Lesson Report:
**Title: Preparing for the Final Exam: Argument–Evidence–Analysis and Applying Concepts to Cases**
This session focused on end-of-semester logistics (field reflection paper, final exam) and intensive practice in constructing strong analytical paragraphs for political science writing. Students revisited the Argument–Evidence–Analysis (A–E–A) structure, compared weak and strong paragraphs, and practiced generating analysis in applied examples (weak states, electoral systems, and political violence case studies) to prepare for the in-class final essay.
—
### Attendance
**Students marked absent during roll call:** 21
(Several students arrived late and requested adjustments individually, but 21 distinct names were explicitly marked as “not here� or absent during the formal roll.)
—
### Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Activity Descriptions)
#### 1. Housekeeping, Attendance, and Semester Framing
– **Roll call and attendance**
– Instructor conducted a full roll call, marking students present/absent by name.
– Noted that a few students may “reappear as the day goes onâ€� (late arrivals anticipated).
– **Semester timeline reminder**
– Class is in the **second-to-last week of the semester**.
– Structure of remaining time:
– This week + next week of instruction.
– Final exam in finals week.
– Emphasized that “our time together is almost at a close,â€� framing the need to focus on key remaining tasks.
—
#### 2. Field Reflection Paper: Final Deadline and Last Possible Activities
– **Deadline and nature of assignment**
– Reminder: the **field reflection / field paper** has a **final deadline on Saturday, December 6** (students understand this as the *last* possible day to submit).
– This is a **hard deadline**; no further extensions implied.
– **Last field reflection activity: WFP public lecture**
– There will be a **public lecture on Wednesday** with **a director/representative from the World Food Programme**.
– Students can use this event as a **field reflection activity** by:
– Attending the lecture.
– Preparing and asking a substantive question during the Q&A (where possible).
– Instructor noted:
– Many students have already emailed or contacted with question ideas.
– However, **not everyone will be able to ask a question** due to time limits (15+ students cannot all be accommodated in one Q&A).
– **Show of hands and advice to students without a field activity**
– Instructor asked for a show of hands from students who:
– Have **not** yet done any field reflection activity,
– Have **not** asked a question previously,
– And do **not** have alternate plans (e.g., interview, other event).
– Observation: fewer than half of the physically present students raised their hands, but a non-trivial number still lacked an activity.
– **Strategic advice given**
– For students **with an alternative activity already in mind** (e.g., interview with a practitioner):
– They should **proceed with that alternative** rather than relying on Wednesday’s lecture.
– One student had emailed interview plans earlier but not followed up; instructor asked the student to remind him at the end of class for on-the-spot feedback.
– For students who **want to use the Wednesday lecture**:
– They should **prepare a strong, specific question in advance**.
– They should **still have a backup plan**, because there is no guarantee they will be called on.
– Emphasis: **deadline is fixed on Saturday**, so waiting on the lecture without a backup is risky.
– **Later in the hour: individual question-coaching**
– After the main lesson, several students came up individually with draft questions for:
– The WFP representative (issues of public trust/legitimacy, working with governments and local communities).
– Other interviewees (topics like elections, media influence, document legitimacy, de jure/de facto questions).
– Instructor’s general guidance:
– **Tie the question explicitly to the speaker’s role and experience.**
– E.g., reference his specific projects or his work in Kyrgyzstan or elsewhere.
– **Avoid technical jargon** (e.g., “legitimacy,â€� “de jure/de factoâ€�) when speaking to practitioners.
– Instead, use accessible language like “public trust,â€� “how people actually use these documents,â€� “how governments cooperate with your organization,â€� etc.
– Make sure questions show that the student has **done some background research** on the speaker (e.g., Googling the name, reviewing WFP projects in Kyrgyzstan).
—
#### 3. Final Exam Logistics and Connection to Midterm Feedback
– **Exam date and format**
– Final exam scheduled for **Tuesday, December 16** during finals week.
– **Structure**:
– Same overall structure as the midterm: **in-class essay**, **70 minutes**.
– Students write one **argumentative political science essay** in that time.
– **Open-note format**:
– Instructor confirmed that the exam will be **open-note**, similar to the midterm.
– Students may bring notes to refer to during the exam.
– **Key difference from midterm**
– Midterm:
– Students wrote from memory about **COVID-19** in a **country of their choice**, explaining why public debate was so polarized.
– Final:
– Students **will not choose the country/topic themselves**.
– Instead, instructor will **provide a short case study** (about **half a page**), written by the instructor.
– This case will contain all necessary background and empirical details.
– Students must:
– **Read the case during exam time**,
– Extract relevant information and evidence,
– And use it to answer a specific essay question (given on the exam).
– Students may add outside information, but:
– They **must** use and engage with the provided case study.
– They **cannot replace** case-study-based evidence entirely with outside facts.
– **Connection to prior performance and goals for final**
– Instructor noted patterns from midterm feedback:
– Students generally did well in:
– Developing a **clear argument** (thesis),
– Providing **relevant evidence**.
– Main weakness:
– **Insufficient or missing analysis** – not fully explaining how evidence supports the argument or applies to political science concepts.
– **Goal for the next two weeks**:
– Focus heavily on that **“last crucial analysis componentâ€�** of academic writing.
– Practice **structured paragraph writing** (Argument–Evidence–Analysis) in preparation for the final.
– Extra credit:
– Students who **took the midterm on the scheduled Tuesday** still have an opportunity for **extra credit** (not detailed here, but referenced as available).
—
#### 4. Revisiting A–E–A Paragraph Structure with Example Paragraphs
– **Purpose of activity**
– Refresh and deepen understanding of **academic paragraph structure** in political science and social science:
– **Argument** (topic sentence),
– **Evidence** (examples),
– **Analysis** (explanation/connection).
– **Example paragraphs on screen / e-course**
– Instructor displayed **two paragraphs on the same topic** (about an armed group “MLFâ€� and its access to diamonds).
– Both available on e-course; students could scroll to the bottom of the page to view if screen visibility was poor.
– **Student reading and initial comparison**
– Students were given ~2 minutes to read both paragraphs and **note differences** in their notebooks.
– Students observed:
– The second paragraph had **additional sentences at the end** that functioned like a “conclusionâ€� or “analysis.â€�
– It **added to the argument**, not just restated it.
– **Explicit breakdown of A–E–A**
– Instructor reminded students:
– A strong paragraph in political science typically includes:
1. **Argument** – contained in the **topic sentence**.
2. **Evidence** – **concrete examples** that illustrate/prove the argument.
3. **Analysis** – sentences that **explain how/why** the evidence supports the argument, often tying back to conceptual definitions.
– **Topic sentence / argument**
– Instructor asked: **Where is the argument in paragraph 1?**
– Students answered correctly: **in the topic sentence**.
– Clara (student) defined topic sentence:
– It expresses **the main idea** of the paragraph **in one sentence**.
– Reading only the topic sentence should allow the reader to **predict the rest of the paragraph**.
– Instructor stressed:
– If a reader can’t predict the content from the topic sentence, it’s likely a **weak or unclear argument**.
– **Evidence in the MLF example**
– Evidence identified:
– Leaders of the MLF sold diamonds **illegally on the black market** and became personally wealthy.
– This was used as **empirical support** for the claim that the MLF was motivated by **greed**, not **grievance**.
– **Analysis: what was added in the second paragraph**
– Students noticed that the second version contained extra sentences explaining the implications:
– If the group had truly been motivated by grievance (wanting social or political change), they **could have reinvested** diamond profits into:
– **Hospitals, schools, roads, land reform**, or other community projects.
– Instead, leaders **kept the money**, enriching themselves.
– This behavior more convincingly shows **greed motivation**.
– Instructor’s key point:
– Many student paragraphs stop after presenting evidence, leaving readers to **infer the connection**.
– Political science writing **cannot rely on the reader to connect dots**—the **analysis must be explicit**.
– Analysis is especially vital when concepts (e.g., greed vs grievance) are abstract or contentious.
—
#### 5. Guided Practice 1: Weak State Capacity in Kyrgyzstan during COVID
– **Setup: Instructor-provided argument and evidence**
– Topic sentence / argument given:
– *“The state in Kyrgyzstan showed weak state capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic.â€�*
– Evidence provided:
– In rural areas, **people often ignored mask mandates**.
– **Local police and officials did little to enforce** mask-wearing rules.
– **Student task**
– Students were asked to write **1–2 analysis sentences** in their notebooks addressing:
– *How does this evidence show that Kyrgyzstan displayed weak state capacity?*
– **Class discussion: unpacking the analysis**
– Some students suggested angles like:
– **Public grievances**, **lack of legitimacy**, problems with **crisis management**, reliance on **informal networks**, and **corruption**.
– Instructor used this to review key concepts:
– **What is a “weak stateâ€�?**
– Inability to deliver **public services** (e.g., schools, hospitals).
– Inability or unwillingness to **enforce laws and rules**.
– **Low legitimacy** – citizens do not see the state as authoritative or deserving obedience.
– Instructor’s model reasoning:
– Step 1: Recall the target claim:
– We’re trying to prove Kyrgyzstan showed **weak state capacity** during COVID.
– Step 2: Define the core concept:
– A weak state often has **low legitimacy** and **weak enforcement capacity**.
– Step 3: Connect evidence to that definition:
– In a **strong state**, if mask-wearing is mandated:
– Most citizens follow the rule.
– Those who don’t are **sanctioned** by police or authorities.
– In the given evidence:
– Many people **did not comply** with mask rules.
– Police **did not act** to enforce the law.
– Therefore:
– Citizens **did not take state rules seriously** (legitimacy problem).
– The state **did not or could not enforce** its own rules (capacity problem).
– Both are **classic indicators of a weak state**.
– Meta-skill taught:
– When stuck on analysis:
– **Re-state your argument** (what are you trying to prove?).
– **Recall the concept’s definition** (e.g., weak state, legitimacy).
– **Explain how the specific evidence shows that definition fits (or fails)**, often by imagining the **opposite case** (what a strong state would look like).
—
#### 6. Guided Practice 2: Proportional Representation and Government Stability
– **Setup: Hypothetical country “Oritosâ€�**
– Argument / topic sentence:
– *“If the country of Oritos chooses a system of proportional representation, their government would be more representative, but it would also probably be less stable.â€�*
– Evidence:
– Under proportional representation:
– The **Pink Party** would win **15 seats**.
– **No single party would have at least 51 votes** (no majority).
– **Student task**
– Students worked (alone or with a partner) to craft analysis explaining both:
– Why PR makes the government **more representative**, and
– Why the seat distribution also makes the government **less stable**.
– **Class debrief and conceptual work**
– Students highlighted:
– PR tends to produce **multiple parties** representing different interests → more citizens see their preferences reflected.
– However, many small parties with divergent goals can make **agreement and coalition-building difficult**.
– Instructor guided them to refine the concept of **stability**:
– A **stable government**:
– Serves out its expected term.
– Is unlikely to be overthrown or collapse.
– Can **consistently pass legislation** and govern.
– Threats to stability:
– **Frequent government collapse**.
– **Persistent gridlock/deadlock** (no decisions, leading to public frustration).
– Linking evidence to instability:
– Because **no party has 51+ votes**:
– The government would have to form **coalitions**.
– Coalitions containing many small parties with different agendas are prone to:
– **Disagreement**.
– **Gridlock** (no one can reach a decision).
– In contrast:
– In a **majoritarian** system with one majority party, that party can pass legislation on its own → **less gridlock**.
– Mechanism to highlight in analysis:
– PR → **fragmented legislature** → **coalition governments** → **higher risk of deadlock** → **public frustration** and potential **instability** (frequent elections, collapses, etc.).
– Instructor urged students to not only state “there will be gridlock,â€� but also to **explain why gridlock undermines stability** (e.g., by blocking policy action, eroding public confidence, etc.).
—
#### 7. Application to Students’ Own Work: Revising Political Violence Paragraphs
– **Recall of prior assignment**
– Two weeks earlier (Thursday seminar), students wrote paragraphs in pairs on **cases of political violence** in a chosen country.
– Task:
– Describe a particular episode of political violence.
– Argue whether it was driven primarily by **greed** or **grievance**, using the **greed vs grievance framework**.
– **Instructor’s diagnosis of common issues**
– After reading these paragraphs, instructor observed:
– **Arguments** were often clear.
– **Evidence** (case details, examples) was often strong and interesting.
– **Analysis** was frequently:
– Very short, or
– Missing entirely.
– **Revision exercise: improving topic sentences and analysis**
– Students were asked to **find their original paragraph** (many on Telegram) and:
1. **Re-examine the topic sentence (first sentence) only.**
– Ask:
– If another student read just that sentence, could they predict:
– The **case** (which conflict/actor),
– The **type of violence**, and
– The **main claim** (greed vs grievance)?
– If not, they should **rewrite the topic sentence** to make the argument more explicit.
2. **Ignore the rest of the paragraph at first**; focus on:
– Making the **argument statement** clear and specific.
– After revising topic sentences:
– Students were asked to:
– Pair the new topic sentence with **one key piece of evidence** from their original paragraph.
– Write **stronger analysis** that:
– Uses **greed vs grievance definitions**.
– Clearly shows **how the evidence supports one side**.
– **Examples discussed in class**
– **Example: Taliban case (Afghanistan)**
– Student argued Taliban actions were motivated by **greed**, citing policy changes and behaviors.
– Instructor feedback:
– Structurally, the paragraph had the right **A–E–A pieces**.
– Substantively, the **examples given did not convincingly demonstrate profit-seeking** or material self-enrichment.
– They seemed more consistent with **grievance** (e.g., ideological opposition to women’s roles under U.S.-backed government).
– This was used to reinforce:
– The importance of matching **evidence to the correct concept**.
– Greed = **financial/material motive**; grievance = **normative, ideological, or justice-based motive**.
– **Example: Kyrgyz–Tajik border conflict over water**
– Student pair argued:
– Violence along the Kyrgyz–Tajik border is driven primarily by **grievance**.
– Evidence: **limited water resources**, local communities fighting over access.
– Instructor feedback:
– This is a strong **grievance-based example**:
– Water is a **survival**, not a profit, resource.
– Conflicts over access typically stem from **perceived injustice, deprivation, or inequality**, not direct monetary gain.
– Analysis should:
– Clearly state that this is **not about enriching elites**,
– But about **communities acting out of perceived unfairness or threat to basic needs**.
– **Planned continuation**
– Due to time, the exercise was not completed in full.
– Instructor announced that **Thursday’s class** will be used to:
– Continue revising and restructuring these political violence paragraphs.
– Practice building **fully-formed A–E–A paragraphs** explicitly aligned with exam expectations.
—
#### 8. End-of-Class Individual Consultations (Course-Relevant Elements)
While most of these were one-on-one and personal, several had direct course implications:
– **Field reflection logistics**
– Multiple students:
– Asked whether their **interview topics and question designs** would satisfy the reflection paper requirements (e.g., legitimacy of documents, de jure vs de facto practice).
– Sought guidance on timelines: completing both interview and reflection paper in the remaining days.
– Instructor:
– Approved several topics as appropriate,
– Reiterated that structure should follow standard paragraphing and explicitly connect experience to course concepts.
– **Attendance/status clarification**
– Some students:
– Asked whether their late arrival would count as present or absent.
– Requested that the instructor mark them present if they came in shortly after roll.
– Instructor:
– Clarified timing in at least one case (“you came at one; it was already startedâ€�),
– Appeared to keep a fairly strict line on attendance but was open to evidence of official conflicts (e.g., documented meetings).
– **Office hours**
– Instructor offered **office hours the next day (noon–2 pm)** for:
– Feedback on questions for the WFP lecture.
– Discussion of field reflection topics.
– General course or personal academic concerns.
—
### Actionable Items for the Instructor
Organized by urgency.
#### High Urgency (Before Wednesday’s WFP Lecture and Saturday’s Field Paper Deadline)
– **Field Reflection / Field Paper**
– Remind students (e.g., via e-course or Telegram):
– **Final deadline** for field paper is **Saturday, December 6**.
– WFP lecture on Wednesday is the **last possible field activity**, but not everyone will be able to ask a question.
– Encourage students:
– To **finalize alternate field activities** (interviews, etc.) if they don’t already have one done.
– To write **clear, speaker-specific, jargon-free questions** for the WFP representative.
– **Follow-up on pending alternative-activity approvals**
– At least one student said they had emailed about an **interview-based alternative** and needed an opinion “at the end of class.â€�
– If not already done, follow up with that student by email/office hours to **formally approve or redirect** their plan.
#### Medium Urgency (Next Class / Within This Week)
– **Thursday’s lesson planning**
– Prepare a **structured workshop** focused on:
– Completing and refining students’ **political violence paragraphs** into strong A–E–A structures.
– Possibly:
– Providing a **model paragraph** on greed or grievance to emulate.
– Having students **peer-review** each other’s arguments, evidence, and analysis.
– Consider a brief **timed writing** exercise:
– Provide a short mini-case (like Oritos or a weak state example).
– Have students produce a full **A–E–A paragraph** under time constraints similar to the final exam.
– **Clarify extra credit options**
– If there are any remaining **extra credit opportunities** tied to the midterm or other work:
– Communicate clearly (what, when, and how to submit).
#### Before the Final Exam (Planning and Communication)
– **Finalize exam case study**
– Draft the **half-page case study** that will be used on the final exam:
– Ensure it clearly contains:
– A coherent narrative with identifiable actors.
– Concrete evidence that can be used for multiple arguments.
– Enough detail to support robust analysis.
– **Communicate exam expectations explicitly**
– Post or announce a concise description of:
– Exam **date and time** (Tuesday, December 16).
– **Format**: one in-class essay, 70 minutes, **open-note**.
– **Expected structure**: Introduction with thesis + A–E–A body paragraphs.
– Requirement to **use evidence from the provided case study**, with any outside information as optional supplement.
#### Ongoing / Student-Specific
– **Field paper and interview guidance**
– Continue to **review and respond to emailed drafts** of:
– Interview questions.
– Field reflection outlines.
– Make sure students:
– Connect their reflections to **course concepts** (e.g., legitimacy, state capacity, greed/grievance) in clear, non-jargony language.
– **Attendance corrections**
– Where students provided **documentation** (e.g., official meetings with professors) or strong evidence regarding absences/lateness, decide whether to **adjust attendance records** accordingly.
– **Name/preferred form of address**
– Note and respect students’ **preferred names**, particularly those who raised concerns about legal vs used names, and apply this consistently in:
– Class address.
– Grading notes.
– Any written feedback (as far as policy permits).
If you’d like, I can draft a one-page handout for students summarizing the A–E–A structure with one of today’s examples (COVID weak state or Oritos PR system) as a model.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Field Reflection Paper and Final Field Activity (Final Deadline)
You must complete your remaining field reflection activity and write your reflection/field paper that connects this activity to key concepts from our course. This is your last chance to fulfill the field reflection requirement before the final deadline mentioned in class, and it should help you practice the argument–evidence–analysis structure we worked on in the lesson.
Instructions:
1. **Confirm whether you still need a field reflection activity**
1.1. Think honestly about your status:
– If you have **not yet completed any field reflection activity** (e.g., you have not asked a question at a prior public event and you have no other approved plan), then you **must** use this last opportunity.
– If you **already have an approved alternative activity** (for example, an interview you discussed with the professor), you may proceed with that instead of relying on Wednesday’s lecture alone.
1.2. Remember what was said in class: not everyone will be able to ask a question at the Wednesday lecture, so you should **not** rely on that as your only plan if you still need an activity.
2. **If you choose the Wednesday public lecture option**
This is the final built-in field reflection opportunity: a public lecture with a representative/director from the World Food Programme (WFP) on Wednesday.
2.1. **Prepare a substantive question in advance**
– Draft **one clear, thoughtful question** you could ask the speaker.
– Base your question on:
– His **actual work and role** (e.g., work with the World Food Programme, projects in specific countries, cooperation with local governments, etc.).
– A **concept from our course**, such as:
– State capacity (strong vs. weak states)
– Legitimacy / public trust
– Crisis management, public services, or policy implementation
– Political violence, grievances/greed
– Representation and stability (from our elections unit)
– Make sure the question is **clearly tailored to this specific speaker**, as discussed with several students after class:
– Do a quick background check on him (recent projects, country work, research interests).
– Explicitly connect your question to something he has done or is currently doing.
– Avoid heavy academic jargon when formulating the *spoken* question (e.g., instead of asking about “legitimacy,â€� you might phrase it in terms of “public trustâ€� or “confidence in government decisionsâ€�).
2.2. **Attend the lecture and attempt to ask your question**
– Arrive on time and stay for the full session.
– Have your question ready so that if you get a chance to speak, you can ask it clearly and concisely.
– Keep in mind what was said in class: **not everyone will be able to ask a question**, so you must be prepared **even if you are not called on**.
2.3. **Take detailed notes during the event**
– Take notes on:
– The main points of the lecture (projects, challenges, successes).
– Any discussion related to themes we’ve been studying (legitimacy, state capacity, crisis response, cooperation with governments, etc.).
– The speaker’s answer to your question **if you get to ask it**.
– If you are not able to ask your question, note answers given to other questions that are relevant to your topic or to course concepts.
– These notes will be your **evidence** when you write the reflection paper.
3. **If you use an alternative approved field reflection activity**
As mentioned in class, if you already have an alternative plan (such as an interview) that the professor knows about:
3.1. **Make sure the activity is actually approved**
– You should already have discussed this with the professor (he referenced following up by email and giving quick opinions on interview ideas).
– If you haven’t clearly confirmed the alternative yet, **do so immediately** before you proceed.
3.2. **Conduct your activity**
– If it is an interview:
– Prepare focused questions that connect the person’s work to course themes (e.g., legitimacy, de facto vs. de jure institutions, public trust, state capacity, conflict, etc.).
– Avoid overloading the interviewee with jargon; instead, translate your academic ideas into accessible language (for example, “Do people actually take these documents seriously? Do they come to update them regularly?â€� rather than abstract formulations).
– Record the conversation (if permitted) or take very detailed notes.
– If it is another form of field observation or engagement:
– Observe systematically and note situations that illustrate core concepts from the course.
3.3. **Collect usable material for your paper**
– Your aim is to come away with:
– Specific examples, stories, or data;
– Clear connections to at least one or two key concepts from class.
4. **Write your Field Reflection Paper (final deadline: Saturday, December 6)**
This is the assignment the professor referred to as your **“reflection papers / field papers�**, with Saturday, December 6 given as the **final deadline**.
4.1. **Review the written assignment description**
– Re‑read the instructions posted in the online assignment description (the professor mentioned they are “pretty open endedâ€� there).
– Follow any stated expectations about:
– Length,
– Formatting,
– Citation style,
– Submission method.
4.2. **Clarify your main focus**
– Decide what **central idea** you want to convey based on your field activity:
– For example: “This WFP project illustrates how state legitimacy is built through public services,â€� or
– “The way this local office handles documents shows the gap between de jure rules and de facto practice,â€� or
– “The interaction between international organizations and national governments shows challenges of weak state capacity.â€�
– This central idea will become your **overall argument** in the paper.
4.3. **Use clear argument–evidence–analysis paragraph structure**
In class, we reviewed that a strong paragraph in political science has:
– **Argument** (topic sentence),
– **Evidence** (examples),
– **Analysis** (explanation/connection).
Apply that same structure in your paper:
– For each main paragraph:
1. Start with a **topic sentence** that clearly states the paragraph’s main point (your *argument* for that paragraph).
– A reader should be able to predict what the rest of the paragraph will be about from that one sentence.
2. Provide **concrete evidence** from your field activity:
– Quotes, summaries of what the speaker/interviewee said;
– Descriptions of what you observed;
– Specific examples (e.g., a policy, a project, a decision, or a concrete situation).
3. Add **analysis sentences** that explicitly explain:
– How this evidence shows what you claim in the topic sentence;
– How it illustrates a course concept (e.g., low/high legitimacy, weak/strong state capacity, greed vs. grievance, stability vs. instability, gridlock, representation, etc.);
– Why this matters for understanding politics in practice.
– Avoid ending a paragraph right after the evidence; always include that crucial explanation, as we practiced with the MLF diamond example and the Kyrgyzstan COVID mask example.
4.4. **Connect explicitly to course concepts**
– Identify 2–3 key ideas from the course that were central in this lesson and earlier ones:
– Weak vs. strong states;
– Legitimacy and public trust;
– Crisis management and rule enforcement;
– Greed vs. grievance in political violence;
– Representation and stability in electoral systems.
– When you use these concepts:
– Name them,
– Briefly define them in your own words (so that your reader does not have to guess what you mean),
– Then show, using analysis, how your field evidence illustrates or complicates them.
4.5. **Explain what you understood and learned**
– As the professor told one student:
– Make sure you are **“explaining what you understandâ€�**, not just describing what happened.
– Back up your points with **“course content and stuff from the interviewâ€�** or lecture/field experience.
– Include:
– What surprised you;
– How the activity confirmed or challenged theories or definitions we used in class;
– What the activity revealed about how politics works in practice compared to how we describe it in theory.
4.6. **Organize the whole paper clearly**
– Write an **introduction** that:
– States which field activity you did,
– Briefly outlines your main argument or focus,
– Mentions the key concepts you will use.
– Develop **body paragraphs** using the argument–evidence–analysis structure.
– End with a **conclusion** that:
– Summarizes your main insights,
– Returns to the course themes,
– Reflects briefly on why this field experience matters for understanding political science.
5. **Revise and submit by the final deadline**
5.1. **Edit your writing**
– Check that each paragraph has:
– A clear topic sentence (argument),
– Specific evidence,
– Explicit analysis.
– Make sure your language is clear and that you define any key terms you use.
– Correct grammar and formatting issues as needed.
5.2. **Submit according to the standard procedure**
– Submit your reflection/field paper **by Saturday, December 6**, which the professor identified as the **final deadline**.
– Use the same submission method and any formatting requirements indicated in the original written assignment description.
By following these steps, you will complete your last field reflection activity and produce a structured, analytical reflection paper that practices the skills (especially analysis) we focused on in this lesson and that will prepare you for the final exam essay.