Lesson Report:
# Title
**Presentation Planning and Making Toolkit Recommendations Actionable**
This session finalized the presentation format and schedule for the final group project, with the class voting to split presentations across both Monday and Wednesday. The instructor then led a workshop on improving the quality of student propaganda-countermeasure toolkits, especially by making recommendations more specific, actionable, audience-appropriate, and academically justifiable.
# Attendance
– **No formal roll call was taken in the transcript.**
– **Previously absent students referenced:** 2
– **Sangmamadova Zamira Marodbekovna** — initially referenced as having missed recent lessons; one student clarified she had missed only the last class.
– **Ibraimov Suban Kubanychevich** — referenced as having missed recent lessons.
– Both of the above appear to have been present or represented in class discussion during this session.
– **No additional absences were explicitly named.**
# Topics Covered
## 1. Transition from reflection to project logistics
– The instructor opened by confirming that breakout rooms were ready and that students should have finished their initial reflection.
– Before sending students into groups, the instructor paused to clarify final presentation expectations and scheduling.
## 2. Final presentation schedule: class vote and decision
– The instructor explained the baseline presentation plan:
– **8 groups total**
– **7 minutes per group presentation**
– Roughly **one class session** would be enough to complete all presentations.
– The class was offered two initial options:
– **Option 1:** Present on Monday; use Wednesday for review/gamified activities.
– **Option 2:** Use Monday as a work/review session; present on Wednesday.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** proposed a third option:
– Split presentations across **both Monday and Wednesday**.
– The instructor used chat reactions to poll the class.
– Reported result:
– **Monday presentations only:** 7 votes
– **Wednesday presentations only:** 5 votes
– **Split across both days:** 9 votes
– The instructor interpreted this as the class choosing the **split format**.
– While students worked later, the instructor planned to create a sign-up sheet for day selection.
## 3. Presentation structure and grading expectations
– The instructor laid out the required **three-part presentation format**:
### A. Part 1: Target audience
– Recommended length: **about 2 minutes**.
– Students were told they need a **sophisticated understanding** of the audience, not just a label.
– The instructor emphasized that saying something broad such as “our audience is a voter in Taiwan who feels anxiety” would be insufficient.
– Students were asked to go deeper by explaining:
– who exactly the vulnerable audience is,
– why they are vulnerable,
– what historical or political conditions make them vulnerable,
– whether similar propaganda has targeted them before.
– The instructor also reminded students to clearly define the **propaganda campaign** they are trying to counter.
– Students were encouraged to show **actual artifacts** from the campaign:
– tweets/posts,
– videos,
– articles,
– other concrete examples.
### B. Part 2: Toolkit demonstration
– Recommended length: **about 3 minutes**.
– The instructor clarified that students should not simply dump all of their content into the presentation.
– Example given:
– If a group has six minutes of short-form video content, they should **edit/select** material so the toolkit can be shown effectively within the time limit.
– The instructor emphasized that the toolkit must be substantial enough to show, but also **curated** for presentation.
### C. Part 3: Justification
– This was framed as the **most academically important** section.
– Students were asked to explain:
– why the audience would trust the message,
– how the toolkit would enter the audience’s “circle,”
– how it would avoid seeming “cringe,”
– how it would concretely counter the identified propaganda threat.
– The instructor noted that in past versions of similar assignments, this is usually the **hardest** part:
– making the content is the fun part,
– justifying it academically is the real challenge.
### D. Grading clarification
– One unnamed student asked whether grades would be **group-wide or individual**.
– The instructor answered:
– there will be **one collective grade per group**,
– the presentation and toolkit will receive one shared grade,
– this was presented as the fairest approach since the instructor does not have full visibility into internal group labor distribution.
## 4. Mini-lecture: “Combating vagueness” in toolkit recommendations
– The instructor introduced the main workshop theme:
– if Monday’s theme was “combating cringe,” Wednesday’s theme was **“combating vagueness.”**
– After reviewing student Google Docs from the previous class, the instructor noticed that many groups’ recommended actions were **not operationalized clearly enough**.
– The instructor used the term **“operationalization”** and explained that many prescriptions were still closer to moral ideals than concrete behaviors.
## 5. Example analysis: why “think critically” is too vague
– The instructor presented the recommendation **“think critically”** and asked students whether it was specific enough.
– Student contributions:
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna** said it was **too broad**.
– **Lim Aleksei Vladimirovich** *(transcribed as “Akali/Akalei”)* said it was **abstract**.
– **Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna** said there was **no specific action**.
– **Uncertain student (“Yvonne” in transcript; roster match unclear)** pointed out that it lacked **context**.
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna** said that not everyone understands the term and that it may make people feel unintelligent or inadequate.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** pointed toward the kinds of skeptical questions an audience might ask, such as who is telling them this and on what evidence.
– The instructor expanded on these points:
– “Think critically” is too abstract to function as a usable behavior.
– It can sound **pejorative or demeaning**, as if the audience is being told they are not thinking hard enough.
– It does not provide **steps** for what critical thinking should actually look like in context.
– It may fail especially with audiences unfamiliar with higher-education language.
## 6. Example analysis: why “consider another perspective” is still too general
– The instructor presented a second recommendation: **“Try considering another perspective.”**
– Student contributions:
– **Harzu Natalia** said **“it depends”**, specifically depending on which perspective is being considered.
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna** again said it was **not specific**.
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna** asked **which perspective**, highlighting the lack of specificity.
– The instructor used this example to discuss:
– lack of actionable steps,
– the possibility that not all perspectives are equally valid,
– the risk that the statement sounds patronizing or childlike,
– the need to move beyond generic ethical language into behavior design.
## 7. Guided brainstorm: turning broad advice into step-by-step action
– Students were asked to spend a few minutes choosing one of the two vague recommendations and reworking it into a recommendation that was:
– specific,
– actionable,
– usable in their own group’s project context.
– The instructor then used cold-calling to gather examples.
### A. Amina’s contribution: build a fact-checking process
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna** suggested that groups should define an explicit method:
– check the claim,
– identify the proof/evidence offered,
– consider an alternative explanation.
– The instructor praised this as more concrete than “think critically,” but cautioned that students still need to think about the **delivery**:
– if the toolkit simply tells people to “check your sources,” the target audience may still dismiss it as preachy or outsider messaging.
### B. Elaiym’s contribution: use propaganda against propaganda
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna** raised the idea that one propaganda campaign might be countered by another message that pushes the opposite conclusion.
– The instructor strongly affirmed this point:
– students’ toolkits are themselves a form of **propaganda** under the course definition,
– propaganda is not always bad,
– “good propaganda” can be used to combat harmful propaganda.
– The instructor referenced **anti-smoking campaigns** as an example of propaganda typically regarded as socially beneficial.
### C. Elaiym’s follow-up: use questions instead of commands
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna** further suggested that instead of telling the audience what to think, the toolkit could ask them questions that reveal:
– gaps in knowledge,
– possible bias,
– missing considerations before they act.
– She gave an example from her group’s project:
– target audience: **migrants**
– propaganda claim: if Russia loses the war, migrants will lose their jobs
– toolkit idea: ask reflective questions such as why the audience finds that argument convincing.
– The instructor agreed that **questions can be less invasive** than direct commands.
– The instructor added an important nuance:
– the questions should target **root anxieties**, not directly accuse the audience.
– To illustrate this, the instructor used a U.S. example:
– anti-immigrant propaganda may work not only because of prejudice, but because of deeper **economic anxieties**.
– Based on that logic, the instructor recommended asking questions about:
– job insecurity,
– economic decline,
– broader fears underneath the propaganda,
rather than bluntly asking why someone hates immigrants.
### D. Samira’s contribution: insert a prompt before sharing
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna**, after an initial need for clarification, proposed a more concrete mechanism:
– before a user shares a post on the group’s website/platform, they would be prompted to check at least one source or another perspective.
– The instructor called this **very doable** and appreciated its specificity.
– The main caution:
– the design must still feel like it comes from **within the audience’s world**,
– otherwise it may sound like a government or watchdog intervention rather than trusted in-group communication.
## 8. Breakout-room revision work
– Students were sent into breakout rooms to revise their Google Docs.
– Instructions for groups:
– make the recommended behavior **actionable**,
– make sure the audience would actually **buy into it**,
– avoid sounding like an outsider, foreigner, or authority figure disconnected from the target community.
– The instructor said he would check in after several minutes and asked students to **update the shared Google Doc** so progress could be monitored.
## 9. Group management and troubleshooting during breakout work
– Several administrative issues came up while students were in breakout rooms:
– **Lim Aleksei Vladimirovich** *(transcribed as “Akalei/Alex”)* explained that he had been placed with different groups across sessions and requested to join the second group option; the instructor placed him in **group 8**.
– **Harzu Natalia** asked to be moved to **group 5** because her partners in room 1 were missing.
– **Ezgo Helen** reported being disconnected and asked to be returned to **group 7**.
– **Amery Ainullah** *(name uncertainly transcribed as “Anula”)* had just connected as rooms were ending and checked whether he should still enter a room.
## 10. Post-breakout debrief: caution about generic fact-checking frameworks
– After students returned, the instructor reported seeing “a lot of promising stuff” in the group documents.
– However, the instructor also noticed a repeated pattern:
– many groups were prescribing a basic **pause-and-fact-check** response to emotional content.
– The instructor said this framework is not necessarily wrong, but warned that it can backfire if framed poorly.
– Key warning:
– telling an emotionally activated audience to pause or stop feeling angry can resemble telling a depressed person to “just not be depressed.”
– The instructor emphasized:
– the framework is useful,
– but the **pitch** matters,
– students must avoid invalidating emotions or triggering the **backfire effect**.
## 11. Course evaluation
– The instructor paused for required course evaluation.
– He explained that:
– it was contractually required,
– student feedback would help him improve,
– he especially wanted feedback on:
– Zoom teaching,
– digital infrastructure,
– course themes,
– what students learned,
– what they wanted more of.
– Students were given time to complete the evaluation while also finalizing presentation day assignments.
## 12. Final sign-up for presentation days
– The instructor first attempted polling by reactions, then switched to a per-group sign-up in the chat.
– Final schedule:
– **Wednesday presenters:** Groups **2, 8, 7, and 3**
– **Monday presenters:** all remaining groups
– The instructor advised all groups to **meet over the weekend** and be fully prepared for a **7-minute presentation**.
## 13. Final clarification: platform choice for Iranian youth audience
– **Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna** asked a final project question:
– her group’s target audience is the **younger Iranian generation**,
– the toolkit is designed for **digital/social media platforms**,
– she asked whether this is still acceptable given internet blackouts and censorship in Iran.
– The instructor responded:
– the key issue is whether the target audience **actually uses** those platforms regularly.
– Kanykei specified that the group was considering:
– **Instagram**
– **YouTube/YouTube Shorts** *(transcribed unclearly as “YouTube Forge”)*.
– The instructor said this approach is acceptable if the group can credibly argue that:
– young Iranians do access those networks,
– often through **VPN use**,
– and would realistically encounter the toolkit there.
## 14. Closing
– The instructor reminded students:
– not to exit the evaluation before submitting it,
– that **Monday** would include the first set of presentations and then review/fun activities,
– and that questions could still be sent before presentation days.
– **Ezgo Helen** asked for the evaluation link again, and the instructor reposted it.
# Student Tracker
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna** — proposed a concrete thinking method built around checking claims, evidence, and alternative explanations.
– **Amery Ainullah** *(uncertain transcript match: “Anula”)* — joined late and checked on breakout room timing.
– **Ezgo Helen** — reported a disconnection, rejoined breakout work, and later requested the evaluation link.
– **Harzu Natalia** — commented that recommendations depend on perspective, noted frustration with too many voting options, and requested reassignment to group 5.
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna** — suggested an actionable design in which users are prompted to check a source/another perspective before sharing content.
– **Ibraimov Suban Kubanychevich** — was referenced in early administrative discussion about prior absence and group placement.
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna** — emphasized that vague terms like “critical thinking” may be unclear, unspecific, and discouraging for audiences.
– **Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna** — pointed out that “think critically” lacks a specific action and asked a final question about platform suitability for an Iranian youth audience.
– **Lim Aleksei Vladimirovich** *(transcribed as “Akali/Akalei/Alex”)* — described vague recommendations as abstract and later resolved his group assignment to group 8.
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna** — identified broad recommendations as too vague, proposed counter-propaganda as a strategy, and suggested using reflective questions in her group’s migrant-focused toolkit.
– **Sangmamadova Zamira Marodbekovna** — referenced in the opening administrative check regarding recent absence and group placement.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** — proposed splitting presentations across both Monday and Wednesday and later highlighted how audiences may question vague advice and its evidence base.
– **Uncertain student (“Yvonne” in transcript; roster match unclear)** — noted that “think critically” lacked context.
# Actionable Items
## High urgency
– **Presentation prep**
– All groups must prepare a **7-minute group presentation**.
– Presentation must include:
– target audience,
– toolkit,
– justification.
– **Presentation days**
– **Wednesday:** Groups 2, 8, 7, 3
– **Monday:** all remaining groups
– **Group work**
– Meet with group members before presenting.
– Revise Google Docs so recommendations are **specific, behavioral, and audience-credible**.
– **Course evaluation**
– Students were asked to complete and submit the course evaluation form.
## Medium urgency
– **Improve toolkit framing**
– Groups using a pause/fact-check model should revise the tone so it does not sound like “don’t feel that emotion.”
– Avoid language that feels preachy, insulting, or obviously from an outsider.
– **Strengthen justification**
– Each group should be ready to explain why the audience would trust the toolkit and how it avoids the “cringe”/backfire effect.
– **Platform justification**
– Kanykei’s group should be ready to justify why Instagram/YouTube are realistic delivery channels for younger Iranian audiences despite censorship/blackouts.
## Lower urgency / follow-up
– **Instructor follow-up**
– Review course evaluation feedback for future course design, Zoom delivery, and digital infrastructure improvements.
– **Administrative clarity**
– Confirm any remaining group membership issues after today’s reassignment requests.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Final Group Presentation on Your Counter-Propaganda Toolkit
You will complete and rehearse your group’s final presentation on the counter-propaganda toolkit you have been developing. This assignment asks you to show that you understand your target audience, present the toolkit itself in a concise format, and academically justify why your strategy would actually work against the propaganda campaign you identified.
Instructions:
1. Meet with your group before your presentation day.
– As discussed in class, you should meet with your group members over the weekend and make sure your presentation is fully ready.
– Your presentation is a group presentation, and your whole group will receive one collective grade.
2. Confirm your group’s presentation day.
– If your group is Group 2, Group 8, Group 7, or Group 3, you will present on Wednesday.
– If your group is not Group 2, 8, 7, or 3, you will present on Monday.
3. Plan your presentation for a total of 7 minutes.
– Your entire group has 7 minutes total, not 7 minutes per person.
– Divide speaking roles and content carefully so that you stay within the time limit.
4. Organize your presentation into the 3 required parts.
– Your presentation should include:
1. Target audience
2. Toolkit
3. Justification
5. Prepare Part 1: Explain your target audience in about 2 minutes.
– Do not describe your audience in vague or overly broad terms.
– Show that you have a sophisticated understanding of who this audience is.
– Explain:
– who they are,
– why they are vulnerable to the propaganda campaign,
– what anxieties, fears, or conditions make them susceptible,
– and, if relevant, whether similar propaganda campaigns have targeted them before.
– Clearly identify the propaganda campaign your group is responding to.
– If possible, include examples of actual propaganda artifacts, such as:
– a social media post,
– a video,
– a news article,
– or another piece of content designed to influence this audience.
6. Prepare Part 2: Present your toolkit in about 3 minutes.
– Show the actual content your group created.
– This might include short-form videos, text-and-image posts, or other media.
– Make sure the toolkit is edited or selected so that it can be presented within 3 minutes.
– If you created more content than can fit into that time, choose the most representative pieces or shorten what you show.
7. Prepare Part 3: Justify your toolkit academically.
– This is the part the professor said he will be paying the most attention to.
– Explain why your toolkit would actually work.
– Address both of the following:
– Why would your target audience trust this message?
– How does your toolkit counteract the propaganda threat you identified?
– In your explanation, consider:
– how your message enters the audience’s “circle,”
– how you avoid sounding like an outsider,
– how you avoid sounding “cringe,” condescending, or overly obvious,
– and how your content responds to the audience’s deeper anxieties rather than just arguing against surface-level beliefs.
8. Make sure the behavior you recommend is actionable.
– One major focus of this class session was avoiding vague recommendations.
– Do not rely on broad advice such as:
– “think critically,”
– “consider another perspective,”
– or similarly abstract phrases by themselves.
– Instead, turn your recommendation into something concrete that a person can actually do.
– Your audience should be able to follow specific steps, not just receive a moral instruction.
9. Review your toolkit for vagueness.
– Ask yourselves:
– What exact behavior are we recommending?
– Can a person realistically perform that behavior?
– Is it clear when they should do it?
– Is it clear how they should do it?
– Revise any part of your toolkit that sounds too general or abstract.
10. Make sure your recommendation will not trigger a backfire effect.
– The professor emphasized that even a good framework can fail if it sounds like you are telling people not to feel their emotions.
– Avoid wording that sounds like:
– “just calm down,”
– “just stop being angry,”
– or “just think harder.”
– Instead, design your message so it feels persuasive, credible, and usable from the audience’s point of view.
11. Make sure your toolkit sounds like it comes from within the audience’s world.
– Your audience is more likely to reject your message if it sounds like it comes from:
– a government watchdog,
– an outsider,
– a foreign voice,
– or someone who does not understand them.
– Review your tone, platform, examples, and language so that your toolkit feels trustworthy to the specific people you are targeting.
12. If your strategy uses questioning, make sure the questions are carefully chosen.
– The class discussed that asking questions can be effective because it is often less invasive than directly telling people what to do.
– If you use questions, make sure they:
– invite reflection,
– do not immediately provoke defensiveness,
– and do not reveal too quickly that you are opposing the audience’s current assumptions.
– Focus on questions connected to root anxieties and underlying concerns, not just direct confrontation.
13. Make sure your chosen platform makes sense for your audience.
– If your toolkit uses digital platforms or social media, confirm that your target audience would realistically use those platforms.
– For example, if your audience has limited access because of censorship or blackouts, make sure your presentation explains why the platform is still credible or accessible enough to work.
14. Update your group’s Google Doc.
– The professor asked groups to continue modifying their work in the Google Doc so everyone can follow along.
– Make sure your latest ideas, revisions, and presentation structure are reflected there.
15. Rehearse your presentation as a full group.
– Practice the presentation from beginning to end.
– Time yourselves carefully.
– Make sure each speaker knows:
– what they are saying,
– when they are speaking,
– and how their part connects to the rest of the presentation.
16. Check that your final presentation answers the core questions clearly.
– Before presenting, make sure your group can clearly answer:
– Who is your target audience?
– What propaganda campaign are you responding to?
– What is your toolkit?
– What exact action or response does your toolkit encourage?
– Why would the audience trust it?
– Why would it successfully counter the propaganda?
17. Bring any final questions to the professor before your presentation day.
– If your group is uncertain about your platform, audience fit, justification, or presentation structure, reach out before class.
18. Come to class ready to present.
– On your assigned day, be fully prepared to deliver your 7-minute group presentation.