Lesson Report:
**Title: Final Project Posters – From Political Puzzles to Hypotheses and Evidence**
In this final session, students transitioned their previously designed “puzzles� (research questions) into full, argument-based posters. The class focused on clarifying the difference between a puzzle and a hypothesis, choosing appropriate theoretical frameworks, and using evidence to support or refute their educated guesses. The end goal was for each group to produce a coherent political science poster that visually and logically answers their chosen puzzle.
—
## Attendance
– Number of students explicitly mentioned absent in the transcript: **0**
*(No absences were directly noted; only students being organized into groups and asked which group they belong to.)*
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Activity Labels)
### 1. Opening & Group Re-Formation
– Instructor reminded students that this was the **last session** of the course.
– Students were asked to sit with their **Tuesday groups**, using the group list on a Google Doc if they had forgotten.
– Groups were assigned to physical locations in the room:
– **B1** – by the door
– **B2** – in the center
– **B3** – in a nearby area indicated by the instructor
– Purpose framed clearly: **finish what was started on Tuesday** by completing a final set of activities tied to their group projects.
—
### 2. Overview of the Final Poster Assignment
– Instructor introduced **poster paper** and explained that the final task is to create a **group poster** that answers the **puzzle** each group developed on Tuesday.
– The poster must contain these core components (in any visual design, but all must be present):
1. **Puzzle (Research Question)**
– This is the question they finalized at the end of the previous class.
– It is the starting point of the poster and should be clearly stated at the top.
2. **Hypothesis**
– A hypothesized answer to the puzzle.
– Clarified as an **“educated guessâ€�**, not a random guess.
– It should be based on what the group already knows or reasonably infers.
3. **Evidence (Minimum Two Pieces)**
– At least **two distinct pieces of evidence** (e.g., empirical examples, historical cases, data, policy changes, etc.).
– For each piece of evidence, students must **explain it using one framework** from the course.
4. **Use of Framework(s)**
– For each evidence example, they must explicitly connect it to a **course framework** (e.g., left vs right, de jure vs de facto, state typology).
– Later in the class, the instructor **recommended focusing on one main framework** for the whole poster to keep the argument coherent, while still giving **two different evidence examples**.
5. **Conclusion**
– A single, clear conclusion that follows from the hypothesis and evidence.
– This conclusion should show whether their hypothesis is mostly **supported or not supported** by the evidence and framework application.
– Design flexibility:
– The instructor acknowledged his own drawn template as “kind of uglyâ€� and encouraged creative, visually attractive posters (infographics, good layout, etc.), **as long as all required logical components are present**.
—
### 3. Conceptual Clarification: Puzzle vs Hypothesis
– The instructor revisited terminology:
– **Puzzle** = the **question** (e.g., “Why did X happen despite Y?â€�).
– **Hypothesis** = the **educated guess/possible answer** to that question.
– Elicited student definitions of *hypothesis*:
– Students suggested:
– “Assumptionâ€�
– “Possible solutionâ€�
– “Theoretical statementâ€�
– Instructor refined this to:
– A **guess** about the answer, but **“educatedâ€�** rather than random.
– Based on current knowledge, context, and the researcher’s reasoning.
– Importance in political science:
– Without a hypothesis, a big question like “Why did Russia invade Ukraine despite economic difficulties?â€� is too broad.
– A hypothesis gives the researcher a **clear mission**: to see if the hypothesis is **true or false**.
– This makes the research **manageable and focused**.
—
### 4. Case Study Puzzle: AfD in Germany
**Activity: Instructor-led example of turning a puzzle into a hypothesis**
– Example puzzle introduced:
**“Why has the AfD party in Germany become so popular despite Germany’s troubled right-wing history?�**
– Context provided:
– AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) is described as a **far-right**, **ultra-nationalist** political party in Germany.
– It currently holds a **significant number of seats** in the German parliament.
– The puzzle emphasizes the apparent paradox:
– Germany’s strong and painful **historical memory of Nazism and right-wing extremism**.
– Yet, a **new far-right party** is gaining popularity.
– Instructor emphasized **what makes this a political science puzzle**:
– The question is not just “Why did they become popular?â€� in a generic, descriptive sense.
– It’s specifically: **How is this happening despite the legacy of extreme right-wing politics?**
– That tension (“despite Xâ€�) is what makes it a **puzzle** rather than a simple factual inquiry.
– Function of the example:
– To demonstrate how to **move from puzzle → hypothesis → evidence**.
– To model the process students should follow with their own topics.
—
### 5. Review and Selection of Frameworks
**Mini-lecture: Frameworks from the course and their relevance**
– The instructor asked students to recall frameworks from the **midterm**:
– **Left vs Right / Ideological Spectrum**
– **De jure vs de facto**
– **State typology** (effective, weak, failed state)
– **Legitimacy** (mentioned as conceptually related, though not on the same list)
– Discussion of which framework fits the AfD puzzle:
– Students suggested:
– **Left vs Right** – obvious relevance, as “right-wingâ€� appears in the question.
– **State typology** – also potentially applicable (e.g., questions of state strength/weakness).
– **Legitimacy** – could address perceived legitimacy of political actors/parties.
– Instructor emphasized:
– There is **no single “correctâ€� framework** in political science.
– Political science is **“an art of argumentationâ€�**:
– Different **frameworks can generate different, but valid, arguments**.
– However, for the in-class exercise, he **forced everyone to use the left vs right framework** to get them all working on a shared conceptual ground.
—
### 6. Small Group Exercise: Using Left vs Right on the AfD Puzzle
**Activity: 2–3 minute group discussion on applying the left/right framework**
– Instructions:
– In groups, students had **2 minutes (later extended)** to think about:
– How to **answer the AfD puzzle** using ideas from the **left vs right** framework.
– If confused, they were asked to:
– Recall what **core ideas** distinguish left vs right (values, priorities, views on state, economy, etc.).
– Use these to explain what people **do and believe** in a way that could clarify AfD’s popularity.
– Objective:
– Practice **operationalizing a framework**:
– Not just naming “left vs right,â€� but showing how **specific elements** of that framework can explain political behavior (here, AfD support).
—
### 7. Whole-Class Debrief: Connecting Immigration, Fear, and the Right
**Activity: Class-wide discussion building a sample hypothesis**
– A student (Clara) proposed:
– One central idea: **immigration in Germany** plays a major role in AfD’s popularity.
– She linked:
– Economic difficulties
– And migration-related concerns
– To voters turning to AfD.
– Instructor guided the discussion with questions:
– What is the connection between **immigration** and **right vs left politics**?
– What do people on the **right** prioritize?
– Answer framed as: **“national/collective goodâ€�** of the in-group.
– Where would a **pro-immigration** stance typically fall?
– Generally associated with the **left**, given emphasis on inclusivity and broader social rights.
– Instructor’s synthesis:
– Those **on the right**:
– Prioritize **protecting the national community** and its perceived cultural/economic integrity.
– Are more likely to support **restrictions on immigration** if they see migrants as a threat.
– AfD popularity can be expressed as:
– A reaction by people who **feel threatened** by immigration (often through **media narratives** of crime or social disorder).
– A move toward a party that **promises to protect “usâ€� from “them.â€�**
– Model hypothesis articulated in class terms:
– A possible hypothesis (paraphrased from the discussion) could be:
– *“AfD has become popular in Germany because many voters, frightened by perceived negative effects of immigration, prioritize protecting the national community over inclusive immigration policies—an emphasis that aligns with right-wing values.â€�*
– Key point: The hypothesis is **explicitly written using the left vs right framework** (national good, security, prioritization of in-group).
– Pedagogical emphasis:
– Demonstrated how to write a hypothesis that:
– Is **clearly grounded in a named framework**.
– Provides a **testable claim** about why something happens.
– Can be supported or undermined by **specific evidence** (crime statistics, policy changes, election results, opinion surveys, etc.).
—
### 8. Transition Back to Students’ Own Projects
**Activity: Framework selection and hypothesis drafting for group posters**
– Instructor reminded students:
– Each group already chose a **puzzle** on Tuesday.
– They also initially chose or discussed a **framework** that seemed most useful for that puzzle.
– Current task:
– **Revisit their puzzle and framework selection**:
– Ask: “Is this framework really the most important for explaining our puzzle?â€�
– If yes, **clarify how** it will help them answer the question.
– **Write a hypothesis**:
– Based directly on their puzzle.
– Clearly articulated in terms of their chosen framework (similar to the AfD example).
– Short timed work:
– Students were given **~3 minutes** to:
– Reconfirm or adjust their chosen framework.
– Begin drafting or refining their hypothesis.
—
### 9. Evidence Gathering and Poster Construction
**Activity: Begin building the full poster with hypothesis and evidence**
– Instructor provided further instructions (amidst some transcription noise):
– **Number of frameworks and examples:**
– Recommended that groups use **one main framework** for the poster (for coherence).
– But provide **two distinct pieces of evidence / examples** that are analyzed through that frame.
– **Use of the internet:**
– Students were explicitly told they **should use the internet** to find **relevant examples or evidence** supporting (or challenging) their hypothesis.
– Implied acceptable sources:
– News reports
– Political analysis
– Possibly data or official reports, depending on the puzzle.
– **Structure reminder (reiterated):**
– Puzzle (question)
– Hypothesis (educated guess/answer framed by a framework)
– At least two pieces of evidence, each explained via the framework
– Clear conclusion connecting back to the hypothesis
– This segment marked the **workshop phase** where groups were actively:
– Researching online.
– Clarifying their argument logic.
– Designing the **visual layout** of their posters.
—
## Actionable Items
### High Priority (Immediate / Post-Class)
– **Collect and Document Posters**
– Ensure all group posters are collected or photographed for grading and records.
– Label posters clearly with **group IDs (e.g., B1, B2, B3) and member names** if not already included.
– **Assess Framework Use and Hypothesis Quality**
– When grading, pay special attention to:
– Whether the **hypothesis is clearly distinct from the puzzle** and framed as an educated guess.
– Whether the group consistently **applies one main framework** to both evidence examples.
– The **logical connection** from framework → hypothesis → evidence → conclusion.
### Medium Priority (For Future Course Iterations)
– **Earlier Practice on Hypothesis Formation**
– Students showed some confusion initially between “puzzle,â€� “assumption,â€� and “hypothesis.â€�
– Consider adding a **dedicated earlier session** on:
– Formulating puzzles.
– Differentiating descriptive questions from analytical puzzles.
– Writing hypotheses explicitly grounded in frameworks.
– **More Structured Framework Review**
– Some students struggled to recall details of frameworks beyond their names.
– For future cohorts, reinforce frameworks with:
– **Quick reference sheets** summarizing each framework and examples.
– **Short practice exercises** (like the AfD example) spread throughout the semester, not only at the end.
### Low Priority (General Course Reflection)
– **Refine the Final Project Instructions Template**
– The visual template sketched in class was useful but informal.
– Consider creating a **clean digital template** (with boxes for Puzzle, Hypothesis, Framework, Evidence 1, Evidence 2, Conclusion) for future use.
– This can help students who are less confident in structuring arguments but still want creative visual design.
– **Reinforce the “Art of Argumentationâ€� Message**
– The idea that **multiple frameworks can validly explain the same phenomenon** is central.
– In future, build more explicit moments where students:
– Compare how **different frameworks** would produce **different explanations** of the same puzzle.
– Reflect on the **advantages/limitations** of each framework in their written or oral work.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The only tasks described are to be completed “by the end of our class today� and to “conclud[e] your time in this class by preparing a poster� during this “last and final session,� indicating all work was in-class poster work rather than homework assigned beyond the lesson.