Lesson Report:
**Title:**
From News Consumption to Professional Analysis: Framing Contemporary Issues in International Relations
**Synopsis:**
This first session introduced the overall purpose and structure of the 400-level elective “Contemporary Issues in International Relations� and oriented students toward thinking as professional analysts rather than as opinion-holders. The instructor framed the course around three core analytical moves—describing what is happening, explaining why, and forecasting what is likely to happen—while beginning to practice these skills through news-based icebreakers and small-group debates on the “most pressing� global issues.
—
## Attendance
– Number of students explicitly mentioned as absent in the transcript: **0**
(Some students arrive/settle in during class, but no one is recorded as absent.)
—
## Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Progression)
### 1. Course Welcome and Positioning of the Class
– The instructor opened by welcoming students to **“Contemporary Issues in International Relationsâ€�**, noting:
– It is a **400-level elective** at the top of the political science requirements.
– The class includes both **political science majors** and **students from other majors/exchange students**, and this diversity of perspectives is intentionally valued for discussion.
– Acknowledged the typical boredom of “reading the syllabusâ€� on the first day and explicitly committed to:
– Avoiding a simple line-by-line syllabus reading.
– Still ensuring students leave with a clear understanding of **why the course exists** and **what they will be doing together over the semester**.
### 2. Instructor Introduction and Course Purpose
– Instructor briefly introduced himself:
– **Name:** Nate Metalla.
– **Experience:** 3 years in the ASU Department and **8 years teaching at AUCA**.
– Mentioned he will give a more complete biography later in the term.
– Transitioned quickly to the **purpose of the course**:
– The course examines **current events** (“what’s happening in the world right nowâ€�) **through the lens of International Relations and Political Science**.
– Focus on:
– Explaining *what* is happening.
– Explaining *why* it is happening.
– Using accumulated knowledge and skills to **anticipate and forecast** what **might** happen next.
– The deeper intention:
– To **complete students’ transition** from **students** to **professional analysts**.
– Specifically, to move them from being **producers of opinions** to **producers of analysis**.
### 3. What is “Analysis�? Guided Class Discussion
– The instructor posed an open question to the class:
– *“When you hear the word analysis or analyst, what comes to mind? What does an analyst do?â€�*
– Student contributions (paraphrased and then refined by instructor):
– Analysis involves focusing on the **big questions**: *what, when, where, how, and why*.
– It can mean **breaking down a system/question/problem** into specific components.
– The instructor pushed students:
– Not to stop at “breaking down a problem,â€� but to articulate **the purpose** of doing so:
– Not “just for fun,â€� but **to solve the problem** or answer the question **more accurately and reliably**.
– Emphasized **scientific qualities of analysis**:
– It should be **structured**, **systematic**, **repeatable**, and **verifiable**.
– Political science, despite its name, is still a **science** and should follow the **scientific method** to produce reputable, authoritative, and likely accurate insights.
– Clarification of “analystâ€�:
– An analyst’s job is to **produce analysis**, not just opinions.
– In this course, students will be pushed to:
– Use **evidence**.
– **Break down complex international questions** into smaller analytical pieces.
– Reassemble those pieces into **coherent, evidence-based conclusions**.
### 4. Three-Part Course Structure: Sit-Rep, Analysis, Forecasting
The instructor mapped out the conceptual and temporal structure of the course in three phases:
1. **Part I: Situational Reporting (“Sit-Rep�) – The What**
– Goal: **Verify what is happening on the ground**.
– Context:
– Students encounter news daily via traditional media and **social media** (explicit reference to Twitter/X and other platforms).
– Key questions:
– How can we confirm **what is actually happening** versus rumor/propaganda?
– How can we **describe events scientifically** and not just repeat headlines?
– Skills targeted:
– Fact-checking and **source verification**.
– Constructing **clear, neutral descriptions** of unfolding events.
2. **Part II: Analysis – The Why**
– Moves from **what is happening** to **why it is happening**.
– Integrates:
– Existing **IR theories** and frameworks students have learned in previous courses.
– Theories are used to **explain underlying causes**, dynamics, and incentives behind events that have been verified in Part I.
3. **Part III: Forecasting – The Future**
– Focus on **strategic forecasting**:
– Assessing **likelihoods** of future events (“What will happen?â€� and “How likely is it?â€�).
– Students will learn to:
– **Ground predictions in evidence and theory**, not speculation.
– Present forecasts **with reasoning** and attention to uncertainty.
– Classroom framing:
– The instructor suggested a **role-play frame**:
– He will act less as a traditional professor and more as a **“senior analyst.â€�**
– Students are a team of analysts in a **“situational boardroomâ€�**, not a “stuffy classroom.â€�
– Together they will **interpret and report on real-world events**, modeling how professional analytical teams work.
### 5. Icebreaker Activity 1: Identifying a “Most Pressing� Issue & Academic Focus
**Individual task instructions:**
– Students were asked to:
1. Open their **preferred news source** (phone, tablet, laptop).
2. Select **one article** that they believe addresses **the most important or pressing issue in the world today**.
– This could reflect:
– Personal opinion,
– Academic interest,
– Or perceived global importance.
– They had to commit to a choice, even acknowledging the difficulty of the prompt.
3. In their notebooks, write:
– The **headline** of the chosen article.
– Their **academic focus/interest**:
– Geographic region(s),
– Issue area(s) (e.g., human rights, great power competition),
– Or their senior thesis topic for seniors.
**Purpose:**
– An icebreaker to:
– Learn names and faces.
– Surface **diverse issue interests**.
– Also a **diagnostic**:
– To see how students already think about **importance**, **urgency**, and **global impact**.
– To prime them to transition from **opinion** to **structured analysis** in later steps.
### 6. Round-Robin Introductions: Headlines & Academic Interests
Students introduced themselves in turn with the required elements. Key examples and themes (summarized and organized rather than exhaustive):
– **Misinformation & Information Campaigns**
– Example: A New York Times article titled along the lines of **“Why China is suddenly obsessed with American povertyâ€�**.
– Student interest in:
– **Information and disinformation campaigns** on social media.
– Influence operations in **great power competition** and **world order** narratives.
– **Iran: Protests, Repression, and International Tension**
– Several students chose Iran-related headlines (from BBC, Reuters, French and other outlets), such as:
– Iranian warnings of **retaliation against U.S. attacks**, with **hundreds killed in protests**.
– Reports of **rising death tolls** and **regime responses** to protests.
– Motivations included:
– Interest in **authoritarian regime stability vs. protest movements**.
– Concerns about **human rights violations** and potential **genocidal violence**.
– Comparison to earlier episodes of **U.S.–Iran tension** (e.g., Trump’s first term).
– Questions about whether this time the regime might actually weaken or fall.
– **Human Rights and Genocide**
– One student explicitly framed an Iran-focused article through a **human rights** lens.
– More broadly, concern with:
– **Systematic repression** and violence.
– How domestic human rights abuses intersect with **international relations** and external interventions.
– **NATO, U.S. Policy, and Alliance Stability**
– Articles about:
– **U.S. belligerence toward NATO**.
– Internal tensions in NATO amid U.S. threats and aggressive rhetoric.
– One student chose an Associated Press piece about **NATO and Trump’s threats to seize/pursue Greenland**, situating it as:
– One of the biggest internal NATO tensions since the **Iraq War**.
– Potentially a major **geopolitical shift** if realized.
– Students linked this to their broader interest in:
– **U.S.–European relations**, including with the **EU** and **Russia**.
– The **future of NATO** and what U.S. unpredictability means for European security.
– **U.S.–China Trade Tensions and Tariffs**
– Example headline: Trump’s new tariff threats, possibly involving **India and China** (transcription imperfect but clearly about tariffs/business with China).
– Motivations:
– Concern about **trade wars**, economic coercion, and their spillover into **global politics**.
– Academic focus on **U.S. foreign relations** with other regions.
– **Other Themes Noted**
– Concern over **hidden or under-discussed conflicts** (e.g., “secret conflictsâ€� or overlooked authoritarian contexts).
– Interest in **conflict resolution** and **complex solutions** to protracted disputes.
– General focus areas:
– U.S. foreign policy,
– Great power competition,
– Authoritarianism vs. democracy,
– Human rights and international law.
The instructor consistently:
– Restated each student’s issue in **clear IR terms**.
– Linked their topics back to core course themes (authoritarian stability, alliance cohesion, information operations, etc.).
– Forecast that many of these topics (Iran, NATO, Greenland, U.S.–China, protests) will likely recur throughout the semester’s analytical work.
### 7. Mini-Debate Case: Trump, Greenland, and Seriousness of Threats
An organic debate emerged between students over **Trump’s statements about Greenland**:
– **Student skepticism**:
– Argued that Trump often makes **bombastic, unserious claims**.
– Noted the absence of concrete signs (e.g., no obvious military buildups vis-Ã -vis Greenland).
– Suggested that some threats may be **performative** or attention-seeking rather than actual policy.
– **Counterpoints**:
– Another student pointed to the **Venezuela intervention** (called a “special operationâ€� in the transcript) as a case where previously-dismissed rhetoric eventually led to real action.
– Argued this should make analysts **more cautious about dismissing threats outright**.
– Highlighted how different great powers (China, Russia, U.S.) each have **territorial ambitions or contested regions** (Taiwan, Ukraine, etc.).
– The instructor used this mini-debate to:
– Model the kind of **analytical discussion** the course aims to cultivate:
– Moving from “Trump talks nonsenseâ€� vs “Trump is dangerousâ€� to:
– What **evidence** (troop movements, diplomatic signals, legal steps) would be needed to assess the **probability** of serious action?
– Emphasize that:
– Opinions are a starting point, but this class will **push students to back them with evidence and structured forecasting**.
– Future sessions will likely revisit **Greenland** and similar questions as forecasting exercises.
### 8. Course Administration: Requirements, Policies, and AI
The instructor then turned to necessary administrative and policy matters.
**Syllabus & Platform**
– Syllabus:
– Not yet finalized; will be completed and distributed **by the end of the week**.
– Will detail assignment formats, readings, and schedule.
– Submission platform:
– All major submissions and readings will go through **eCourse**.
– **Exchange students**: will receive an **enrollment key via email** to join the course on eCourse.
**Assessment Structure**
– **Midterm**:
– Will occur **just before spring break** (around week 9, mid-March).
– Format is **still under consideration**:
– The instructor is debating **not** assigning a traditional written paper due to:
– The impact of **AI tools** (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, etc.) on the value of written assignments.
– Fatigue with reading AI-generated work masquerading as student writing.
– Possibilities include:
– An **oral exam**,
– A **group presentation**,
– Or another form of **oral/group-based assessment** focused on analysis.
– **Final Assignment**:
– Will be a **written analytical report**.
– Topic: Should be anchored in the student’s **academic interest** (region, issue) and connect to **current events**.
– Detailed instructions will come later, likely via the syllabus and eCourse.
– **Other Grade Components**:
– **Attendance and participation**:
– Strong emphasis on active engagement in a **discussion-based seminar**.
**Attendance & Participation Policy**
– **Timing**:
– Present if in class by **12:45 (first 15 minutes)** when attendance is taken.
– Arrive **after attendance but before 1:00** → **“lateâ€�**; attendance points for that day are **halved**.
– Arrive **more than 15 minutes late** → **marked absent**.
– **Excused absences**:
– Require a **medical certificate (spravka)** from a doctor, confirmed and stamped by the **AUCA medical office**.
– Excused status:
– Does **not** restore attendance points for that day;
– It simply **removes that session from the attendance calculation** (fewer total days counted).
– **Participation expectations**:
– Attendance is not just physical presence but **engagement**:
– Listening, contributing to discussion, not being distracted.
– Examples of what will hurt attendance/participation grades:
– Wearing **AirPods** during class.
– Visibly or audibly using **phones for unrelated content** (e.g., TikTok).
– The instructor does **not demand constant eloquence**; consistent, good-faith participation is sufficient.
**Deadlines & Extensions**
– All major assignments must be submitted **on time via eCourse**.
– Extensions:
– Only granted with **proper documentation** (e.g., medical certificate).
– Without documentation, **deadlines are firm**.
**Plagiarism and AI Policy**
– Traditional plagiarism:
– Copy-pasting text from articles, books, or other sources **without proper citation** is strictly forbidden and will result in a **zero**.
– AI-based plagiarism:
– Passing off text written by **ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, etc.** as one’s own work is also treated as plagiarism.
– Departmental procedure:
– Suspected AI-generated work is sent to a **committee**.
– The student can **explain/defend**.
– The committee decides if the explanation is credible.
– If not, the assignment receives a **zero**.
– Strong recommendation from instructor:
– **Do not plagiarize**, either from traditional sources or AI.
– Write your own analysis; this is especially crucial given the **discussion-heavy nature** of the course.
### 9. Group Activity 2: Selecting the “Most Pressing� Issue
Students were then asked to **return to their selected articles** and engage in more structured debate:
**Instructions:**
– Students were divided into **groups of three**, based on where they were seated.
– Each group member:
1. Shared their **headline** and the rationale for considering it a pressing issue.
2. Explained their **academic focus** again as relevant.
– The group’s task:
– Discuss and debate until they reach a **consensus** on **one issue** they collectively consider the **most pressing global issue**.
– Choose **one spokesperson** to present the group’s choice and justification to the class.
– Time allotted: ~10 minutes (with an extra 2 minutes granted upon request).
**Reported Group Outcomes:**
1. **Group 1 – Genocide as the Most Pressing Issue**
– Chosen focus: **Genocide in multiple locations** (examples mentioned: Gabon, Myanmar, Sudan, Xinjiang).
– Rationale:
– **Multiplicity and simultaneity**: Several genocides or genocidal-level atrocities are ongoing.
– Some may be **underreported or unknown** to the global public.
– The **international order**, including:
– Powerful states,
– The **United Nations**,
– Other multilateral bodies,
is **failing to stop or sufficiently respond** to these atrocities.
– This combination of extreme human suffering and **institutional inaction** makes genocide a top-priority issue.
2. **Group 2 – Ongoing Conflicts and Genocidal Violence (Ukraine, Israel–Palestine)**
– Chosen focus: A cluster of major conflicts, especially:
– **Ukraine**,
– **Israel–Palestine**,
framed through:
– **Genocidal violence**,
– **International law**, and
– Global security implications.
– Rationale:
– These conflicts test the **credibility and enforcement** of **international law** and norms (e.g., prohibition of genocide, rules of war).
– They have significant **regional and global security impacts**, particularly in the **Middle East** and Europe.
– The group emphasized a troubling pattern:
– **Each new conflict dominates attention**, leading the world to **forget earlier crises**:
– Ukraine overshadowed by Israel–Palestine,
– Then further overshadowed by new crises (e.g., Iran), etc.
– This “attention displacementâ€� contributes to **chronic under-resolution** of major conflicts.
3. **Group 3 – Trump’s Global Threats and U.S. Hegemonic Reach**
– Chosen focus: **Trump’s military and economic threats** and their **global scope**.
– Rationale:
– Trump’s rhetoric and actions affect numerous hotspots:
– **Iran** (military threats and escalation risks),
– **Venezuela**,
– **China** (trade and tariffs),
– **Greenland** (territorial and alliance tensions),
among others.
– These threats have **worldwide repercussions**:
– On **alliances** (NATO, U.S.–EU),
– On **global trade**, sanctions, and supply chains,
– On the **stability of international norms** (territorial integrity, use of force).
– Given how wide and interconnected U.S. power still is, shifts in U.S. policy under such leadership may be **one of the most consequential drivers** in the current system.
The instructor acknowledged each group’s choice as **plausibly defensible** as “most pressing� and flagged that the next step would be to deepen these with **structured analytical questions**.
### 10. Group Activity 3: Building Descriptive, Causal, and Predictive Questions
The final substantive task of the session moved from **issue selection** toward **formalizing analytical questions**, mirroring the course’s three-part structure.
**Framing by Instructor:**
– The instructor warned against a common analytical shortcut:
– **“Relying on authorityâ€�** (e.g., “CNN says it, therefore it’s trueâ€�).
– Instead, he pushed students to:
– Ask what **facts must be verified** before we can assert that a claim is **true**.
– Make explicit what **evidence** and **measurements** are needed, and how to get them.
**Example Case: Houthi Attacks in the Red Sea**
– To illustrate, the instructor used the example of **Houthi attacks** on shipping in the **Red Sea**:
– Descriptive question:
– *“Are Houthi attacks actually increasing in frequency in the Red Sea, or are we just hearing more about them now?â€�*
– This distinguishes reality from **media amplification**.
– Causal question:
– *“If the attacks are indeed escalating, why are they escalating **now** and not six months ago?â€�*
– Focus on **timing** and underlying **drivers** (e.g., regional politics, U.S. moves, local grievances).
– Predictive question:
– *“What is the likelihood of U.S. military intervention against the Houthis in the next month?â€�*
– Requires specifying **time horizon** and **possible scenarios**, then estimating relative likelihoods.
**Task for Groups:**
– Each group was asked to formulate **three questions** about their selected “most pressingâ€� issue, following this template:
1. **Descriptive question** (What?):
– Identify **which facts must be verified** to say the issue is happening as claimed.
– Consider:
– What data, indicators, or observations are needed?
– What would “countâ€� as sufficient evidence?
2. **Causal question** (Why?):
– Ask **why** the issue is unfolding as it is, **particularly now**.
– Not just “Why is there conflict/atrocity?â€� but:
– Why at this intensity?
– Why at this moment?
3. **Predictive question** (What next?):
– Specify exactly **what aspect of the future** they want to forecast.
– Example: Probability of regime collapse, escalation into interstate war, a UN intervention, etc.
– The instructor encouraged:
– **Minimal use of AI** for this task; he wanted students to rely on their own thinking.
– Groups dealing with **“genocideâ€�** to **narrow their scope**:
– Either focus on a **specific case** (e.g., Xinjiang, Myanmar) or
– Analyze whether there is a **global increase** in genocides vs. just **better awareness/reporting**.
– Time:
– ~5 minutes, with guidance that the class would reconvene around **55 minutes into the session** to wrap up.
– The session appears to end mid-activity in the transcript, implying that question development and presentation may continue next class or were truncated by time.
—
## Actionable Items
### High Priority (Before Next Class)
– **Finalize and Distribute Syllabus**
– Complete the written syllabus detailing:
– Weekly topics,
– Required readings,
– Exact formats and weightings of midterm and final assignments,
– Participation criteria and grading breakdown.
– Upload to **eCourse** and notify students.
– **Send eCourse Enrollment Key to Exchange Students**
– Email the **enrollment key** and basic instructions for accessing the course page on eCourse.
– Verify that all exchange students can log in and see course materials.
– **Confirm Next Session’s Plan**
– Decide whether to:
– Continue the **descriptive/causal/predictive questions** exercise,
– Or move directly into **Part I: situational reporting** methods.
– Prepare any supporting materials (e.g., example datasets, news clips, or methodology handouts) if continuing the analytical question workshop.
### Medium-Term (Before Midterm)
– **Decide on Midterm Format**
– Resolve whether the midterm will be:
– An **oral exam**,
– A **group presentation**,
– A structured **in-class analytical exercise**, or a hybrid.
– Define:
– Learning objectives being assessed (e.g., descriptive accuracy, causal reasoning, forecasting),
– Evaluation criteria,
– Timing and logistics.
– Communicate these clearly to students via eCourse and in class.
– **Design Detailed Instructions for Final Written Report**
– Draft and share:
– Expected **length** and structure (e.g., sit-rep + analysis + forecast),
– Requirements for **evidence use** and **theoretical integration**,
– Formatting and **citation expectations**,
– A **rubric** specifying how analytic quality will be judged (e.g., clarity of question, rigor of evidence, logic of argument, quality of forecasting).
– **Curate and Assign Foundational Readings**
– Select core readings to support each of the three course parts:
– **Verification and description** (methods in political risk/news analysis, source evaluation),
– **Causal analysis** (IR theory applications to case studies),
– **Forecasting** (basic forecasting methodology, scenario building, probability estimation).
– Start scheduling readings to align with upcoming sessions and upload to eCourse.
### Ongoing / Longer-Term
– **Reinforce AI and Plagiarism Policy**
– As written assignments approach, revisit:
– The department’s **committee procedure** for suspected AI use.
– Concrete examples of acceptable vs. unacceptable uses of AI (if any).
– Consider creating a brief **one-page guide** for students outlining best practices and consequences.
– **Track and Integrate Student Interests**
– Maintain notes on:
– Individual students’ **region/issue interests** (Iran, NATO, Greenland, human rights, information campaigns, etc.).
– Use these interests to:
– Assign **tailored case examples**,
– Form **issue-focused groups** for midterm presentations,
– Guide students toward **suitable topics** for the final report.
– **Plan Follow-Up Activities on “Most Pressing Issuesâ€�**
– Consider:
– Turning each group’s chosen issue (genocide, ongoing conflicts, Trump’s global threats) into **mini-case modules** later in the term.
– Revisiting groups’ initial **descriptive/causal/predictive questions** and having students:
– Gather actual data,
– Test their assumptions,
– Refine their forecasts.
These notes should allow you to reconstruct both the **pedagogical arc** of the first session and the **administrative structure** of the course as it was presented, and to align upcoming sessions with the trajectory you set: from opinion, to evidence-based description, to explanation, to structured forecasting.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
No homework was assigned, as all tasks described in the transcript were in-class activities (e.g., “what we’re going to be beginning with today is a little bit of an icebreaker… we’ll come back in about, say, five minutesâ€� and later “What I’d like you to do now is with your group I’d like you to take approximately, let’s take five minutesâ€�), and when assessments like the midterm and final were mentioned, the instructor explicitly said the exact details “will be coming soonâ€� without giving any concrete assignment or due date.