Lesson Report:
Title
Predicting Student Policy Support via Indirect Measures + Community Name-Rehearsal Icebreaker
This session focused on rebuilding in-person classroom cohesion and completing the unfinished “predict a student’s opinion� exercise from last week. Students practiced indirect measurement: designing a question system to infer which students would support AUCA’s proposed “in-person-only exams� rule without asking directly about exams or policy support, using a left–right values framework.
Attendance
– Absent mentioned: 2 students (Tamara confirmed absent; Amin presumed absent)
– Late arrivals noted: Almanbek and Arslanbek
Topics Covered
1) Welcome, context, and session roadmap
– Instructor set expectations: three priorities—(a) run a name-learning icebreaker deferred from Week 2; (b) finish last Thursday’s unfinished prediction activity; (c) begin one more activity (referred to as “the safeâ€�—to be continued in a future class if time).
– Tone-setting: acknowledged low-energy weather; emphasized an interactive, in-person focus.
2) Community-building icebreaker: name-chain recall
– Objective: strengthen class cohesion and help the instructor reliably memorize names after weeks on Zoom.
– Instructions:
– Classic around-the-room name-share.
– Each student states their own name and then repeats all prior names in sequence.
– Instructor joined at student level (sat with the class), modeled participation, and then attempted to recite the full list.
– Coin flip used to choose which side of the room began; the caller of “headsâ€� (won) elected to go last.
– Notable name/identity clarifications captured:
– Abu Bakr also goes by Kyle; instructor will use “Abu Bakrâ€� per student’s stated preference.
– Arslan vs. Arslanbek noted; later, two late-arriving students identified as Almanbek and Arslanbek (confirm whether “Arslanâ€� and “Arslanbekâ€� refer to the same student).
– Several names recited by the instructor for memory consolidation included (spellings may vary; to confirm): Aydana, Altanay, Ala, Ayana, Ayjamal, Banu, Samira, Sofiyat, Nuriza, Nuriyah, Nurislam, Muratbek, Abu Bakr, Husnadin, (I)Sami, Aziz, Awa, Anira, Sandra/Sandy, Sunny, Melissa, among others.
3) Group reconstitution and seating for the prediction activity
– Purpose: return to original breakout groups from last week and adapt for current attendance.
– Original groups recalled:
– Group 1: Altanay, Muratbek, Samira, Sofiyat
– Group 2: Aydana, Arslan, Ayana, Abu Bakr
– Group 3: Ala, Husnadin, Nuriza, (I)Sami
– Group 4: Nurislam, Amin, Banu (Amin likely absent)
– Group 5: Nuriyah, Ijamal, Tamara (Tamara absent)
– Reassignments due to absences:
– Group 1 added: Nurislam
– Group 2 added: Banu
– Group 3 added: Nuriyah and Ijamal (Group 4 and 5 dissolved)
– Three students without prior assignment were placed evenly into Groups 1–3.
– Physical layout for collaboration:
– Group 1 by the window (could remain in place)
– Group 2 at the back of the room
– Group 3 near the door
4) Concept refresher: left vs. right (values framework)
– Left: more community-oriented, prioritizes common good, collective solutions.
– Right: more individualistic, prioritizes individual rights and freedoms.
– This framework underpins the inference task introduced last week (classifying responses to an AUCA policy as left-leaning or right-leaning) and is now extended to predicting who supports a new rule.
5) Main activity: Predicting student support for “in-person-only exams� using indirect measures
– Scenario:
– The AUCA President’s Office “hiresâ€� each group to identify which students would support a hypothetical policy: “No more online exams; all exams must be in person for all AUCA classes.â€�
– Critical constraints:
– You may not ask students whether they support or oppose this rule.
– You may not ask any questions about exams or exam opinions at all (tightened after students proposed an indirect exam-related workaround).
– Two-step task:
1) Decide whether a student who supports the rule is more likely to be “left� or “right� under the class’s simple values framing.
2) Design an instrument (a system of indirect questions) to infer a student’s left/right orientation without referencing exams—thus enabling a prediction of their likely stance on the policy.
– Examples of what to produce (per instructor’s framing):
– A list of non-exam questions that tap communal vs. individualistic values.
– A simple scoring or decision rule connecting responses to left/right orientation and, by extension, to predicted support/oppose for the in-person-only exam policy.
– Process:
– Groups were given approximately 10–15 minutes to build their systems before reconvening to share.
– Instructor emphasized working with the “logic as intendedâ€� (i.e., strictly avoiding the exam domain and relying on values proxies).
6) Planned but not reached (time-limited): an additional “safe� activity
– A third activity was previewed at the start (“one more activity about the safeâ€�), but the session focused primarily on the icebreaker and the in-person prediction task. This item appears to be deferred.
Actionable Items
Urgent (before next class)
– Collect and review group outputs:
– Each group’s indirect question set and the explicit left/right-to-support mapping for the in-person-only exams policy.
– Prepare for brief group share-outs next session if not completed.
– Confirm names and spellings/preferences:
– Clarify Arslan vs. Arslanbek; confirm preferred name for Abu Bakr (vs. Kyle) and any other uncertain spellings (e.g., (I)Sami/Sami, Husnadin, Azira/Azireh, etc.).
– Update group rosters:
– Record permanent reassignment of Banu to Group 2; Nurislam to Group 1; Nuriyah and Ijamal to Group 3.
– Place the three ad hoc additions from today into a stable group going forward (document names).
Soon
– Follow up with absentees:
– Tamara and Amin: share instructions and group deliverables; assign them to groups if they return next session.
– Clarify the deferred “safeâ€� activity:
– Confirm title/content (“safeâ€� vs. “SAFEâ€� vs. another term) and when it will be run.
– Prepare materials and timebox it on the next agenda.
Later
– Compile a clean class roster with phonetic guides to support ongoing name mastery and smoother participation.
– Consider a short check-in at the start of next class to reiterate the left–right framework and validate the indirect-measure design logic before moving to new content.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The transcript only outlines in-class activities—“finish with the activity that we left off with last Thursday,� “work on one more activity … before we move on to next week’s stuff next week,� and a timed group task (“we’re going to give you guys about, let’s say, 10 minutes�)—with no mention of any out-of-class work to complete or submit.