Lesson Report:
**Title & Lesson Synopsis**
**Poster Research Project & Theoretical Frameworks: Final Exam Preparation**
This session was the final instructional class meeting and was devoted to consolidating students’ skills in formulating research puzzles, crafting hypotheses, selecting appropriate theoretical frameworks, and linking empirical evidence to theory. Students worked in groups to complete a mini-research project, culminating in the creation and brief presentation of a research poster. The explicit objective was to rehearse the exact reasoning process they will need on the final exam, but in a collaborative, visual, and applied format.
—
## Attendance
– Number of absences explicitly mentioned in the transcript: **0**
(No student was called out as absent; all references were to present students/groups.)
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Activity/Topic Labels)
### 1. Opening, Context, and Course Timeline
– Instructor opened by noting:
– This is the **last lesson** (last teaching session), and **second-to-last time** seeing the students (the remaining meeting is the final exam).
– Goal of the day: **help students prepare for the final exam** via a **poster-based mini research project**.
– Classroom organization:
– Students were instructed to **sit with the same groups from Tuesday**:
– Group C1 by the door
– Group C2 in the center
– Group C3 by the window
– Group C4 in another designated area
– Emphasis that they would be **continuing work** on the mini research project begun in the previous class.
—
### 2. Recap of Tuesday’s Mini-Research Project Setup
– Instructor recapped what was done on Tuesday:
1. **Each group chose one “puzzle�**:
– The puzzle needed to:
– Be **specific**.
– Focus on an **outcome** (e.g., why X happened or why X is the case).
– Include a **“despiteâ€� clause** that makes the outcome **surprising**, e.g.,
“Why is X happening **despite** Y, which should have prevented it?�
2. **Each group identified one theoretical framework** they thought would be most relevant for explaining their puzzle.
– Instructor framed today’s work as:
– **Finishing that mini-research project**.
– Transforming it into a **poster** that shows:
– The puzzle
– Hypothesis
– Evidence
– The connection of evidence to theory
– A conclusion
—
### 3. Poster Structure and Required Components
– Instructor outlined how the poster should be structured:
1. **Puzzle at the top**:
– Stated as a **clear, focused question**.
– Must highlight the **surprising element** via a “despite…â€� clause.
2. **Hypothesis**:
– To be discussed in depth, as many students are familiar with the word but not fully sure of its meaning in political science.
3. **Two pieces of evidence**:
– Students must **search online** for evidence:
– Acceptable sources:
– News outlets (.com, .org, etc.)
– Think-tank reports
– Academic articles
– Emphasis:
– **Real, concrete evidence**, not just generic statements.
– Each piece of evidence must be:
– Clearly cited (a **source** is mandatory).
4. **Connection between evidence and hypothesis**:
– For **each piece of evidence**, students must write a **short explanation**:
– How does this evidence **support or refute** the hypothesis?
– How does it tie back to the **chosen theoretical framework**?
5. **Conclusion**:
– One brief sentence summarizing:
– What the group **found overall**.
– Using the **language of the chosen framework**.
– Overarching emphasis:
– This is not just a decorative poster:
– It must show **logical structure** from **puzzle → hypothesis → evidence → theoretical explanation → conclusion**.
—
### 4. Concept Focus: What is a Hypothesis?
– Instructor led a conceptual mini-lecture on **“hypothesisâ€�**:
– Asked students:
– What does “hypothesisâ€� mean to them?
– Where have they heard it (e.g., Russian “гипотезаâ€�)?
– In what contexts (students answered: **science**).
– Clarified definition in this context:
– A hypothesis is an **educated guess** about the answer to your puzzle:
– Formulated **before** you conduct full research.
– It is something you can **test** and attempt to show as **true or false**.
– Role of the hypothesis in political science:
– If you just ask a broad question (“Why is the AfD popular?â€�), there are **endless possible answers**.
– A hypothesis:
– **Narrows** the question into a specific **proposed explanation**.
– Defines a **testable claim**: “People support X because of Y.â€�
– Converts an open-ended “Why?â€� into **“Is this explanation correct?â€�**
– Research task becomes:
**Test whether the hypothesis is supported or refuted**.
—
### 5. Worked Example: Far-Right Support in Germany & Immigration
**5.1 Establishing the Puzzle (Germany & AfD)**
– Instructor introduced a **worked example puzzle**:
– Context:
– **Germany’s far-right party AfD** is gaining support.
– AfD is characterized as **ultra-nationalist/far-right**.
– It has increasing **seats in parliament** and growing **popular support**.
– Puzzle question:
– **Why is the AfD (far-right) becoming increasingly popular in Germany**,
**despite** Germany’s **troubled history** with far-right politics (e.g., the Nazi era less than 100 years ago)?
– The “despiteâ€� clause:
– Germany’s extreme-right past should (arguably) act as a **brake** on new far-right support.
– Yet far-right support is **rising**, which is **puzzling**.
**5.2 Hypothesis Example**
– Instructor presented a sample hypothesis:
– Roughly:
**People in Germany support far-right parties like the AfD because left-wing policies (like immigration) have become increasingly associated with negative outcomes (e.g., crime, job loss).**
– In other words:
– Voters perceive that **left-wing policies** (e.g., generous immigration policies) have produced **bad consequences**.
– In response, they **turn to the far right**.
– Key points stressed:
– This is **only a guess** based on prior reasoning.
– It is **not yet confirmed**—that’s why we need **evidence**.
– It is explicitly **framed using a theoretical framework** (left-right ideology).
—
### 6. Review of Theoretical Frameworks from the Midterm
– Instructor asked students to recall the **three main frameworks** used in the midterm (plus others from the course):
1. **Left–Right Ideological Spectrum**
– Used to analyze:
– How actors (citizens, parties, governments) think about:
– Role of the state
– Use of power and money
– Policy preferences.
– Helps explain **political behavior**:
– Why people support certain **policies**, **parties**, or **ideologies**.
2. **Legitimacy & State Capacity (de facto vs. de jure)**
– Legitimacy: how **rightful** or **accepted** a state/ruler is.
– Capacity: how effectively the state can **implement decisions**, **deliver services**, and **maintain control**.
3. **State Typology: Effective, Weak, Failed States**
– Classification of states based on:
– Ability to provide security, services, rule of law, etc.
– Helps answer:
– Why some states **develop** and others **struggle**.
– Why some are prone to **instability** or **crisis**.
4. **Regime Type Framework** (democracy vs. authoritarianism, etc.)
– Used to anticipate:
– What types of **actions** are typical for different regime types.
– How political systems **behave** and **develop**.
5. **Political Violence Framework (Greed vs. Grievance, etc.)**
– Used to explain:
– **Why actors engage in political violence** (e.g., civil wars, insurgencies).
– Important clarification given later:
– This framework is **not** a universal theory for why people do **anything**, but specifically **why they commit political violence**.
– Instructor stressed:
– A **good hypothesis** in this class should **invoke one of these frameworks** explicitly.
– Example in the German case:
– Framework used: **Left vs. Right ideological spectrum**.
– The hypothesis works because it:
– Attributes far-right support to people’s **reaction to left-wing policies** (immigration).
– Uses the **ideological lens** to interpret voters’ behavior.
—
### 7. Deepening the Left–Right Example: Immigration
**7.1 Why is Immigration a Left-Wing Policy?**
– Instructor walked through the logic with students:
– Left-wing priorities:
– **Common good**, social welfare, collective well-being.
– Right-wing priorities:
– **Individual rights**, personal benefits, protection of **own** resources.
– Asked:
– Why is **support for immigration** typically considered **left-wing**?
– Student and instructor reasoning:
– **Definition of immigration** clarified:
– To **immigrate** = to **come into** a country to live and work (long term).
– To **emigrate** = to **leave** one’s country.
– **Left perspective**:
– People in war-torn or impoverished countries have a **better life opportunity** if they can move to a rich, stable country (e.g., Germany).
– Supporting immigration expresses concern for the **common good**, beyond national borders.
– The state should help people who “have nothingâ€�:
– Provide housing, social support, education, etc., even for **foreigners** in need.
**7.2 Why is Opposition to Immigration a Right-Wing Position?**
– Instructor then reversed the logic:
– Question: Why is being **against** immigration more **right-wing**?
– Students’/instructor’s reasoning:
– Right-wing view:
– Focus on **own rights**, **own family**, **own resources**.
– Native citizens feel:
– Their **taxes** pay for housing, food, healthcare, education for immigrants.
– Immigrants may:
– Take jobs.
– Commit crime (perceived, regardless of whether it is empirically true).
– Long-standing citizens (and their ancestors) **“built upâ€� capital** and don’t want newcomers to obtain the **same benefits** without that history.
– Thus:
– Opposition to immigration is framed as **self-protection** of one’s own economic and social position.
– This is consistent with the **individual rights / personal benefits** focus on the right.
– Connection back to hypothesis:
– These left-right positions **shape how voters interpret immigration policies**.
– If voters perceive that left-wing immigration policies produce **crime**, **job loss**, and **tax burdens**, they may **shift support to far-right parties**.
—
### 8. Group Work: Revisiting Puzzles & Choosing Frameworks
– Instructor transitioned from lecture to group activity:
– Students told to:
1. **Return to their original puzzle** (chosen on Tuesday).
2. Spend ~5 minutes deciding:
– **Which theoretical framework** from the course best fits their puzzle.
3. At this stage:
– They did **not** need a full hypothesis yet.
– Only needed:
– Puzzle + chosen framework.
– Instructor circulated and **consulted with groups**, checking choice of frameworks:
**Example Group Consultations:**
1. **Brazil Economic Hardship Puzzle**
– Puzzle (paraphrased):
– Why does Brazil experience **economic hardship**
**despite** being a **large, resource-rich, populous** country?
– Framework guidance:
– Instructor suggested **effective/weak/failed state typology**:
– How the **state operates**—institutions, governance quality—could explain persistent economic problems despite strong material endowments.
2. **Girls’ Education Ban (Taliban) Puzzle**
– Puzzle (paraphrased):
– Why does the Taliban (in Afghanistan) **ban girls’ education**
**despite** education being essential for national development?
– Group initially suggested using **political violence / greed-grievance** framework.
– Instructor’s feedback:
– Political violence framework is specifically for explaining **violence**, not all forms of repression or social policy.
– To use it, they would need to:
– Argue banning education is either **violence itself** or directly tied to **violent strategies**.
– Suggestion to consider other frameworks:
– E.g. **state capacity** or **effective/weak/failed state**, or **regime type**.
– Challenge: Make the link between framework and outcome **explicit**.
3. Other references:
– One puzzle about Afghanistan becoming an **Islamist state**.
– One about **Afghanistan’s regime change and Taliban support** (mentioned again at the end when discussing frameworks and regime).
—
### 9. Poster Construction: Instructions & Expectations
– Instructor distributed **large sheets of poster paper** (one per group).
– Task restated:
– Create a **poster** that includes:
1. **Puzzle**
2. **Hypothesis** (explicitly linked to a framework)
3. **Two pieces of evidence** (with sources)
4. **Explanation for each piece of evidence**:
– How it connects to the hypothesis.
– How it ties to the theoretical framework.
5. **Conclusion sentence**, again using framework language.
– Aesthetic guidance:
– Artistic quality is optional:
– “If you can create beautiful artwork, do it, I love it, but the **content** is what matters.â€�
– Source requirements:
– Each evidence entry **must have a source**.
– Types: news, think tanks, academic, etc.
– Domain (.com, .org, etc.) is **not critical**, but quality and relevance are.
– AI use warning:
– Instructor explicitly acknowledged students **could** use ChatGPT:
– “I can’t stop you.â€�
– But strongly **advised against over-reliance**:
– This is **exactly the same skill** they will need on the final exam, where they **will not have access to AI**.
– Encouraged students to “challenge yourselvesâ€� and **practice the reasoning manually**.
—
### 10. Group Presentations & Instructor Feedback
Groups briefly presented their posters. Instructor focused feedback on:
– Clarity of **puzzle**.
– Appropriateness and clarity of **hypothesis**.
– Quality and relevance of **evidence**.
– Most importantly: **How well the evidence and conclusion tied back to the chosen theoretical framework**.
**10.1 Group on Afghanistan as an Islamist State (Islamic Republic vs. Taliban)**
– Puzzle (paraphrased from their reading and instructor’s recap):
– Why did Afghanistan become an **Islamist state** (Taliban rule) in **1996 and 2021**,
**despite**:
– Communist and international support for alternative regimes.
– A US-supported Islamic Republic that existed before the Taliban’s recent return.
– Hypothesis & Analysis (as heard):
– They discussed:
– **Corruption and instability** in the US-backed Islamic Republic.
– An **under-educated, poorly trained army**, desertion, low morale.
– A **decentralized Kabul government** with resource allocation problems.
– Public **grievances** and **weak ideological support**, leading people back to the Taliban.
– **Pakistan’s external support** (safe haven, training, logistics, diplomacy) as critical to Taliban resilience in both 1990s and post-2001.
– Evidence sources they cited:
– e.g. ICIJ, BBC, and others (as noted by them).
– Conclusion (paraphrased):
– Instability and corruption of the Islamic Republic,
combined with **mass trauma from civil war**,
an **illegitimate state**, and **extensive external support** from neighboring extremist/weak states,
led to a **shift toward the Islamic Emirate (Islamist autocracy)**.
– Instructor feedback:
– Strong:
– **Puzzle** and **evidence** were well-chosen and detailed.
– Students clearly did **thorough research**.
– Weakness:
– **Framework connection was unclear**:
– They said they wanted to use **regime type**, but their explanation was mostly about **state capacity** (weakness, corruption, failing army).
– Instructor urged them to make explicit:
– What does it mean that Afghanistan chose an **Islamist/autocratic regime**?
– How does each piece of evidence **speak to regime type**, not just capacity?
– If they are actually using **state capacity**, they should **say so explicitly** and use that framework’s language.
**10.2 Group on Taliban Ban of Girls’ Education**
– Puzzle:
– Why does the Taliban **ban girls’ education**,
**despite** the fact that **education is essential** for development and a prosperous future?
– Hypothesis:
– Taliban bans girls’ education because:
– **Educated women** would be harder to politically control.
– Restricting education is a **deliberate strategy** to **maintain power**.
– Evidence & Analysis (paraphrased from their summaries):
– Facts presented:
– 2.2–2.5 million girls cannot attend school.
– Girls above age 12 are banned from secondary schools and universities.
– Women are barred from universities and many workplaces.
– They must wear burqas; female figures and content are removed from curricula.
– While the Taliban invokes Islam, **most other Islamic countries allow women’s education**, indicating that this ban is an **ideological/political choice**, not a religious necessity.
– Conclusion (stated on poster):
– Using **religion and ideology** to restrict women’s education:
– Violates women’s rights.
– Undermines **state stability**.
– Contributes to pushing Afghanistan toward **failed state** status.
– Framework:
– At the end of the poster, they referenced **effective/weak/failed state**.
– Instructor feedback:
– Strengths:
– Strong **empirical detail** about specific Taliban policies.
– Clear demonstration that this is an **ideological choice**.
– Needed improvement:
– Framework connection must be **systematic**:
– For each piece of evidence (e.g., bans, exclusion from work, curriculum changes), they should explain:
– How does this contribute to **weakening institutions**?
– How does it relate to **state effectiveness, weakness, or failure**?
– Each step (“ban X because Y is ‘un-Islamic’â€�) needs explicit linkage to:
– **How these policies degrade state capacity / legitimacy**, pushing toward **failed state** classification.
**10.3 Group on Brazil’s Economic Crisis**
– Puzzle:
– Why does **Brazil** experience **economic hardship**
**despite** its:
– Large size,
– Abundant natural resources,
– Large population, and
– Potential for growth?
– Hypothesis (paraphrased from student’s reading):
– Although Brazil has:
– Strong potential and formerly stronger institutions,
– **Economic hardship** has been driven by:
– **External shocks** and
– **Internal pressures** (e.g., corruption, mismanagement),
– These pressures:
– Temporarily weakened the state’s **economic performance**,
– Leading to **higher inflation**, increased **unemployment**, and declining **public trust**.
– Evidence & Analysis:
– They cited **corruption perception indices**:
– A recent CPI (2024) score around **30/100** and rank ~107/180.
– Indicating entrenched perceptions of **widespread public-sector corruption**.
– Analysis linked corruption to:
– Decline in institutional safeguards,
– Reduced **domestic trust**,
– Reduced **international investor confidence**,
– Broader social and economic **inequalities**.
– Conclusion (paraphrased):
– Brazil’s crisis is the product of both **external forces** and **internal institutional weaknesses**.
– It causes **short- and long-term damage** to the economy via **inflation**, **unemployment**, and eroded **trust in government**.
– Framework:
– Indicated they were using **effective/weak/failed state**.
– Instructor feedback:
– Strengths:
– Well-chosen facts, good use of **indices** and **corruption data**.
– Framework choice (effective/weak/failed) was **visible**.
– Issues:
– They drift away from the framework:
– They claim the crisis is due to **external shocks**, not necessarily the state’s intrinsic effectiveness/weakness.
– Need to clarify:
– How does being an **effective or weak state** influence the **impact of external shocks**?
– Or explicitly recast the hypothesis to say:
– Brazil’s **weakness as a state** made it **vulnerable** to those external shocks.
– Instructor also flagged:
– If they used AI in constructing text, they must still ensure they personally can **replicate this reasoning** on the exam.
– If it was done manually, instructor commended their ability but still reiterated the need to **tighten framework linkage**.
—
### 11. Meta-Skills Emphasized Throughout
– Across all feedback, the instructor repeatedly emphasized:
– The **central skill** tested:
– Not just finding facts, but:
– **Choosing the right framework.**
– **Stating the puzzle clearly.**
– **Formulating a coherent hypothesis.**
– **Selecting relevant evidence.**
– **Showing, step-by-step, how each piece of evidence supports or challenges the hypothesis via the framework.**
– On the final:
– Students will need to **write this kind of argument under exam conditions**, without AI.
—
### 12. Closing, Logistics, and Student Questions
– End-of-class activities:
– A **group photo** was taken with posters.
– Light closing comments and thanks to students.
– Final exam logistics:
– No regular class on **Thursday**.
– **Final exam is on Tuesday**.
– Exam will essentially ask them to **perform the same reasoning tasks** they practiced in the poster:
– Identify puzzle → choose framework → propose hypothesis → apply evidence and analysis.
– Student questions:
– A student asked about **overall course grade**:
– Instructor said grades will be ready in approximately **two weeks**.
– Students should check **e-course (LMS)** for current components.
– Another student asked about a **recommendation letter**:
– Instructor confirmed intention to write it on **Saturday**, acknowledging receipt of necessary information.
– Dismissal:
– Students thanked the instructor; instructor reciprocated and reminded them of the exam schedule.
—
## Actionable Items for Instructor (Organized by Urgency)
### High Priority – Before the Final Exam
– **Clarify final exam expectations (if not already in syllabus)**
– Ensure students understand:
– They must **explicitly name and use one theoretical framework**.
– They must **link each piece of evidence back to that framework**, not just list facts.
– Consider posting a **brief written example** (e.g., the Germany/AfD case) showing:
– Puzzle → hypothesis → framework → evidence → analysis → conclusion.
– **Reinforce “framework languageâ€� requirement**
– On exam instructions and rubric, explicitly require:
– Use of terms like “effective/weak/failed,â€� “legitimacy,â€� “state capacity,â€� “left/right,â€� “democratic/authoritarian regime,â€� “political violence (greed/grievance),â€� etc., as appropriate.
– This directly addresses the recurring issue in presentations: good data but weak/implicit framework connection.
– **Check LMS grade visibility**
– Some students reported that they **couldn’t see all parts of their grades**.
– Verify that:
– All graded components are accurately **entered**.
– **Visibility settings** allow students to see enough to estimate their standing before the final.
### Medium Priority – After/Alongside Grading
– **Integrate poster work into final grade (if planned)**
– Decide and document:
– Whether/how these posters are being **assessed** (participation vs. graded assignment).
– Criteria: clarity of puzzle, hypothesis quality, framework use, evidence relevance, analysis.
– **Reflect on framework instruction for future iterations**
– Common problem observed:
– Students default to **describing capacity problems** or **factual context** without clearly anchoring claims in **the chosen framework**.
– For future courses:
– Consider adding **short, repeated micro-practice** explicitly labeled as “framework application drillsâ€� before major assessments.
### Lower Priority / Ongoing
– **Send or share the group photo (if promised)**
– Instructor said it would be shared via the **group chat**.
– Ensure it is sent to close the course on a positive, communal note.
– **Follow through on recommendation letter**
– Instructor committed to writing the letter on **Saturday**.
– Ensure:
– Letter is completed and sent on time.
– Student receives confirmation.
– **Optional: Archive a few strong posters as exemplars**
– Some posters (e.g., Brazil) were visually and empirically strong.
– With student permission, keep photos to use as:
– **Future examples** of both:
– Strong aspects (evidence gathering, visual design).
– Areas for improvement (framework linkage), with annotations for teaching.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The only assignment described was the in-class group poster (“your task is now to create a poster within our remaining class time that looks something like this�), which students completed and presented before the end of the session, and there was no mention of taking work home or submitting anything after class—only a reminder about the upcoming final exam (“you will not have access to AI on the final… Final exam on Tuesday�).