Lesson Report:
**Title:**
Synthesizing Puzzles, Hypotheses, and Frameworks: Poster Session & Final-Exam Preparation
**Synopsis:**
This final class meeting was devoted to completing a small-scale “research project� in poster form, designed as a rehearsal for the upcoming final exam. Students worked in groups to refine their research puzzles, select an appropriate theoretical framework, formulate a hypothesis, and gather/interpret evidence to support or challenge that hypothesis. The session emphasized the logic of hypothesis-driven research in political science and the practical application of course frameworks (left–right spectrum, state capacity/typology, de jure vs. de facto) to real-world cases.
—
## Attendance
– **Number of students explicitly mentioned absent:** 0
(No students were singled out as absent or missing during the transcript; class is noted as unusually large.)
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological)
### 1. Opening and Project Framing
– You reminded students that this was the **last class before the final exam** and the last regular session of the course.
– Objective for the day:
– **Finish the group “research projectâ€�** started on Tuesday by producing a **poster** that includes:
– A clearly stated **puzzle** (already chosen on Tuesday).
– A **hypothesis** (new for today).
– **At least three pieces of evidence** found online.
– **1–2 sentences of analysis** for each piece of evidence, explicitly tying it back to the hypothesis and the chosen framework.
– A brief **conclusion**.
– Secondary goal: if possible, make the poster not only accurate but visually appealing.
– You quickly sketched a **mock poster layout** on the board:
1. Puzzle at the top.
2. Hypothesis next.
3. Three evidence “blocks,� each with a short explanation/analysis.
4. Conclusion at the bottom.
– Students were asked to **sit with their Tuesday groups** to continue their existing puzzles rather than start anything new.
—
### 2. Clarifying “Hypothesis� as a Formal Concept
– You identified the remaining missing component from Tuesday’s work: **hypotheses**.
– Class discussion to elicit intuitive definitions:
– Student: “An assumption.â€�
– Student: “Assumption means proof.â€�
– Students were asked where they’d heard the word:
– In **English writing** contexts.
– As a key part of the **scientific method**.
– You then pushed them to clarify:
– What are we “assumingâ€� when we state a hypothesis?
– How is it different from casual guessing?
– You refined the working definition:
– A **hypothesis** is your **assumed answer** to your puzzle **before** you do the research.
– It is:
– A **specific, testable claim** about the answer to the question.
– The thing you will later try to **prove true or false**.
– Example puzzle used for illustration:
– **Puzzle:** “Why did the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) party become so popular in Germany despite the country’s troubled history with right-wing politics (e.g., Nazi past)?â€�
– You pointed out that this is:
– A **big substantive question**.
– Open to many possible explanations—hence the need to choose one as a **hypothesis**.
– Example student hypothesis (AfD case):
– Student suggested: people today are **scared of left-wing politics/communism**, pushing them toward a right-wing party like the AfD.
– You framed it in more formal hypothesis language:
– “The AfD became popular because people nowadays in Germany are more scared of left‑wing politics.â€�
– You stressed:
– At this stage, **you do not know** whether the hypothesis is true.
– The **goal of research** is precisely to **test** it.
—
### 3. Why a Hypothesis? Role in Research Design
– You asked: **Why do we even need a hypothesis?**
– Answer you provided:
– It **sets a goal** and **organizes the research project**.
– Instead of a diffuse question with infinite directions, the hypothesis gives a **specific objective**:
– Determine whether the hypothesis is **true or false**.
– Having a hypothesis allows you to create a **clear research plan**.
– You foreshadowed:
– The **frameworks** students choose will provide tools for how exactly to **test** and **argue about** their hypothesis.
—
### 4. Revisiting and Selecting Frameworks
– You prompted students to recall the **frameworks used in the midterm** (and which will reappear on the final):
– **Left–right ideological spectrum**.
– **State capacity / state typology**:
– Effective / strong states vs. weak vs. failed states.
– **De jure vs. de facto**.
– (Also mention of **legitimacy**, though the primary focus today was the first three.)
– You asked:
– Given the AfD hypothesis, which framework might be best suited to answer the puzzle?
– Emphasized there is **no single correct choice**; any framework can work if used skillfully.
– Students responded:
– Several pointed to the **left–right ideological spectrum** as the obvious choice for an ideology-centered puzzle.
– You agreed it’s a natural fit but also highlighted that:
– **State capacity typology** could also be used to build a strong explanation.
– You underscored:
– The **art of political science** is choosing among multiple plausible frameworks and using them coherently.
– Students will similarly need to choose for their own puzzles.
—
### 5. Applying Frameworks to the AfD Example
#### 5.1 Left–Right Spectrum Application
– You led a quick **recap exercise**:
– Students, either alone or with partners, were asked to write down:
– **Key features** of the left–right ideological spectrum.
– How those features can help explain **political behavior** (why people vote or support certain policies/parties).
– Class-level recap:
– **Core idea of the framework:**
– **Left wing**: Emphasis on the **common good**, collective welfare, redistribution, often more open to immigration and mobilization of marginalized groups.
– **Right wing**: Emphasis on **individual rights and freedoms**, national identity, order, often more skeptical of large-scale immigration.
– You modeled a plausible explanation of AfD’s rise using this framework:
– Left-wing politics in Germany in recent years have:
– Prioritized **open or more liberal immigration policies**.
– Coincided with increased **immigration over the last decade**.
– Many citizens see media narratives about:
– Crime.
– Social strains.
– “All these people coming in,â€� etc.
– These perceptions (whether accurate or not) **push citizens toward right-wing parties**:
– They seek **stricter immigration**, stronger borders, and traditional values.
– Result:
– Voters move **rightward** on the spectrum and gravitate toward parties like the AfD.
– You cautioned:
– This is **only a hypothesis**, not a proven explanation.
– The framework helps structure reasoning, but **empirical evidence** is still needed.
#### 5.2 State Capacity / State Typology Application
– You then illustrated how **state capacity** could also frame the AfD puzzle:
– Recap of framework:
– States can be classified as **effective/strong**, **weak**, or **failed** based on how well they:
– Maintain order.
– Enforce laws.
– Provide services.
– Control territory.
– Example narrative you constructed:
– A **public discourse** (media, social media, political rhetoric) in Germany suggests:
– Rising **crime**.
– A **less efficient government**.
– A **weakening military**.
– General perception that the state is **less capable**.
– AfD campaigns on the promise to:
– **Strengthen the German state**.
– Restore capacity and order.
– Voters who perceive the state as getting weaker may support AfD as a **solution to a capacity crisis**.
– You linked this back to the research-design point:
– Any of these frameworks can structure a **coherent explanation**.
– The **student’s job** is to choose and **apply one thoroughly**, not to guess a “correctâ€� framework.
—
### 6. Group Task 1: Choose Framework for Each Puzzle
– You reminded students of Tuesday’s instruction:
– They had already chosen **puzzles** (e.g., questions about immigration, education, U.S. policy, etc.).
– They were previously asked to think about which **framework** would fit best.
– Today’s task (approx. 5 minutes):
– Each group must:
– **Settle definitively on one framework** (left–right, state typology, or de jure vs. de facto) for their puzzle.
– Be prepared to explain **in a few words** how that framework will:
– Help them answer the puzzle.
– Guide the structure of their upcoming hypothesis and analysis.
– Clarification you gave when asked if they could use two frameworks:
– Strong recommendation to **stick to one framework** for this exercise.
– Rationale:
– Using multiple frameworks makes the argument **more complex** and difficult in the limited time.
—
### 7. Group Task 2: Draft Framework-Aligned Hypotheses
– After confirming that groups had chosen their frameworks (~11:15), you moved them to the next step:
– **Draft a hypothesis**, using their chosen framework’s language and concepts.
– Instructions (about 5 minutes):
– Write the hypothesis **in a notebook first**, not directly on the poster:
– This allows for revision before committing.
– The hypothesis should:
– Directly **answer the puzzle**.
– Clearly **use vocabulary/logic** from the chosen framework.
– You used the AfD example again:
– Puzzle: AfD’s popularity despite Nazi past.
– Framework: left–right spectrum.
– Hypothesis: The AfD became popular because Germans have grown increasingly fearful of left-wing politics, pushing them rightward toward AfD.
– You reiterated:
– It is fine if the hypothesis is **not perfect yet**; it just needs to be a **workable, testable claim**.
– Quick framework recap for a student question:
– **Left–right divide**.
– **State typology**: effective/weak/failed.
– **De jure vs. de facto**.
– These three were positioned as the **main options** for this project.
—
### 8. Group Task 3: Research and Poster Construction
– With hypotheses in place, you “set them freeâ€� for the **main 40-minute work block**:
– Goal by end of class:
– A poster including:
– Puzzle.
– Hypothesis.
– At least three pieces of evidence.
– Short analysis for each.
– Conclusion tying it together with the framework.
– **Evidence guidelines:**
– Acceptable sources:
– Academic articles (ideal if they can be located and understood).
– Policy or “think tankâ€� reports.
– Reputable news reporting.
– Wikipedia and similar factual summaries (allowed for this exercise).
– Minimal standard:
– **Three distinct pieces of evidence**, each clearly:
– Linked back to the hypothesis.
– Interpreted through the chosen framework (not just dropped in).
– You emphasized:
– They **do not need a Ph.D.-level argument**.
– You are looking for:
– Clear connection between **puzzle → framework → hypothesis → evidence → conclusion**.
– Basic **research and reasoning skills**.
– You set a check-in:
– Return together around **12:00** to see how far they got.
– During this period, you circulated:
– Helped groups refine their interpretations.
– Answered content and framework questions (e.g., clarifying effective vs. weak state; how to express causality in the hypothesis).
—
### 9. Group Mini-Presentations of Posters
With a few minutes left, you asked for groups to **briefly present their posters**, acknowledging that some might be incomplete. Three examples are documented clearly:
#### 9.1 Group A – Afghanistan Education & State Capacity
– **Puzzle:** Effect of Taliban rule on education in Afghanistan (with a focus on gender but ultimately impacting all).
– **Framework:** **State capacity / state typology** (effective vs. weak state).
– **Key evidence (summarized on the poster and orally explained):**
1. **Teacher flight and non-payment:**
– Many qualified teachers have left their jobs or the country, often because:
– The Taliban **refused to pay them**.
– Security and political conditions deteriorated.
– Result:
– Vacancies are filled by **unqualified individuals** affiliated with the Taliban, without teaching degrees or proper training.
– This has **degraded the quality of education** for both boys and girls.
2. **Infrastructure and school repair:**
– Approximately **a thousand schools have not been repaired** since the end of the war.
– **Half of schools lack running water and sanitation**, which:
– Makes schools especially unsuitable or unsafe for girls.
– Reduces overall functionality and attendance.
3. **Rural–urban disparities:**
– Many **rural communities** have no functioning or properly equipped schools.
– The absence of infrastructure plus lack of qualified staff:
– Deepens regional inequality.
– Restricts education access **across the board**.
– **Analysis through state capacity lens:**
– An **effective state**:
– Would pay teachers.
– Maintain/repair schools.
– Ensure basic infrastructure (water, sanitation).
– The current conditions:
– Show the Taliban-run government **fails to provide basic services**.
– Indicates Afghanistan remains a **weak state**, not an effective one.
– **Conclusion (as read/summarized):**
– The **restriction on girls’ education** is both:
– An **ideological choice** by the Taliban.
– A **manifestation of weak state capacity** (inability/unwillingness to maintain schools, pay qualified staff, ensure infrastructure).
– These weaknesses negatively affect **both genders** and are particularly severe in **rural areas**, perpetuating a cycle of limited access and poor-quality education.
– Therefore, Afghanistan under the Taliban still **functions as a weak state**, as shown by its failures in the education sector.
#### 9.2 Group B – Hunger, Aid, and Left-Wing Values
– **Puzzle:** Something like “What are the consequences of the continued depletion (or strain) of [resources/programs] in Western countries?â€�
– Clarification point you asked: they referred to “massive flaws,â€� which they confirmed meant **massive flows**, likely of migrants, or massive **flaws** in the system—this was a bit broad but accepted for the exercise.
– **Framework:** **Left–right spectrum** (left-wing values of solidarity and humanitarianism vs more restrictive approaches).
– **Key evidence:**
1. **World Food Programme / USAID article (June 2022):**
– The U.S. is concerned about:
– **Global hunger**.
– The **flow of migrants** from countries lacking adequate humanitarian support.
– Emphasis on **humanitarian progress** and international responsibility.
– Used by the group as:
– Evidence of **left-wing–style values**: concern for the global common good and willingness to fund aid programs.
2. **New Statesman article (UK context):**
– Discusses perceptions in London regarding:
– **Immigration** and associated “problems.â€�
– Challenges in labor markets, language integration, and social cohesion.
– Reflects a society **wrestling with the consequences of large-scale immigration** and the policy choices that follow.
– **Analysis using left–right lens:**
– Students argued:
– **Left-wing politics** promote:
– Acceptance of migrants.
– Expanded aid and humanitarian action beyond borders.
– **Societies with strong left-wing currents** (like in parts of the U.S., UK, and Western Europe) are:
– More willing to **tolerate the costs and challenges** of humanitarian migration.
– Committed to **addressing hunger and instability abroad** as part of global responsibility.
– However, these same policies **generate tensions**:
– Domestic citizens may worry about labor market competition, cultural changes, and social services.
– Right-leaning actors criticize these policies as creating “problemsâ€� at home.
– **Conclusion (paraphrased):**
– The group concluded that:
– The **consequences** of these flows and humanitarian commitments reveal a **tension between left-wing ideals and practical challenges**.
– Societies are forced to find **new ways to manage** the pressures created by immigration and humanitarian obligations.
– These dynamics can shift the ideological balance and spark new **left–right conflicts** over policy responses.
#### 9.3 Group C – U.S. Green Card Restrictions and Effective State
– **Puzzle:**
– “Why did the U.S. government cancel the issuance of green cards for 19 countries, despite the potential economic benefits?â€�
– **Framework:** **State capacity / effective state** (with a strong emphasis on security and institutional responsiveness).
– **Hypothesis:**
– The U.S., as an **effective state**, restricts green card issuance as a **preventive measure** to protect civilians, demonstrating strong institutional capacity and prioritization of national security, even when there are economic costs.
– **Key evidence/arguments:**
1. **Responsiveness to data and statistics:**
– The U.S. government:
– Monitors not only headline news but also **detailed statistics** and incremental changes (e.g., security metrics, migration flows, risk assessments).
– Uses this data to rapidly revise **immigration policy**.
2. **Protection of citizens and labor market:**
– Restricting green cards:
– Is framed as a measure to **protect citizens’ safety**.
– Also to help **unemployed Americans** by reducing labor market competition from new migrants.
– These policies are interpreted as part of a broader **national security and welfare strategy**.
– **Analysis via state effectiveness:**
– The group argued:
– An **effective state**:
– Is able to **quickly adjust policy** in response to perceived threats.
– Has the **institutional capacity** to implement restrictions and manage border/immigration systems.
– Therefore, even though green cards can have **economic benefits**, the U.S. decision to restrict them:
– Reflects a conscious prioritization of **security and citizen welfare**.
– Is evidence of **strong institutional capacity**, not weakness.
– **Conclusion:**
– The group concluded that:
– The U.S. behavior is consistent with an **effective state** that puts **citizen safety and national security above potentially beneficial immigration flows**.
– This supports their hypothesis that these green card restrictions are not random or purely ideological but are anchored in the **capacity and priorities of a strong state**.
—
### 10. Connecting the Poster Project to the Final Exam
– You explicitly framed this poster exercise as a **“pre-test for the testâ€�**:
– The final exam will require the **same logic**:
– You will give students a **puzzle** embedded in a text.
– The text will include **evidence**.
– Students must:
– Identify and interpret relevant evidence.
– Choose and apply an appropriate **framework**.
– Formulate a **coherent conclusion** connecting framework and evidence to the puzzle.
– You reassured them:
– Based on the posters presented, they are now **“ready for the final examâ€�** in terms of skills:
– Puzzle identification.
– Hypothesis formation.
– Framework selection.
– Evidence-based reasoning.
—
### 11. Course Closure and Logistics
– **Exam logistics:**
– Final exam scheduled for **Tuesday at 4:45 PM**.
– **Same time and same room** as the regular class.
– **Emotional / reflective closure:**
– You thanked the students for:
– Their effort in a **very large class**.
– Their willingness to engage with your **redesigned, skills-focused format**.
– You noted your intention was to:
– Move away from a purely **encyclopedic intro to political science**.
– Focus instead on **analytical and research skills** that will serve them over the next four years.
– Several students expressed appreciation and positive reflections on the course.
– One student gave you a **small present**, noting how they never felt pressured or overwhelmed in your class.
– **Class photo:**
– You organized a **group photo** with the entire class:
– Arranged students to fit into the frame.
– Promised to share the photo later via their **class/group chat**.
– Students asked you to send it, and you agreed to do so.
– **Materials:**
– Some students asked whether they could **leave posters** in the room.
– You said they **could leave them there**, implying you may collect or review them later.
—
## Actionable Items
### High Priority (Before the Final Exam)
– **Finalize exam design to mirror the poster exercise**
– Ensure exam tasks follow the same structure:
– Given **puzzle** → identify/apply **framework** → interpret **evidence** → write **conclusion**.
– Confirm that the frameworks highlighted today (left–right, state capacity/typology, de jure vs. de facto) are **explicitly present and clearly signaled** in exam instructions.
– **Communicate exam expectations**
– Optionally post a short reminder or review sheet clarifying:
– What a **puzzle** is.
– What a **hypothesis** is and how it should look.
– How to explicitly connect **evidence to framework** and **framework to conclusion**.
– Reiterate that students should aim for **one main framework per answer** for clarity.
– **Send the class photo**
– Share the group photo in the **class/group chat** as you promised.
### Medium Priority (Short-Term / End-of-Semester Wrap-Up)
– **Decide what to do with the posters**
– If they remain in the classroom:
– Collect and **photograph or scan** 2–3 strong examples as:
– Future **teaching aids**.
– Possible **sample solutions** (anonymized) for next cohorts.
– Optionally, note which groups used each framework most effectively for your own records.
– **Reflect on framework balance for grading**
– Consider whether:
– Some frameworks (e.g., de jure vs. de facto) received **less explicit rehearsal** in this last class.
– Adjust exam weighting and/or grading rubric to:
– Not penalize students if one less-discussed framework appears.
– Reward **clear application** of any correctly used framework.
### Lower Priority / For Future Iterations of the Course
– **Refine timing of the poster session**
– Consider:
– Extending time for group work or starting the hypothesis component **earlier in the week**.
– Building in a more formal, timed **Q&A/presentation segment** so more groups can present fully.
– **Clarify single-framework vs. multi-framework expectations earlier**
– In future, state from the outset that:
– For short projects and exams, students should **stick to one primary framework**.
– Multi-framework analysis can be an **advanced option**, but only if there is time and clear structure.
– **Leverage this project more explicitly as a capstone**
– Turn the poster session into a more formal **capstone assignment**:
– Possibly graded with a clear rubric (puzzle clarity, hypothesis quality, framework use, evidence, analysis, conclusion, presentation).
– This could align even more transparently with the final exam criteria.
– **Document and iterate on the skills-focused design**
– Make brief notes on:
– What worked well this semester (e.g., puzzle/hypothesis framing, frameworks).
– Where students struggled (e.g., sometimes broad puzzles like “massive flaws/flowsâ€�).
– Use these observations when you **revise the syllabus** and assignment prompts for the next offering.
—
This report should allow you to reconstruct the session: it was primarily a **guideds skills lab** in applying course frameworks to real puzzles via hypotheses and evidence, closing the loop between your redesigned pedagogy and the final exam format.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The only work described was completing the research poster *during class time* (“by the end of class today, you are going to produce a poster… you guys are going to have the next 40 minutes to complete this�), and the class ended with remarks about being “ready for the final exam� and logistical info for the exam, with no instructions to continue the poster or do any other work outside of class.