Period 4 - Justin Virk

[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: Amazing report Justin! Love that it is very substantive with the way you use the material and it is packed with student specific examples! Great job! -- OL 11/10

Session #2 report
On time: 3/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 15/15
Comments: Thank you for your amazing report! I love the way you introduce the One Child Policy to the class and all the student specific comments. Good job! -- OL 11/10

Session #3 report
On time: 3/3
Substantive: 6/6
Student specifics: 6/6
Total: 15/15
Comments: Another amazing report! Great substantive report on the NPR case with student specific examples. Thank you for your service and lessons this semester! -- OL 11/10

[Justin Virk]

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 Materials: Three Ethical Perspectives 
Focus Question: How is our ethical decision-making influenced by a better understanding of different, competing ethical principles and perspectives?

To explore our focus question and introduce our topic during this first session, my team began with a brief overview of the study of ethics. For context, our session was fairly small due to students receiving student pictures that day, so we had only about 10 students. We asked students what they thought of immediately when they heard the words “ethics” or “morals,” and they responded with phrases such as “being a good person” or “doing what is right.” I referenced the TV series “The Good Place,” which a few students said they had seen, as it is a substantial pop culture example a moral philosophy professor employing the lessons of ethics.

From there, we began the activity, starting with the infamous “trolley problem”. We discussed the deep roots of the trolley problem (Scenario A) as a centuries-old thought experiment and proposed the general format. After we asked the class “would you pull the lever to kill the one person and save the five?”, every single one of them said that they would, in order to save the most people possible. When we proposed Trolley Scenario B, in which you push a large man to stop the trolley, the students now had a very strong consensus against pushing the man. However, when we asked who supported the action, one student--Student A--did raise his hand and claim that pushing the large man is justified. Just like in the last scenario—he claimed—we should do the most logical thing and kill one to save the five because “it helps the most people.”

We then introduced the transplant case, in which a doctor has the option to kill one healthy person to use their organs to save five others. We allowed students the opportunity to break into groups of three to discuss the dilemma, and then asked for responses. Student B mentioned that, unlike the previous examples of a split-second decision, this decision by the doctor would be executed through a deliberate series of surgeries, and the doctor would be much more implicated in the one person’s death. This student, along with others, also claimed that the doctor is a trusted professional, and cannot intentionally hurt someone. At this point, we mentioned the Hippocratic oath, and showed how rules and regulations like that are a key factor in ethics.

At this point, we introduced the three ethical perspectives: utilitarianism, rules based ethics, and virtue-based ethics. We defined the three areas, and handed out a DEPPP chart to the students which organized the ideas, and enabled them to take notes on the upcoming case. We used these concepts for the final case—the Holmes case—and told students to look out for examples of the ethical perspectives in the reading. After a popcorn reading of the text, we broke students into groups of three to decide whether or not Holmes was justified, and what ethical perspective was guiding their decision. In the end, students had differing perspectives on whether or not he was morally right, and we even further nuanced the situation with followup questions, such as: Was Holmes right in how he decided who would die? Was his sentence of  3 years and fine of $20 fitting? Student C argued that, given the 1% chance of survival that Holmes and the others faced, he was mostly justified in what he did and that the sentence should be reduced to one year. The student did believe, however, that a punishment was still necessary in order to follow the law around manslaughter.

To wrap up the lesson, we reminded the students that these were complex ethical issues with no one correct perspective. We took a vote among them to decide which ethical perspective guided them the most in their day to day lives. I believe three or four of the students picked rules based ethics, six picked virtue ethics, and none picked utilitarian ethics

[Justin Virk]

Session 2 Materials: Taking Sides and Finding Balance: China’s One Child Policy[/font][/color]
Focus Question: How do governments find a balance between competing values when trying to make ethical decisions?[/font][/color]

In this session, my team and I used the case study of China’s One Child Policy to discuss the idea of competing moral values. We began the session with a review of the previous session, during which I asked the students review questions about the three ethical perspectives we had previously discussed. I also asked the students to recall some of the case studies from the previous session. 

We then began discussing two cases to begin introducing the concept of competing values. In Scenario A, we presented the students with the dilemma of whether or not to inform an internship boss that your friend’s application was plagiarized. A few students were unsure, but the majority of them said they would remain quiet. Student A stated that he would use the dilemma as a teaching moment to help his friend better understand the dangers of plagiarism, and help the friend learn to write more originally. We went over a second scenario, taking place months later, which essentially asked if you would continue not to speak out even after the company gave a firm anti-plagiarism campaign. All students now stated they would not speak out now. Student A felt this way because their friend and them would both suffer from judgment from their boss since they did not mention it sooner.

From here, we first introduced the continuum of competing values with a visual aid on the board, showing the trade-off between these pairs of values(truth vs. loyalty, individual vs. community, etc.). We also distributed the “Right vs. Right” handout so that students could review the three ethical perspectives and have a visual guide to the lenses used to resolve ethical dilemmas. We then transitioned into the case of China’s One Child Policy. We explained the circumstances of overpopulation in China, and then began outlining the history of the policy. We began gauging student response by asking for their initial reactions. Student B stated that this was a violation of personal rights since the family is a private space, and the government cannot monitor reproduction. 

For our last main activity, we handed out the “Taking Sides” handout and split the students into groups of 3-4. We then asked students to place where they believed the Chinese government and United States government would both belong on each continuum. We asked them to mostly consider the One Child Policy for the purposes of this discussion, but that other knowledge of Chinese government policy could also be applied. After students made these dot placements on their handouts, we had each group come to the board, where we had drawn the continuums. Each group placed all of their dots with their group numbers on the board to show to the class the differing perspectives of the groups. We asked students to make some observations of trends on the board. Student C noticed that, on almost every continuum, dots for both nations were scattered across virtually the entire continuum. For each continuum, there were “China” dots on both ends, and “U.S.” dots on both ends as well. We then asked some groups to explain the rationale behind some of their placements, and we provided some clarifying details on Chinese and US government policy as needed. We concluded with a review of concepts and terms, and allowed the students an opportunity to ask any general questions about the topics and cases. A few students did participate here, but most of them already had a solid understanding of all the activities.

[Justin Virk]

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 3 Materials: Community Involvement and Civic Engagement: Every deed makes a difference; Trying Not to Break Down – A homeless teen navigates middle school
Focus Question: What is your civic duty? And what is civic virtue?
 
In this session, we combined the materials & lessons from the two guides listed above. As usual, we began with a brief review of last week’s session, reminding students of the One Child Policy and the idea of competing values. From there, we presented students with the NPR recording for the “Trying Not to Break Down” lesson. After this recording, in which middle schooler Cayden describes his experience attending middle school while living in a homeless shelter, the students had very genuine, immediate reactions. Student A described how the story hit hard since Cayden was even younger than him, yet Cayden was somewhat forced to make his way on his own. We also prompted students with some thinking questions. We asked what they thought of Cayden’s situation, what factors may have led to his homelessness, and what systems were in place to help people like Cayden. Students brought up social services and the foster system as means to address issues like child homelessness. We then engaged in a group activity, asking students to use the “Trying not to Break Down” handout to list political, economic, social, and cultural factors that affected Cayden’s situation. Examples from students included the landlord & housing market as economic factors, local homeless policy and government funding as political factors, and more. Student B mentioned how public view of the homeless in a local area—antagonism vs. sympathy—was a significant social factor that would influence the treatment of Cayden and his family
 
From there, we transitioned into a discussion of community involvement. We briefly introduced and defined what we meant by “Community Involvement,” and then transitioned into the “Civic Duty” handout. This handout had a continuum ranging from social to political, and we instructed students to place a variety of communal activities along the continuum based on how social or political they are. For example, they placed “planting a tree” and “putting a political campaign placard on your lawn” along the continuum on opposite ends. This was certainly a bit of a confusing activity for the students, but we made sure to be available to answer their questions as needed, and in the end, were able to clarify the activity’s objective. As the activity concluded, we discussed how some activities laid in the middle of the social-political continuum. We described these as “development” initiatives, meaning they were somewhat social, but also aimed in the direction of policy change & progress.
 
We concluded by emphasizing how every deed makes a difference, and how the students should find which type of community engagement(social, political, or both) would be the most fulfilling for them. As we wrapped up the session, we asked the students to reflect on the past few weeks and let us know what their biggest takeaway was regarding ethics and human rights. A solid few students engaged with the question, and Student C’s answer particularly struck me. He explained his takeaway was that his morals and values matter, and that his voice matters in day-to-day examples of ethics and human rights.