Lesson Report:
Title
From Regime Concepts to Evidence-Based Classification: Scoring a Fictional State and Practicing A-E-A
Synopsis: The session transitioned students from abstract discussion of regimes to practicing how to classify a country’s regime using a structured, evidence-based approach. Students first re-scored the fictional Republic of Aritos on 10 regime characteristics and converted the profile into a single regime label. They then learned how to build arguments using specific, citable evidence and applied the Argument–Evidence–Analysis (AEA) framework to rate Egypt’s civil liberties in a short partner exercise.
Attendance
– Students mentioned absent during roll: 12
– Unexcused at roll: Arstanbek, Dastan, Alimbek, Aziret, Erhan, Beguim, Salim, Kauhar, Medina Muhammedova, Ekaterina (10)
– Excused: Aydadbek (sick)
– Pending documentation: Muratbek (spravka promised)
– Late arrivals marked absent due to >15 minutes late: 2
– Names given when reminded they could not be marked present: Alunbek, Arslanbek
– Notes:
– Some names appear with similar variants (e.g., Alimbek/Alunbek; Arstanbek/Arslanbek). Please verify spellings and avoid double counting in the gradebook.
– Several students raised questions about prior absence counts; instructor asked them to email for verification.
Topics Covered
1) Opening, Set-up, and Recall
– Goal of the day: move from abstract regime types to “real researchâ€� for identifying a real country’s regime.
– Quick recall: Return to the fictional Republic of Aritos (introduced last Thursday). Students retrieved their prior notes/paragraphs and were told to be ready to discuss Aritos across 10 regime characteristics.
– Logistics: Students given ~3 minutes to find notes; attendance taken.
2) Activity 1 — Rating the Fictional Country (Aritos) on 10 Characteristics Using a 1–10 Slider
– Scale set-up:
– Students asked to imagine sliders from 1 to 10 for each characteristic.
– Orientation note: There was some confusion; discussion proceeded as if higher numbers generally indicated “less freeâ€�/more restrictive (e.g., a “7â€� meant low media independence).
– Characteristic-by-characteristic discussion and rationales:
– Media independence:
– Consensus: low, but not zero independence. Journalists can discuss certain non-critical issues, yet criticism of the government is punished.
– Score placed around 7 (low independence, but not total control).
– Political parties:
– Parties can legally exist and register; however, the president’s party always wins. Opposition parties have little practical chance to compete.
– Scores floated around 7–8.
– Elections:
– No explicit election data in the text; students inferred quality using proxies: low media freedom, dominance of one party, and high corruption imply unfair conditions.
– Discussion: pluralities vs coalitions, Germany example (long incumbency doesn’t automatically imply authoritarianism), need for actual results data; corruption and media limits likely depress election quality.
– Provisional score set around 7.
– Distribution of power (institutional checks/balances):
– Inference from long executive dominance: power is concentrated in the presidency; minimal sharing across branches.
– Students flagged constitutional court independence and appointment/dissolution powers as critical indicators (not specified in the text).
– Conclusion: distribution of power likely minimal (score implied to the restrictive side).
– Ideology:
– Text lacked direct info; class discussed inferring ideological space from media limits and party dominance (less space for competing ideologies).
– Student numbers varied widely (4–9); instructor averaged to 6.
– Constitution:
– Mixed views; averaged to 6 (middle-ish, due to lack of specific detail).
– Civil liberties:
– Several 7s; class aligned on 7 (not free; specific liberties likely constrained).
– Interest groups:
– Many scores were 8–9; averaged as 8 (interest representation constrained/captured).
– Economy:
– Student estimates ranged from 5 to 10; disagreement noted; no firm consensus recorded.
– Military:
– Many scores 9–10; settled on 9 (strong/overbearing military role).
– Visual profiling:
– Students saw a pattern of high (more restrictive) values across several indicators.
– Averaging and labeling:
– Rough average estimated at ~7.2.
– Label scale introduced:
– 1.0–2.5: Democratic
– 2.6–4.5: Hybrid
– 4.6–7.0: Authoritarian
– 7.0–10: Totalitarian
– Aritos classified as “just barelyâ€� Totalitarian based on 7.2.
– Caveat: Numbers and cutoffs are rough; method will be refined later.
3) Mini-lecture — What Counts as Good Evidence? The AEA Framework
– Purpose: Prepare students to research real countries and justify regime assessments with proper evidence.
– Comparing two statements about human rights:
– A) “According to a report from Human Rights Watch, the country has a poor human rights record.â€�
– B) “Last month, the country’s police arrested 50 activists for organizing a peaceful protest, citing a new anti-protest law.â€�
– Analysis:
– Statement A is vague and relies on another organization’s judgment; it doesn’t show how/why the record is poor.
– Statement B provides a specific, dated event, actors involved, quantity, and the legal hook (anti-protest law) that directly indicate rights violations.
– Takeaways on evidence quality:
– Prefer concrete, recent, verifiable events, with actors, numbers, and legal context.
– Don’t rely solely on “X organization says…â€�; use such reports to locate specific cases and then cite the case(s).
– Argument–Evidence–Analysis (AEA):
– Argument: The claim (e.g., “Country X has low civil libertiesâ€�).
– Evidence: Specific cases/events from credible sources (with details: when/who/what law/how many).
– Analysis: Explicitly connect how the evidence supports the argument (e.g., arrests of peaceful protesters violate freedom of speech/assembly).
4) Guided Practice — Linking Evidence to Rights
– Prompt: Explain how example B demonstrates a civil liberties problem.
– Student reasoning (synthesized):
– Rights implicated: freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly.
– The arrests of peaceful protesters under a new anti-protest law indicate these rights are not protected and are systematically restricted (scale of 50 arrests).
– This is not an isolated incident; it signals a legal and enforcement environment hostile to core civil liberties.
5) Partner Exercise — Apply AEA to Egypt’s Civil Liberties (10 minutes)
– Instructions:
– Assign a 1–10 slider score for Egypt on civil liberties.
– Provide at least one citable, online source (not Wikipedia; not ChatGPT).
– Deliver AEA in 1–2 sentences for each part (argument, evidence, analysis).
– Shares and feedback:
– Group 1: Initially scored “4,â€� citing the recent arrest of ~40 people and suspension of media on social platforms. Instructor reminded that on the class’s working orientation a higher number indicates “less free,â€� so the evidence would support a higher (more restrictive) score (e.g., ~6).
– Group 2: Cited 2024 figures: ~1,060 arrested for political reasons and ~934 released; noted journalists/lawyers targeted. Analysis linked mass political arrests to suppression of speech/assembly; argued civil liberties are low.
– Emphasis: Always include a concrete example and the analysis that ties it to the claimed score.
6) Closing and Logistics
– Thursday lab: Students will be assigned real countries (no pre-distributed profiles) and must classify regime type using the 10 characteristics, AEA justification, and citable evidence.
– Event update: Ambassador talk on Friday was canceled (no new date given).
– Attendance policy reminder: Arrivals >15 minutes late are marked absent; students were told to email for attendance clarifications; spravka needed for excused absences.
– Forthcoming content: Checks and balances topic will be covered in about two weeks (when discussing election types).
– Mentioned: A public lecture on Thursday by Akhmatov about Zaykatov (students invited to attend).
Actionable Items
Urgent (before Thursday’s lab)
– Clarify and publish the scoring rubric:
– Fix slider orientation (e.g., 1 = more free, 10 = less free) and apply consistently.
– Define each of the 10 characteristics with 1–2 sentence descriptors to standardize scoring.
– Provide the regime label cutoffs in writing.
– Source guidance handout:
– List acceptable source types (e.g., reputable news outlets, government documents, court rulings, NGO reports with specific cases) and examples (e.g., Human Rights Watch and Amnesty for leads, but cite specific incidents).
– Remind students to include dates, actors, quantities, and legal context in their evidence.
– Include AEA examples and a short template.
– Prepare country assignments and materials:
– Randomize or pre-assign countries; prepare a submission template (score table + AEA per characteristic or per key claim).
– Provide a blank “10 slidersâ€� worksheet and an averaging tool to standardize outputs.
Attendance and Records
– Verify today’s absences:
– Confirm spelling overlaps and avoid double counts (e.g., Alimbek vs Alunbek; Arstanbek vs Arslanbek).
– Update Aydadbek as excused; confirm receipt of spravka from Muratbek.
– Follow up via email with students who flagged discrepancies and send their exact absence dates.
Follow-ups/Clarifications
– Post Aritos scoring summary:
– Share the class’s final numbers used and compute the precise average; note any characteristics left unresolved (e.g., economy).
– Reading reference:
– Share the name and a short reading list for the Russian political campaign strategist you referenced in class (the one behind Putin’s campaign strategy), as promised.
– Events:
– Send details for the Thursday Akhmatov public lecture (time/location/topic) and update students if/when the Ambassador talk is rescheduled.
Reminders (ongoing)
– Reinforce AEA expectations in all political analysis:
– Require at least one specific, citable incident per major claim.
– Encourage students to connect incidents to the precise right/indicator (e.g., speech, assembly, media independence) and quantify when possible.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
All tasks described were in-class (e.g., “let’s take about ten minutes for thisâ€� for the Egypt argument–evidence–analysis exercise), and the only upcoming work mentioned is an in-class group lab (“On Thursday, what we’re going to be doing is you will be given a real countryâ€� and “For the lab on Thursday, you’re going to be required to give a very specific type of evidenceâ€�), with no take-home assignment or submission instructions provided.