series "The Good Place," which a few students had seen, as it provides a notable example of moral philosophy in action.

Following this introduction, we dove into a classic ethical thought experiment known as the "trolley problem." We presented Scenario A, where participants must decide whether to pull a lever to sacrifice one person to save five others. Surprisingly, every student expressed a willingness to pull the lever, prioritizing saving more lives. However, when we presented Trolley Scenario B, which involved pushing a large man to stop the trolley, the students unanimously rejected this action. One student, Student A, notably defended the action, arguing that it was logical to sacrifice one to save five because it maximized overall utility.

We then introduced a different ethical scenario, the transplant case. In this scenario, a doctor faces the ethical dilemma of whether to kill one healthy person to use their organs to save five others. Students formed small groups to discuss this complex issue, and their responses varied. Student B pointed out that this decision involved a deliberate series of surgeries and that the doctor's involvement in the one person's death would be more significant. They also emphasized the importance of trust in professionals like doctors and brought up the Hippocratic oath as a relevant ethical framework.

Subsequently, we introduced the three major ethical perspectives: utilitarianism, rules-based ethics, and virtue-based ethics. We provided clear definitions and distributed DEPPP charts to help students organize their thoughts and take notes on an upcoming case study. We then applied these concepts to the Holmes case study and asked students to identify which ethical perspective guided their decision-making. After a group discussion, students had differing opinions on whether Holmes was morally justified, and follow-up questions, such as the appropriateness of his sentencing, added further nuance to the debate.

To conclude the session, we emphasized the complexity of ethical issues and the absence of a single correct perspective. We conducted a vote among the students to determine which ethical perspective resonated most with them in their daily lives, with some leaning towards rules-based ethics, others towards virtue ethics, and none choosing utilitarian ethics.

[Julia Kempf]

In our second session, we explored the intricate process of ethical decision-making, focusing on the delicate balance that governments must strike between competing values. To begin, we conducted a review of our previous session, prompting students to recall the three ethical perspectives we had previously discussed and recollect some of the case studies we had examined.
To introduce the concept of competing moral values, we presented two thought-provoking scenarios. In Scenario A, students were confronted with a dilemma: whether or not to inform their internship boss about a friend's plagiarized application. Initially, most students were uncertain, with the majority leaning toward remaining quiet. However, Student A suggested a different approach, proposing to use the situation as an educational opportunity to help their friend understand the ethical implications of plagiarism and encourage originality in their work. In the subsequent discussion of the same scenario, which took place months later after the company had implemented a rigorous anti-plagiarism campaign, the students' stance shifted. Now, most of them chose to continue staying silent, influenced by concerns about potential repercussions for themselves and their friend, particularly in terms of potential judgment from their boss.
To provide students with a visual representation of competing values, we introduced a continuum displayed on the board. This visual aid depicted the trade-offs between pairs of values, such as truth vs. loyalty, individual vs. community, and others. We also distributed a "Right vs. Right" handout, enabling students to review the three ethical perspectives and offering them a visual guide for resolving ethical dilemmas.
Our discussion then transitioned to the case of China's One Child Policy, a real-world example that highlighted the complexities of government decisions. We explained the context of overpopulation in China and outlined the history of the policy, eliciting initial reactions from students. Student B, for instance, expressed concerns about the policy as a violation of personal rights, emphasizing the sanctity of the family as a private space immune to government interference.
In the culminating activity, students were divided into small groups and given the "Taking Sides" handout. Their task was to place dots on a continuum to indicate where they believed both the Chinese government and the United States government stood on various value continua, with a focus on the One Child Policy. Each group then presented their perspectives on the board, with "China" and "U.S." dots reflecting differing viewpoints. After this exercise, students collectively observed that, on nearly every continuum, both nations had dots scattered across the entire range, illustrating the complexity and diversity of perspectives. We invited groups to explain the rationale behind their placements, providing additional insights as needed.
In conclusion, the session successfully engaged students in exploring the intricacies of ethical decision-making in government, drawing on real-world examples and interactive activities to encourage critical thinking and discussions.

[Julia Kempf]

Session 3: Community Involvement and Civic Engagement
Focus Question: What does civic duty mean, and what is civic virtue?
In this session, we seamlessly integrated content and lessons from two different guides. We commenced by revisiting the previous week's discussion on the One Child Policy and the concept of competing values. This served as a foundation for our exploration of civic involvement and civic duty.
Our session featured a thought-provoking NPR recording titled "Trying Not to Break Down." This recording shared the personal story of Cayden, a middle schooler navigating life while residing in a homeless shelter. The emotional impact of Cayden's story was palpable among the students. For instance, Student A empathized with Cayden, considering that Cayden was even younger than himself and yet faced the challenge of self-sufficiency.
Prompting students with reflective questions, we encouraged them to ponder Cayden's situation, potential causes of his homelessness, and the systems in place to support individuals like him. Students raised important points, including the role of social services and the foster care system in addressing child homelessness. We engaged the students in a group activity where they used a handout related to Cayden's story to identify political, economic, social, and cultural factors influencing his circumstances. Examples from students highlighted economic factors such as landlords and the housing market, political factors like local homeless policies and government funding, and social factors such as public perceptions of homelessness in the community.
Transitioning to a discussion on community involvement, we introduced and defined the concept for the students. This led to the exploration of a "Civic Duty" handout with a continuum ranging from social to political activities. The students were tasked with placing various communal activities along this continuum based on their social or political nature. For example, activities like "planting a tree" and "displaying a political campaign placard on your lawn" found themselves at opposite ends of the spectrum. Although initially a bit confusing, students had the opportunity to seek clarification, and in the end, the objective of the activity became clear. The discussion also highlighted that some activities fell in the middle of the social-political continuum, representing what we termed as "development" initiatives – actions with both social and political elements, aimed at driving policy change and progress.
As we wrapped up the session, we underscored the message that every action matters and encouraged students to identify which type of community engagement, whether social, political, or a combination of both, resonated most with them. To conclude, we prompted students to reflect on the past few weeks and share their most significant takeaway regarding ethics and human rights. The student's response, highlighting the importance of personal values and voices in everyday ethical and human rights matters, particularly resonated with us.