Lesson Report:
**Title: From Political Problems to Research Puzzles: Structuring Questions for Final Exam Preparation**
In this session, students transitioned from recognizing real-world political problems to formulating focused, researchable puzzles in political science. The class emphasized how to narrow broad issues into specific outcomes and frame them as surprising questions that can be analyzed using the course’s theoretical frameworks. This work is designed both as practice for the final exam’s analytical demands and as an introduction to how research questions are constructed in the discipline.
—
### Attendance
Students explicitly mentioned as absent (per roll call):
1. Arslan Bek
2. Dastan
3. Aydana Erikova
4. Aziret
5. Altanai
6. Ethan
7. Aydanam Shekinava
8. Almanbek
9. Muratbek
10. Akim Khan
**Total mentioned absent:** **10 students**
—
### Topics Covered (Chronological, with Activity Labels)
#### 1. Administrative Opening: Final Exam & Field Reflection Paper
– **Final exam reminder**
– Date/time reaffirmed: **Tuesday, December 16, in class**.
– This session is part of the final week and is explicitly oriented toward **preparing for the final exam**.
– **Field reflection papers: grading & late policy**
– Instructor has **begun grading**; many students have already received grades.
– Target: **all grades submitted by end of this week**, so students should receive full feedback/grades soon.
– Approximately **5–6 students** have not submitted the field reflection paper yet.
– Weight: about **15% of the total course grade**.
– Consequences of non-submission:
– If not submitted at all, even with perfect performance elsewhere, a student’s **maximum possible grade is around 85**.
– **Late submission policy:**
– Papers may be submitted **until Saturday** (presumably the coming Saturday).
– Late penalty: **–10 points**.
– Exception: if the student has a **spravka** documenting an inability to submit earlier, the penalty may be waived.
This administrative opening framed the rest of the class as **exam preparation plus research-skills practice**, with a strong reminder about outstanding written work.
—
#### 2. Brainstorm Activity: Identifying Political Problems
**Activity: Individual brainstorming in notebooks**
– Students were asked to spend **2–3 minutes** writing down:
– **Political problems in the world**, broadly defined.
– Could include:
– **International issues** (wars, conflicts).
– **Domestic issues** (corruption, human rights, internal conflicts).
– **Events, processes, or phenomena** that are politically significant.
– Instructions:
– List **2–3 examples** each.
– No need to explain them yet.
– Short phrases/sentences are enough.
– Could also include things the student has difficulty explaining politically.
– While students worked, the instructor **took attendance**.
**Class-compiled examples of political problems (whole-class discussion)**
After the writing period, the instructor invited students to share examples. The following were mentioned and listed:
– **Russia–Ukraine War** (used repeatedly as a central example).
– **Afghanistan** – unspecified at first, then tied to:
– Internal political conflict, including ideological rivalries and the Taliban.
– **Scarcity of resources** – highlighted as:
– A major issue and “the driving logic of politics.â€�
– **Cyprus and Northern Cyprus** – the island’s division as a political problem.
– **Ideological rivalry** – e.g., between political/ideological camps or states.
– **Refugee/migration crises** – pluralized to emphasize multiple ongoing crises.
– **Corruption** – acknowledged as a pervasive political issue.
– **Human rights violations** – discussions clarified:
– The problem is **violation** and/or **inconsistent protection** of rights.
– **Drug trafficking wars** – violent conflicts linked to illicit drug markets.
– **Religious recruitment** – presumably extremist or coercive forms.
– **Climate crisis / global warming** – explicitly framed as political when:
– Governments choose how (or whether) to address it.
– **Nuclear proliferation** – spread of nuclear weapons capabilities.
The instructor pointed out:
– Political problems can be both **international** and **domestic**.
– This brainstorming reveals the **wide variety** of potential research topics.
– Some topics are **very broad** (e.g., “corruption,â€� “ideological rivalryâ€�); others are more **concrete** (e.g., Russia’s invasion of Ukraine).
This list formed the raw material for the transition from “problems� to **research puzzles**.
—
#### 3. Lecture: What Is a Political Science Puzzle?
**Defining “puzzle� in the context of political science**
– Students were asked: *What is a puzzle?*
Responses included:
– Something made of **small pieces** that together form a whole.
– Something **confusing** or **puzzling**—difficult to understand at first glance.
– Instructor’s formalization for political science:
– A **puzzle** is a **specific, surprising phenomenon** in the world that we cannot easily explain and therefore want to understand.
– In practice, the puzzle is the **central research question** that drives a paper or project.
**Why puzzles matter for students**
– Throughout their degrees (in ICP and beyond, especially in the humanities), students will need to:
– **Formulate research questions**.
– Identify **problems that are not well explained** by common sense or existing theory.
– Today’s goal:
– Help students go from **broad political problems** to **narrow, researchable puzzles**.
– Put them “on the path toward asking their own questions,â€� not just answering questions given by others.
—
#### 4. Focusing on Outcomes: From Broad Issues to Researchable Events
**Key concept introduced: “Outcome�**
– Instructor emphasized that the **first part of a good political puzzle** is:
– Identifying a **specific outcome** that occurred in the world.
– Example:
– Broad problem: “Russia–Ukraine war.â€�
– Outcome version: “Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.â€�
– This is a discrete event you can **point to** in time and space.
– Contrast:
– “Corruptionâ€� is a **broad process**, not an outcome.
– A better outcome: “The sale of an oil mine to the president’s wife’s father.â€�
– Now it’s concrete and empirically traceable.
**Activity: Turning problems into outcomes (individual work)**
– Students were asked to:
– Look at their brainstorm list (on the board and in their notebooks).
– Ensure they have **2–3 items rephrased as specific outcomes**:
– “Things that happened in the worldâ€� that they could point to as facts.
– Instructor reinforced:
– Outcomes must be **observable**, not just vague labels or ongoing general conditions.
**Example with ideological rivalry (student–instructor exchange)**
– A student (Saleem) brought up **ideological rivalry** in Afghanistan and Iran:
– In Afghanistan:
– Rivalries between:
– Post-Soviet / liberal-democratic ideologies.
– Taliban’s Islam/Sharia-based ideology.
– Earlier American-backed “democracyâ€� ideology.
– Outcomes:
– Ongoing **war, homelessness, deaths of children**, etc.
– In Iran:
– The **Islamic Revolution (1979–80s)** as a shift:
– From a more “democraticâ€� system to an Islamic, Sharia-based, Shia theocratic regime.
– Instructor used this to reinforce:
– We must isolate **specific events or policies** to study as outcomes, not just label the whole period as “ideological rivalry.â€�
Students were given additional short time segments (30–60 seconds repeated) to finalize their outcome formulations.
—
#### 5. Adding the “Surprising� Element: The “Despite� Clause
**Comparing two sample questions**
Instructor presented two questions on the board and asked students to identify the difference:
1. **“Why did Russia invade Ukraine?�**
2. **“Why did Russia invade Ukraine despite the huge economic costs?�**
Class discussion surfaced:
– The second question is **more specific**, because:
– It adds a **condition** that makes the event puzzling.
– It hints at a **framework** (e.g., cost–benefit logic, rational choice) for explaining the decision.
– Key connecting word: **“despite.â€�**
– Students defined it as akin to “even though.â€�
– It marks the **tension** between what we expect and what actually happened.
– The second clause (“the huge economic costsâ€�) is the **core puzzle**:
– Given that the invasion was costly, why did it still happen?
Instructor’s conceptual takeaway:
– A broad question like “Why did Russia invade Ukraine?â€� is almost unmanageable:
– Too many possible explanations; whole books are written on it.
– To create a **solvable** puzzle:
– Ask: **What exactly is surprising about this event?**
– Focus on one **counterintuitive aspect** (e.g., economic cost, international backlash, domestic politics).
– Structure recommended:
– **Outcome clause** + **“despite…â€� clause**.
– E.g., “Why did X happen despite Y making it unlikely (or costly, irrational, etc.)?â€�
**Activity: Students construct full puzzles with “despite�**
– Task:
– Take **1–2 of their outcomes** and add a **“despiteâ€� clause**:
– What is **illogical, surprising, or counter-intuitive** about this outcome?
– What makes it **difficult to explain**?
– Formulate a **single sentence puzzle**:
– “Why did/does [outcome] happen **despite** [reason it seems unlikely]?â€�
**Example: Global warming / climate change (student–instructor exchange)**
– A student asked whether **global warming** counts as a political problem.
– Instructor: It definitely can, **if we frame it politically** (e.g., government responses).
– They collaboratively formulated a puzzle:
– Something to the effect of:
– *“Why don’t certain government leaders worry more about global warming despite its impact on the planet?â€�*
– This fits the pattern:
– Outcome/observation: leaders **are not acting/worrying sufficiently**.
– Surprising element: **severe, well-documented impacts** on the planet and society.
– A student also commented that good research questions should be more **inductive** than **deductive**:
– Instructor agreed briefly, noting that inductive/deductive logic would be covered in more depth in future courses.
Students then continued working individually to finalize at least one complete puzzle per person.
—
#### 6. Group Formation and Seating Logistics
**Group allocation via Google Doc**
– Instructor announced that the next phase would be **group work**, and that the groups:
– Are based on students’ existing **seminar times (A, B, C)**.
– Will **persist into Thursday’s lesson** (these are not one-off groups).
– Structure:
– Seminar A: **A1, A2, A3**
– Seminar B: **B1, B2, B3**
– Seminar C: **C1, C2, C3**
– A **Google Doc** with group lists was sent to students via **Telegram**.
– Students were asked to **check Telegram** to find their group number.
– One student noted they were apparently in **two groups** in the Google Doc; the instructor instructed them to join a specific one (A3) for now.
**Physical seating plan in the classroom**
– The room was divided into zones:
– **Left side (Seminar A)**:
– **A1** – far back corner.
– **A2** – center left.
– **A3** – front left corner.
– **Center (Seminar B)**:
– **B1** – far back center.
– **B2** – center of the “glass roomâ€� area.
– **B3** – front center.
– **Right side (Seminar C)**:
– **C1** – far back corner by the window.
– **C2** – middle right along the wall.
– **C3** – front right near the door.
– Some logistics:
– Instructor repeatedly requested students to **stop moving desks** once settled, due to noise.
– Students with desk or grouping issues were helped to relocate (e.g., Sami needing a desk; Banu moved to the correct group).
This created a **stable group structure** to support the research puzzle work for this and the next class.
—
#### 7. Group Task 1: Share Individual Puzzles & Select a Group Puzzle
**Activity instructions**
– In groups A1–C3, students were asked to:
1. **Go around the circle** and have each member **share at least one full puzzle** they had drafted:
– In the **“Why did/does X happen despite Y?â€�** format.
2. After all have shared, the group should:
– Use the “**power of democracy**â€� to **choose one puzzle** they are collectively interested in.
– This selected puzzle will be the **focus for today and Thursday**.
– The instructor allowed several minutes for discussion, indicating time checkpoints, then asked for groups to finalize their choice.
—
#### 8. Group Task 2: Writing Puzzles on the Board
**Board-writing procedure**
– Once groups had chosen their puzzle, they were asked to:
– Send one representative to **write the puzzle on the board**.
– Include the **group label** (A1, B2, etc.) next to the puzzle.
– Multiple markers were used to speed the process; groups wrote in different sections of the front board.
– One notable interaction:
– A B-group student initially wrote only **“legalization of weedâ€�** and similar fragments.
– Instructor intervened, explaining:
– This is **not a puzzle**, nor even an outcome—just a topic.
– They must:
– Identify a **specific outcome** (e.g., legalization in a specific country) or a **specific non-legalization outcome**.
– Frame it as: *“Why did/does [this happen] despite [reason it’s surprising]?â€�*
– Steering them away from normative “**why we should legalize it**â€� toward analytical **“why it has/hasn’t happenedâ€�**.
After time pressure and finalization, each group had something written on the board.
—
#### 9. Whole-Class Review: Evaluating and Refining Each Group’s Puzzle
The instructor then systematically went through each board-written puzzle, offering **feedback on clarity, specificity, and puzzle structure**. Below are the reconstructed group puzzles and the instructor’s commentary.
> Note: Exact wording may not be perfect due to transcription noise, but the key structure is captured.
—
##### Group A1
– **Puzzle:**
*“Why does the Taliban ban girls’ education despite the fact that it harms Afghanistan’s future?�*
– **Instructor feedback:**
– **Outcome:** Clear and specific—**Taliban’s ban on girls’ education** is a real, observable policy.
– **Surprising element:** That it **harms Afghanistan’s future** (e.g., human capital, development), yet is still implemented.
– Overall assessment: **“A+ puzzleâ€�** at this stage.
– Later work will need to specify **what “harms the futureâ€� means** and how to operationalize it, but structurally the puzzle is strong.
—
##### Group A2
– **Puzzle (as written):**
*“Why do countries continue to face massive migration despite the economic, political, and social costs?�*
– **Instructor feedback:**
– **Outcome issue:**
– “Countriesâ€� and “massive migrationâ€� are **too vague**.
– Need at least **one specific country** and possibly a more concrete **policy/outcome**.
– Suggestion:
– Choose, for instance, **Ukraine** or another country as a case.
– Reformulate to: *“Why does [Country X] continue to experience massive migration despite [specified costs]?â€�*
– The **logic of the puzzle** is good; it just needs to be **grounded in a specific case**.
—
##### Group A3
– **Puzzle (as captured):**
*“Why did the U.S. cancel the issuance of green cards despite the fact that it has economic benefits for the country itself?�*
– **Instructor feedback:**
– **Outcome:** Clear — **cancellation/suspension of green card issuance** (presumably in a specific period).
– **Surprising element:** Green cards (immigration) are often argued to produce **economic benefits**, so canceling them seems **counter to national interest**.
– Assessment: **Strong puzzle**, well-shaped for analysis.
—
##### Group B1
– **Initial idea:**
Something like *“How does legalization of marijuana solve the shadow economy of its trafficking?�*
– **Instructor feedback:**
– **Missing location:** Need a **specific country/jurisdiction** where marijuana was legalized.
– **Outcome vs projection:**
– Must refer to an **outcome that has occurred** (e.g., “After legalization in Country X, the illegal trafficking market shrank in Y way…â€�) or
– Frame as a puzzle about **why legalization did/did not happen**.
– Also, they must include the **“despiteâ€� clause** to express _why_ the outcome is surprising.
– Suggested reorientation:
– E.g., *“Why hasn’t marijuana been legalized in [Country X] despite [arguments about reducing the shadow economy]?â€�*
—
##### Group B2
– **Puzzle (paraphrased):**
*“How do political actions in the U.S. continue to threaten refugee safety in the host country despite their legal refugee status?�*
– **Instructor feedback:**
– **Core idea is strong**: U.S. policies that endanger refugees even when they have legal status.
– Needs:
– A clearer **outcome**:
– e.g., “detentions and deportations by ICEâ€�, “family separationsâ€�, “denial of social servicesâ€�.
– More precise **definition of harm** (“threaten safetyâ€� is broad).
– Advice:
– Pick **one or a small set** of specific harmful outcomes affecting refugees in the U.S.
– Then retain the “despite their legal statusâ€� element as the **puzzle**.
—
##### Group B3
– **Puzzle (as written):**
Essentially the same as A1/A3:
*“Why did the Taliban prohibit education for women despite the decrease in literacy and general productivity in the economy?�*
– **Instructor feedback:**
– Outcome: Clear — **prohibition of women’s education**.
– Surprising element: **Negative effects on literacy and productivity**.
– Assessment:
– Structurally sound, similar to A1 and C1–C3’s Taliban-themed puzzles.
– Analysis can later focus on the **Taliban’s ideological framework**, power consolidation, etc.
—
##### Group C1
– **Puzzle (near-duplicate of A1):**
*“Why did the Taliban ban education for girls despite the fact that educated people are the main factor for a developed country?�*
– **Instructor feedback:**
– Substantively matches A1’s theme and structure.
– Outcome and puzzle components are **both clear and well-separated**.
– Consider operationalizing:
– “Educated peopleâ€� (education level, literacy).
– “Developed countryâ€� (GDP, HDI, institutional capacity).
—
##### Group C2
– **Puzzle (as transcribed):**
*“Why was the ideological rivalry in Afghanistan from the 80s until today existing despite no clear agenda, plans, or goals of party foreign allies?�*
– **Instructor feedback:**
– Main issues:
– **Too broad temporally and substantively**:
– “From the 80s until todayâ€� covers numerous conflicts and ideological shifts.
– “Ideological rivalryâ€� is not a single rivalry but multiple overlapping ones.
– Vague categories:
– “Extremists,â€� “non-extremistsâ€� are **subjective labels**.
– Stronger direction:
– Choose **one rivalry** between specific actors:
– e.g., **Mujahideen vs. Socialist/Communist Party** in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
– Then frame a puzzle about that rivalry:
– Why it persisted, why it took certain forms, etc.
– Also clarify the “no clear agenda/place/goalsâ€� claim and specify **whose lack of clarity** (domestic parties? foreign backers?).
—
##### Group C3
– **Puzzle (as captured):**
*“What led to the hardship of economy in countries like Latin America?�*
– **Instructor feedback:**
– Problems:
– “Countries like Latin Americaâ€� is **geographically and conceptually unclear**:
– Latin America is a region, not a single country; it contains many countries with very different economic histories.
– “Hardship of economyâ€� needs **operationalization**.
– No **“despiteâ€� clause** — the puzzle is incomplete.
– Suggested improvements:
– Pick **one specific country** in Latin America (e.g., Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil).
– Narrow to a **clearly defined outcome**:
– e.g., hyperinflation in Argentina, current crisis in Venezuela, debt crisis, etc.
– Add the **surprising element**:
– e.g., “despite having rich natural resources,â€� “despite IMF assistance,â€� “despite prior periods of growth,â€� etc.
—
#### 10. Linking Puzzles to Theoretical Frameworks (Preview for Next Class)
**Final in-class task (brief group discussion)**
– With only a few minutes remaining, students were asked:
– To look at their **finalized (or semi-finalized) puzzle**.
– Then think about which **course frameworks** might be most useful in answering it.
– Frameworks the instructor explicitly referenced:
– **Left vs. right ideological spectrum**.
– **Effects of weak vs. strong states**.
– **Political violence**.
– **Greed vs. grievance** (as applied to conflict/mobilization).
– Other conceptual tools discussed earlier in the semester.
– Instruction:
– Identify **which framework(s)** could best help analyze the puzzle.
– This is meant to show:
– Why formulating the puzzle with a “despiteâ€� clause **guides you toward certain theoretical tools**.
**Preview of Thursday’s continuation**
– The instructor highlighted that:
– These same groups and puzzles will be used in the **next class**.
– Final product: groups will create a **poster** that:
– Presents their **puzzle**.
– Explains their **answer**, supported by a framework and (presumably) evidence.
– Time remaining in the course is short (“remaining seven minutesâ€� remark), but the goal is to push as far as possible toward a **coherent explanatory poster**.
—
#### 11. After-Class / Individual Student Interactions (Briefly Relevant Items)
At the end of class, several brief **one-on-one conversations** occurred:
– Students checked:
– **Attendance corrections** (“you saw me in the hallway,â€� etc.).
– **Number of absences** they currently have recorded.
– Some students sought:
– **Clarification on the midterm grade and whether it can still be made official** (instructor said yes, with arrangements via email).
– **Reassurance about field reflection paper structure and quality** (instructor invited them to discuss in office hours).
– Advice on:
– Taking an advanced **400-level course next year**, given prerequisites and reading load (instructor indicated the student is capable but warned about heavy reading).
– **Letters of recommendation**:
– One student requested a letter; instructor asked for:
– A **clear deadline** (they agreed on around Dec 15).
– Information on **what they are applying for**.
– Their **statement of purpose**.
– Logistic note:
– A student requested the instructor **change the Google Doc display name** (likely because of a copy-paste error from the system); the instructor complied.
These items may require follow-up outside class but are not part of the core lesson content.
—
### Actionable Items for the Instructor
#### High Urgency (Before/By Next Class)
– **Finalize field reflection paper grading**
– Aim to have **all papers graded and uploaded by end of this week**, as promised.
– Ensure **late penalties and spravka-based exceptions** are applied consistently.
– Check that students who emailed papers due to technical issues (e.g., couldn’t submit on e-course) are graded fairly and not double-penalized.
– **Prepare for Thursday’s group/poster session**
– Bring or prepare:
– **Large paper / poster materials** and markers (or clarify digital format if applicable).
– A **short guideline** on what each poster must contain:
– Puzzle statement (with outcome + “despiteâ€� clause).
– Identification of **relevant framework(s)** (e.g., weak state, political violence, ideology).
– A **tentative causal explanation** (X causes Y because…).
– Any **empirical examples** they can reasonably include.
– Plan a **short mini-lecture** at the start of Thursday to:
– Re-clarify the criteria for a strong puzzle (especially for groups like A2, B1, B2, C2, C3).
– Provide 1–2 concrete worked examples of:
– Moving from puzzle → framework → explanation.
– **Refine problematic group puzzles in class**
– Specifically revisit:
– **A2**: Push them to choose a single country for “massive migration.â€�
– **B1**: Nail down a specific case of marijuana legalization (or non-legalization) and the “despiteâ€� clause.
– **B2**: Specify one outcome of U.S. policies that threaten refugee safety.
– **C2**: Narrow “ideological rivalry in Afghanistanâ€� to a clearly defined pair of actors and timeframe.
– **C3**: Choose one Latin American country and one economic crisis outcome; add a “despiteâ€� clause.
– Consider providing a quick **template** on the board for revision:
– “Why did/does [concrete outcome] occur in [specific place/time] despite [clear, theoretically grounded expectation]?â€�
– **Confirm and stabilize group memberships**
– Re-check the **Google Doc** for:
– Duplicate assignments (e.g., student appearing in two groups).
– Mislabeling or display issues.
– Make any necessary corrections before Thursday so students don’t lose time re-sorting themselves.
—
#### Medium Urgency (This Week)
– **Respond to students’ administrative emails**
– Confirm:
– Arranged **office hour meetings** (e.g., those who asked to come tomorrow at noon).
– **Letter of recommendation** requirements and deadlines (e.g., by Dec 15).
– Any **grade/attendance corrections** that were promised verbally.
– **Review alignment of poster activity with final exam**
– Ensure that the **skills practiced in the puzzle/poster activity** (framing questions, using frameworks, marshaling evidence) are mirrored in:
– The **final exam format** (e.g., paragraph essays with case studies).
– Consider announcing explicitly on Thursday:
– How the **poster exercise ties into the exam** (so students see it as direct prep, not a separate project).
—
#### Lower Urgency (Post-Semester Planning / General)
– **Reflect on large-class logistics**
– Class size noted: **58 students**.
– Instructor humorously anticipated possible future scaling (e.g., “rent Bishkek Stadiumâ€�).
– Consider:
– Whether the group structure (A1–C3) worked well enough to be reused or refined.
– How to streamline **attendance**, **desk movement**, and **noise management** for very large seminars.
– **Document successful pedagogical elements**
– Today’s effective pieces:
– The **“despiteâ€� structure** for puzzles.
– Using a **real, current event** (Russia–Ukraine war) to illustrate puzzle formation.
– Tying students’ own interests (e.g., Taliban, climate change, migration, refugees, ideological conflict) into a **structured research process**.
– These could be codified into:
– Future **syllabus notes**.
– A **short handout** or slide on “How to Turn a Political Problem into a Research Puzzle.â€�
—
This report should allow you to reconstruct the flow of the session, the specific content and examples used, the status of group work going into Thursday, and the main administrative obligations you signaled to students during and after the class.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Field Reflection Paper (Late Submission Completion)
If you have not yet turned in your field reflection paper, you must complete and submit it by the extended deadline; this paper is worth about 15% of your total grade and is therefore essential to your overall performance in the course.
Instructions:
1. **Check whether this applies to you.**
– If you have already submitted your field reflection paper and can see a grade or feedback, you do *not* need to do anything for this assignment.
– If you are one of the “five or six people who did not submit a paper,â€� this assignment is for you.
2. **Locate and carefully re-read the original field reflection paper prompt.**
– Use the original written instructions and rubric that were provided earlier in the course.
– Do *not* change the topic or style of the assignment; follow the same expectations as your classmates who have already submitted.
3. **Complete your field reflection paper according to the original guidelines.**
– Make sure you address all components of the original task (content, structure, and reflection requirement).
– Ensure that your paper reflects the time and energy expected for an assignment that counts for around **15% of your total grade**, as mentioned in class.
– Revise for clarity, organization, and coherence so that your arguments and reflections are easy to follow.
4. **Ensure basic academic standards are met.**
– Check that your paper is clearly written, proofread, and properly formatted according to the usual standards used in this course (font, spacing, citation style, etc., as previously specified in the original assignment).
– Confirm that you have cited any external sources appropriately if the original prompt required or allowed them.
5. **Prepare to accept the late penalty (if applicable).**
– As stated in class, you may still submit the paper **until Saturday** with a **10-point late penalty**.
– Understand that not submitting at all will cap your maximum possible grade in the course at roughly an 85, even if you do perfectly on everything else; this is why submitting *something* is strongly in your interest.
6. **If you have a valid documented reason for the delay, gather your documentation.**
– If you have a **spravka** (official documentation) that proves you were unable to submit the paper before Saturday, make sure it is ready.
– Be prepared to present or upload this documentation following the usual procedure communicated by the instructor, so that the late penalty can be reconsidered.
7. **Submit your paper through the usual course submission channel.**
– Upload your completed field reflection paper to the same place and in the same way as your classmates did (the standard submission link for this assignment).
– Double-check that the correct file has been uploaded and that the system shows your submission.
8. **Confirm submission and keep a copy.**
– After submitting, verify that the assignment appears as submitted on the platform.
– Save a copy of your final paper and any confirmation of submission for your own records, in case of any technical or grading issues.
9. **Monitor your grade.**
– The instructor mentioned planning “to have everything submitted by the end of this week,â€� so watch for your grade and feedback once the paper is marked.
– Use any feedback you receive on this assignment to help you prepare for the **final exam on Tuesday, December 16th**, especially in terms of structuring clear, evidence-based written answers.