Lesson Report:
Title: Ideology in Practice: Classifying Left vs Right and Predicting Policy Preferences
Synopsis: This session concluded the mini-unit on ideology by revisiting a simple left–right framework and applying it to concrete university policy scenarios. Students practiced classifying arguments as left- or right-leaning and began building a question-based system to predict peers’ policy preferences without asking directly. The class also previewed the next unit on the state and assigned a short reading to prepare.
Attendance
– Number of students explicitly mentioned absent: 0
– Notes: Instructor confirmed 14 present during activities; acknowledged an attendance record error for Ekaterina (to be corrected). Reminder issued for students to email any attendance discrepancies. One student (Ivy Qian) entered early for the subsequent section and left.
Topics Covered (Chronological)
1) Orientation and admin
– Framed this as the final online session before returning to in-person next week.
– Agenda: quick review of “ideology,â€� three activities (diagnostic classification quiz; group applications to policies; predictive-question system design), then preview of next unit.
– Attendance admin: Instructor received an email from Ekaterina about an attendance error and will correct it. Asked all students to review attendance grades and email if anything looks off (class size ≈60; errors possible).
2) Quick review: What is ideology?
– Student recap: ideology as a system of ideas, beliefs, and values that tell us how society should work.
– Instructor emphasis:
– Political scientists use ideologies to both explain and predict: if we know a pattern of beliefs, we can make informed predictions about other beliefs a person is likely to hold.
– For today’s simplified framework, the core axis is: prioritizing the common good (left) vs prioritizing personal freedom (right). Acknowledged real-world complexity and gray areas; this is a teaching simplification for applied exercises.
3) Activity 1 (individual, ungraded): Ideology diagnostic via a hypothetical AUCA policy
– Logistics:
– Students accessed a Google Form via eCourse (“Week 3-2 opening questionâ€�). Ungraded; used to gauge understanding and inform later grouping.
– Prompt: AUCA adopts a mandatory 85% attendance rule for all courses; falling below triggers automatic course failure. A sample student response opposes the rule, arguing adult autonomy and outcome-based evaluation.
– Task: Classify the sample response as more left-leaning or right-leaning and explain why. Include AUCA email.
– Instructor clarifications:
– The goal is to classify the sample student’s stance, not to give one’s personal opinion.
– Several students initially shared their own views; the instructor reiterated the classification goal.
– Outcome: 13 responses; majority demonstrated correct left–right distinctions.
4) Activity 2 (groups): Apply left/right to three invented AUCA policies
– Setup:
– Groups created in breakout rooms.
– For each policy, produce two brief responses: a left-leaning student’s likely agreement/disagreement with justification, and a right-leaning student’s stance with justification.
– Policies:
1) Ban the sale of sugary drinks on campus to promote student health (students may still bring drinks from outside).
2) Require 20 hours of community service for graduation.
3) One-strike expulsion policy for any plagiarism offense.
– Group reports and instructor feedback (selected highlights):
– Policy 1: Ban sugary drink sales
– Common left-leaning rationale (agree): Supports public health/common good; university stewardship of student well-being; frames AUCA as a “healthy campus.â€�
– Common right-leaning rationale (disagree): Freedom of choice for adults; the university should not dictate personal consumption preferences.
– Variant arguments:
– One group argued a left-leaning disagreement on morale/energy grounds (keeping students happy and energized is a collective benefit).
– One group posited a right-leaning agreement tied to personal context (e.g., a student with diabetes preferring fewer temptations); instructor encouraged grounding this in principles (freedom/responsibility) rather than emotion/resentment.
– Instructor takeaway: The yes/no is less important than the principle-based justification (common good vs personal freedom).
– Policy 2: 20 hours of community service to graduate
– Typical left-leaning rationale (agree): Builds social responsibility; fosters practical, community-oriented skills; contributes to the common good.
– Typical right-leaning rationale (disagree): Time burden and autonomy concerns; students already juggle coursework, internships, and jobs; oppose mandated service.
– Instructor note: The same left/right principles underpin this debate; no need to belabor for time.
– Policy 3: One-strike expulsion for plagiarism
– Frequent left-leaning rationale (disagree): Punishment is disproportionately harsh; people make mistakes; need education and second chances; overly exclusionary for the group’s well-being.
– Right-leaning rationales (split across groups):
– Agree: Personal responsibility and fairness; law-and-order emphasis; protects students who work independently; cheating undermines merit.
– Disagree: Also potentially too harsh (though reasons differ—e.g., preference for proportionate punishment rather than blanket expulsion).
– Instructor guidance:
– Avoid moral labeling (e.g., “left is more compassionateâ€�) and root arguments in the simplified axis: common good vs personal freedom and personal responsibility.
– Stress articulating why each side sees a policy as aligned or misaligned with its core principles.
– Mini-lecturette reinforcement:
– Reiterated the simplified left–right schema (common good vs personal freedom/personal responsibility).
– Mentioned broader typologies (e.g., two-axis “political compassâ€�) but kept focus on today’s single-axis application.
– Emphasized that ideologies are tools for explanation and prediction.
5) Activity 3 (begun; to be completed next class): Build an indirect prediction system
– New hypothetical policy:
– “To ensure academic integrity, all final exams must be held in person with no online/remote options.â€�
– Task:
– In groups, design a system (e.g., a short questionnaire or interview prompts) to predict whether a student is likely to support or oppose this policy.
– Critical constraint: Do not ask about the policy directly. Ask other questions whose answers will allow you to infer their position (i.e., use ideological cues/related attitudes to predict).
– Logistics:
– Prompt circulated via Telegram; 5 minutes of initial breakout time due to end-of-class constraints.
– Instructor will have groups share and refine their systems at the start of next session.
6) Closing and next steps
– Transition: Return to in-person sessions next week (Tuesday).
– Next unit preview: The State—definition, distinguishing features, and how states differ from other international actors/organizations.
– Homework: One reading on “the stateâ€� (to be posted/confirmed on eCourse).
– Admin Q&A:
– Instructor uncertain about Monday campus availability; advised students to email relevant professors directly about Monday scheduling.
– Agreed to follow up with a student who missed classes while in the U.S.
Actionable Items
Urgent (Before next class)
– Attendance corrections and communication
– Correct Ekaterina’s attendance entry (instructor acknowledged and will amend).
– Remind all students to review attendance records and email discrepancies; reconcile before in-person return.
– Post and confirm homework
– Upload/confirm the assigned reading on “the stateâ€� on eCourse; announce due time for next session.
– Prepare Activity 3 continuation
– Compile a slide or prompt doc summarizing the in-person finals policy and the indirect-question design task.
– Decide on presentation format (per-group briefings) and timing for next class.
– Review diagnostic results
– Skim Google Form responses from Activity 1 to assess understanding and inform any regrouping if needed.
Important (Next week)
– In-person transition logistics
– Confirm classroom, tech needs, and any materials to display Activity 3 outputs.
– Instructional prep
– Prepare a concise refresher slide on the simplified left–right axis (common good vs personal freedom/personal responsibility) to ground Activity 3 presentations.
– Draft introductory lecture notes on “the stateâ€� (definition, characteristics, contrast with other actors).
Nice to have (As time allows)
– Documentation
– Collate exemplar left/right justifications from Activity 2 into a handout for reference.
– Note recurring misconceptions (e.g., moral framing) to address early in the next session.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Reading — What Is the State?
You will prepare for next class’s shift from ideology to our core concept of the state by reading the assigned introduction on the state. This will help you connect today’s left–right framework (common good vs. personal freedom) and the AUCA policy exercises to how states define, justify, and enforce rules.
Instructions:
1) Locate the assigned reading on the state in this week’s module on our course page and download/open it.
2) Preview the text: skim headings and abstracts/introductions. In your notes, write a one-sentence hypothesis of what you think a “state� is before you read.
3) Read actively. As you annotate, focus on:
– Core definitions: state, government, regime, nation.
– Weber’s idea of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force; sovereignty; territory; institutions.
– State capacity and autonomy; legitimacy (e.g., traditional, charismatic, legal-rational).
– How a state differs from international organizations and other non-state actors.
4) Connect to today’s lesson: for each major concept you mark, jot how a left-leaning vs. a right-leaning perspective might justify expanding or limiting that aspect of the state’s role (using our class shorthand of common good vs. personal freedom). Use the AUCA policy scenarios we discussed (attendance thresholds, sugary drink ban, mandatory community service, zero-tolerance plagiarism, in-person-only finals) as concrete test cases.
5) Create a one-page set of notes (bullet points are fine) that includes:
– 3–5 key takeaways or definitions in your own words.
– A brief answer to: How is a state different from an international organization?
– One example of state capacity from a real country (Kyrgyzstan or elsewhere).
– One question you want to raise in class about the state.
6) Bring your notes to class on Tuesday; you will use them in the opening discussion and as a bridge to our next activities.
7) Time estimate: 45–60 minutes.