Lesson Report:
Okay, here is the lesson report based on the provided transcript:
**Lesson Report**
**Title:** Thesis Workshop: Finalizing Hypotheses and Developing Argument Trees
**Synopsis:** This session focused on guiding students to finalize their thesis hypotheses and begin structuring their core arguments using the concept of argument trees. The instructor announced a significant revision to the thesis structure for Chapters 4 and 5, shifting findings primarily to Chapter 3 and dedicating Chapters 4 and 5 to distinct arguments supporting the hypothesis. The bulk of the class involved interactive feedback on individual student hypotheses and brainstorming potential chapter structures and sub-arguments using a shared Google Doc.
**Attendance:**
* Students noted absent/unresponsive during feedback: Hafasa, Tuba (left meeting).
**Topics Covered:**
1. **Opening and Lesson Objectives:**
* Goal: By the end of the session, students should have a finalized hypothesis clearly linked to their research question and have started outlining the main arguments (argument trees) needed to support it.
* Context: This work prepares students for choosing one of three thesis structures to be detailed next week.
2. **Administrative Update: Revised Thesis Structure (Chapters 4 & 5):**
* Rationale: Addressed feedback from the Ministry of Education Accreditation Committee regarding the lack of methodology in previous theses.
* Previous Plan Adjustment: Initial idea was Chapters 4 (Findings) & 5 (Discussion).
* *New Structure Mandate:*
* Chapter 3: Will contain the primary findings and data analysis. The instructor noted many students have already done a good job with preliminary findings (graphs, patterns) in their Chapter 3 drafts and should keep/expand them there.
* Chapters 4 & 5: Will now be dedicated to presenting the distinct *main arguments* that stem from and support the thesis hypothesis.
* Example (Akhton/Oktan):
* RQ: How do pro-Palestine protests contribute to positioning as threats to political stability and American identity?
* Revised Structure: Chapter 4 will argue how protests are framed as threats to political stability; Chapter 5 will argue how they are framed as threats to American identity.
* Reasoning for Change: Believed to be less taxing on students than a separate findings chapter and builds logically on work already completed in Chapter 3. Instructor apologized for any confusion caused by the change.
3. **Activity: Hypothesis Review and Argument Brainstorming:**
* Instruction: Students were asked to ensure their Research Question (RQ) and Hypothesis (H) were in the shared Google Doc (initial participation noted as low).
* Objective: To review hypotheses for clarity, alignment with RQ, and to brainstorm how each could be broken down into core arguments (potential Chapters 4 & 5).
* Analogy Used: A good hypothesis, like a classic thesis statement (e.g., First Amendment essay example from instructor’s NGA class), clearly signals the structure of the subsequent chapters/arguments.
4. **Individual Student Hypothesis Feedback & Structure Discussion:**
* *Hafasa (Anti-Taliban Resistance):*
* H: Mobilization via diaspora networks & social media advocacy.
* Proposed Structure: Ch 4 (Diaspora Networks), Ch 5 (Social Media Advocacy).
* Feedback: The third element in her H (“limited domestic operational capacity”) seemed more like a critique or counter-argument. Advised to remove it from the core Ch 4/5 structure and save it for a later critical analysis/refutation section.
* *Akhton/Oktan (Pro-Palestine Protests):*
* Structure confirmed: Ch 4 (Political Stability), Ch 5 (American Identity).
* *Elina (BRICS+ Framing – KZ/UZ):*
* H: Framing BRICS+ partnership as pragmatic, complementary, balancing relations.
* Issue: Hypothesis complex; chapter structure not immediately obvious. Student confirmed focus is comparing presidential speeches.
* Potential Structures Discussed:
* Thematic Comparison: Ch 4 (Trade/Investment Comparison), Ch 5 (Development Comparison).
* Country Comparison: Ch 4 (Kazakhstan), Ch 5 (Uzbekistan), Synthesis in Conclusion.
* Instructor Caution: Avoid simple data dumping; ensure genuine comparison.
* External Factor: Student noted her supervisor (Prof. Atsunger) suggested a 3-chapter structure. Instructor deferred to the supervisor.
* *Tuba (Virginia Education Funding):*
* H: Funding disparities lead to lack of resources for special needs students.
* Issue: Hypothesis needs more specific supporting points to define chapters.
* Suggestion: Identify two distinct disparities (e.g., federal fund misappropriation, state fund issues) to form the basis of Ch 4 and Ch 5.
* Action Item: Instructor scheduled a reminder to arrange a meeting with Tuba next week.
* *Amira (Vaccine Hesitancy – KG):*
* H links hesitancy to religious bias, institutional trust, access; RQ mentions media, religious leaders, NGOs.
* Discussion: Shifted from structuring by *actors* (Media, Leaders, NGOs) to structuring by *themes* (e.g., “Vaccination is haram,” “Lack of Access,” “Distrust in Western Medicine”). Each chapter/section would explore how different actors contribute to that specific theme influencing hesitancy/trust. Instructor endorsed this thematic approach as strong.
* *Bobur (Turkey/UZ Diplomacy – AK Party Era):*
* H: Shift from economy/culture focus to broader soft power strategy.
* Structure Discussion: Student confirmed focus is on *mechanisms*, not just chronology.
* Suggestion (Thematic): Ch 4 (Economic mechanisms of public diplomacy), Ch 5 (Cultural mechanisms of public diplomacy).
* *Hamdam (Afghanistan Dependency – Taliban 2.0):*
* H: Redirected dependency (economic/diplomatic) towards Central Asia via Dependency/World Systems theories.
* Suggested Structure: Ch 4 (Economic Dependency), Ch 5 (Diplomatic Dependency).
* *I am (Domestic Violence – KG/KZ):*
* Issue: No RQ in doc, hypothesis elements focused on lack of political incentive.
* Suggested Structure (Comparative): Ch 4 (Kyrgyzstan Response/Case), Ch 5 (Kazakhstan Response/Case), with synthesis discussing the hypothesis elements (lack of incentive, etc.) within the comparison.
* *Adele & Emrebek (Presidential Education):*
* Issue: Verbal description of RQ/structure was unclear.
* Instruction: Need to write down RQ, H, and proposed structure in the Google Doc for clarity.
5. **Introduction to Sub-Arguments:**
* Purpose: To break down the primary arguments (Ch 4 & 5) further, identifying the specific points and evidence needed to prove each main argument.
* Instructor Example (China/Russia Diplomacy):
* H: China = Ed/Econ focus; Russia = Culture focus in KG.
* Primary Arg 2: Russia focuses on culture.
* Sub-arguments needed for Arg 2: Evidence of higher Russian spending on cultural media vs. China? Analysis of specific Russian cultural programs? etc.
6. **Activity: Drafting Sub-Arguments & Review:**
* Instruction: Students began drafting sub-arguments for their primary arguments in the Google Doc.
* Detailed Review (Oktan):
* Arg 1 (Threat to Political Stability) Sub-args: Media frames protesters’ ideologies as susceptible to foreign recruitment (Iran, CCP, Hamas); frames protesters as funded/trained professionals, not just students; frames protesters as indoctrinated propaganda tools.
* Arg 2 (Threat to American Identity) Sub-args: Media frames protesters as anti-Semitic (link to American values needed); frames them as holding anti-American/anti-Western values (far-left ideology); frames them as vandalizing national symbols.
* Feedback: Praised as a systematic and clear breakdown. Noted potential contradictions (e.g., Soros funding) are points for later counter-argument analysis.
* Partial Review (Amira): Revisited her structure, reinforcing the idea of linking actors’ influence (media, religious leaders) back to the core concept (institutional trust/distrust or revised concept) within her chosen thematic structure. Suggested ways actors might decrease trust (e.g., media discrediting gov actions).
7. **Concluding Remarks and Homework:**
* Assignment: For next week, students must create a full argument tree outline (Hypothesis -> Primary Arguments -> Sub-arguments for each primary argument), similar to Oktan’s example. This will be submitted via the course platform.
* Rationale: To ensure structured, evidence-based arguments and avoid descriptive rambling, leading to a complete outline for the remaining chapters.
**Actionable Items:**
* **Course Platform:**
* Post Assignment: Create and post the formal assignment requiring students to submit their argument tree outlines (Hypothesis -> Primary Arguments -> Sub-Arguments) before the next class.
* **Student Follow-Up:**
* Schedule Meeting: Follow up on the reminder to contact Tuba early next week to discuss her hypothesis and argument structure.
* Monitor Google Doc: Check for submissions/updates from students who hadn’t completed their RQ/H/Argument structure entries (esp. Adele, Emrebek, potentially others).
* Clarify with Elina: Understand the 3-chapter structure advised by Prof. Atsunger and how it fits the course expectations, or if adjustments are needed for her case.
* **Lesson Planning:**
* Next Class Prep: Prepare to review submitted argument trees. Be ready to explain the three thesis structures mentioned. Allocate time for further feedback if needed.
* Future Session Prep: Plan a future lesson focused on critical analysis, incorporating counter-arguments, and addressing potential contradictions (as mentioned during Hafasa’s and Oktan’s feedback).
* **Administrative:**
* Reinforce Structure Change: Briefly reiterate the Chapter 4/5 structure change at the start of the next lesson to ensure universal understanding.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Outlining Primary and Sub-Arguments
During our recent class session, we focused on refining your thesis hypothesis and beginning to structure the core arguments needed to support it, using the concept of argument trees. This assignment requires you to continue that process by formally outlining the main arguments stemming from your hypothesis and breaking those down into the necessary sub-arguments. This will form the detailed blueprint for your main analytical chapters (likely Chapters 4 and 5, as discussed) and ensure your thesis presents a clear, logically structured, and well-supported case.
Instructions:
1. **Start with your finalized hypothesis:** Ensure you have a clear, refined hypothesis based on our in-class work and discussions. This is the central claim your thesis aims to prove.
2. **Identify your Primary Arguments:** Based on your hypothesis, determine the main pillars or components required to prove it. As discussed in class, you should identify at least two distinct primary arguments. These arguments will likely form the core themes of your main analytical chapters (e.g., Chapter 4 and Chapter 5).
3. **Break Down Each Primary Argument into Sub-Arguments:** For *each* of your primary arguments, identify the specific, smaller claims or points (sub-arguments) you need to establish to prove that primary argument is true. Think about the logical steps required and the evidence you will need.
4. **Model Your Structure:** Refer back to the examples discussed in class. Consider how Oktan broke down his primary arguments about media portrayal into specific sub-arguments concerning ideology, funding, indoctrination, anti-Semitism, anti-American values, and national symbols. Recall the professor’s Russia/China example as well. Your sub-arguments should be similarly specific.
5. **Connect to Evidence:** Consider what kind of evidence (from your data collection in Chapters 2 and 3) you would need to support each sub-argument. While you don’t need to present the evidence itself in this outline, thinking about it will help ensure your sub-arguments are concrete and provable.
6. **Prepare Your Outline:** Clearly document your hypothesis, your primary arguments, and the sub-arguments nested under each primary argument. This detailed outline is crucial for moving forward and avoiding “long, rambling descriptions” in your writing. Ensure this is ready for our next session, as we will build upon this structure.