Lesson Report:
Okay, here is the lesson report based on the provided transcript:
**Lesson Report**
**Title:** Student Presentations on Nationalism & Final Literature Review Workshop
*Synopsis:* This session began with the final two student presentations comparing scholarly texts on nationalism (Gellner vs. Calhoun; Habermas vs. Smith on globalization). The majority of the class time was then dedicated to a structured workshop aimed at preparing students for their final literature review assignment, guiding them through selecting texts, defining a central theme and sub-themes, and practicing comparative analysis.
**Attendance:**
* 1 student (Erhan) mentioned as potentially absent or submitting presentation via email.
**Topics Covered:**
1. **Opening Remarks & Presentation Setup**
* The instructor apologized for a slight delay.
* The plan for the day was announced: two (potentially three) final student presentations followed by a workshop for the final assignment.
* Presenters identified: Anusha, Sultanate, potentially Azmat. Erhan was noted as needing to email his presentation.
2. **Student Presentation 1: Sultanate – Comparing Theories of Nationalism**
* **Topic:** Nationalism, comparing foundational and contemporary views.
* **Sources:**
* Ernest Gellner (“Gernard” in transcript): *Nationalism* (likely *Nations and Nationalism*). Key ideas presented: Nationalism is modern, linked to industrial society’s need for homogenous, educated populations (‘high culture’) facilitated by state-controlled education. Nationalism creates nations, not the reverse. State ensures educational quality.
* Craig Calhoun (“Craig Kelthulhu” in transcript): *Nationalism Matters* (2017). Key ideas presented: Agrees nationalism is important but argues Gellner is too focused on structure (economy, education). Nationalism also involves emotions, identity, feelings of connection, moral sentiment. Quotes: “framework through which people experience their place,” Gellner’s view “insufficiently attentive to how nationalism takes into moral sentiment.”
* **Comparison:** Gellner sees nationalism as a *functional requirement* of industrial society (system). Calhoun agrees on its importance but adds the *emotional/meaning-making* dimension (feeling). Quotes: Gellner – “consequence of a new form of social organization”; Calhoun – “shapes modern subjectivities, not only shaped by economic structure.”
* **Conclusion:** Both help understand nationalism – Gellner explains its rise in modernity, Calhoun its continued relevance via emotional/identity aspects. Understanding requires seeing it as both a system (state-organized) and a feeling (emotionally believed).
* **Instructor Q&A:** Asked Sultanate to elaborate on Calhoun’s “emotional components.”
* *Sultanate’s Response:* Mentioned history, identity, psychological belonging, shared values.
3. **Student Presentation 2: Anusha – Nationalism and Globalization**
* **Topic:** Interaction between nationalism and globalization.
* **Presentation Structure:** Overview, Habermas perspective, Anthony D. Smith perspective, comparative analysis, conclusion.
* **Sources:**
* Jürgen Habermas (“German East-Borig” in transcript): Work from 2005 (likely related to *The Postnational Constellation*). Key ideas presented: Nationalism and globalization have a complex, interactive relationship, not simple opposition. Globalization (increased exchange) can provoke stronger national identity assertions as groups seek distinctiveness. Nations must adapt while maintaining self-concept. Globalization changes *conditions* of existence, doesn’t destroy nations; identity is reshaped. Quote: “globalization does not simply assault nations, it changes their conditions of existence.”
* Anthony D. Smith (“Anthony D.C.” in transcript): Work from 1995 (likely *Nations and National Identity* or related). Key ideas presented: Leading scholar of ethno-symbolism. Globalization doesn’t erase national cultures but can reinforce them through cultural revival, symbolic reinterpretation. National identity remains a powerful emotional/cultural force. Globalization leads to *reinvention*, not disappearance, of national identities. Creates homogenizing forces *and* opportunities for nations to assert identity.
* **Comparison:** Both agree nationalism persists despite globalization, rejecting the idea of automatic weakening. Differences in emphasis: Habermas focuses more on *structural transformations* (economy, governance, communication) influencing nationalism. Smith focuses more on *cultural adaptations* and resilience of national identities/symbols. Both see nationalism as dynamic.
* **Conclusion:** Nationalism evolves alongside global changes, finding new expressions. Globalization reshapes conditions but doesn’t eliminate the need for national belonging. Habermas highlights structural shifts; Smith highlights symbolic adaptation. Modern nationalism is a living process adjusting to globalization.
* **Instructor Q&A:** No questions asked by the instructor.
4. **Workshop: Final Literature Review Preparation**
* **Objective:** Equip students to leave the class with a clear plan for their final literature review (due May 19th), including texts, theme, sub-themes, and understanding of author interactions, leaving mainly the writing task.
* **Assignment Requirements Review:**
* Analyze dialogue between 4 scholars.
* Text requirements: At least 2 from the course syllabus, 1 contemporary (published >2010, can be the one used for presentation), 1 “wild card” (another contemporary, course text, or new relevant text).
* Structure: Select 1 main theme, identify 3 subcategories/sub-themes (frameworks, methods, arguments, etc.).
* Focus: Must be on *analysis* and *synthesis*, showing connections and relationships between authors’ ideas.
* **Common Pitfalls to Avoid:**
* *Book Review Syndrome:* Simply summarizing each text descriptively without analysis or connection. Instructor emphasized interest in student’s organization and insights into connections.
* *Lack of Argument:* Not making a claim about the relationships or the debate itself. Need to argue something about *what the relationship between ideas reveals*.
* *Lack of Synthesis:* Stating authors’ views without discussing interaction or using comparative language.
* **Assignment Q&A Session:**
* *Wild Card Text:* Confirmed flexibility (contemporary, course text, older text, new find).
* *Nature of Argument:* Clarified the goal is *not* to argue which theory is “better” (e.g., instrumentalism vs. primordialism) but to explain *how* different authors/theories engage with the chosen *theme* (e.g., how primordialists vs. instrumentalists view globalization’s impact differently). Focus on explaining the scholarly conversation and arguments within it.
* *Analysis vs. Description:* Clarified that analysis lies in explaining the *meaning* and *implications* of the connections between authors’ ideas, how they build on or critique each other regarding the theme/sub-themes.
5. **Workshop Activity 1: Theme and Text Selection**
* **Task:** Students individually determine their main theme and list their four texts (or at least three: 2 course, 1 contemporary).
* **Guidance:** Instructor provided example themes:
* Role of modernity in the formation of national identity.
* Nationalism as unifying/stabilizing vs. destabilizing/fragmenting.
* **Process:** Students given ~5 minutes to work. Instructor checked in with individuals.
6. **Workshop Activity 2: Peer Review & Sub-theme Brainstorming**
* **Task:** Students partner up to:
* Assess the appropriateness of each other’s chosen theme (needs substance, allows for debate, not too vague like “primordialism vs. instrumentalism”).
* Brainstorm 2-3 sub-themes to break down the main theme.
* **Guidance:** Instructor provided example sub-themes for the “modernity” theme:
* Role of communications technologies.
* Economic vs. cultural determinants.
* **Instructor Feedback during Activity:** Advised against using specific case studies as *sub-themes* (better used as evidence). Discussed an outline with one student (theme: elite mobilization; sub-themes: how elites mobilize, context shaping behavior, theoretical frameworks), emphasizing connecting all sub-themes back to the main theme and considering chronological progression of the debate. Advised another student struggling with theme definition to focus on a specific *debate* or *question* within nationalism studies rather than just listing concepts (like ethnonationalism, patriotism) and cautioned against using overly broad or outdated frameworks (like primordialism) as the *main* theme.
7. **Workshop Activity 3: Summarizing Author Positions on Sub-themes**
* **Task:** For each sub-theme identified, students write a single sentence summarizing each chosen author’s perspective or argument related to it.
* **Guidance:** Instructor provided an example: “Gellner emphasizes the industrial needs of a society…” for an economic sub-theme.
* **Instructor Feedback during Activity:** Advised a student on refining their theme about cultural narratives vs. political strategies, suggesting specificity regarding timeframes (e.g., “post-colonial”) and acknowledging that dividing authors into camps is okay but requires analyzing nuances *within* those camps. Advised another student against making a specific case study (Kyrgyzstan, Kenya) the main theme unless all chosen scholars addressed it directly; recommended focusing on abstract concepts/debates and using cases as supporting evidence.
8. **Workshop Activity 4: Practicing Comparative Analytical Statements**
* **Task:** Students practice writing one comparative analytical statement about an interaction between authors on one sub-theme, using provided sentence starters.
* **Guidance:** Instructor provided three types of comparative prompts:
* *Contrast:* “Author A believes X, but in contrast, Author B believes Y.”
* *Nuance:* “While Author A and B both agree that Z, A emphasizes P while B focuses on Q.”
* *Building:* “Author A builds on B’s point about R by adding S.”
* **Instructor Feedback during Activity:** Confirmed with a student that they were identifying relationships (disagreement, building) and stressed the importance of explicitly stating this relationship using comparative language.
9. **Concluding Remarks & Reminders**
* Students encouraged to keep their workshop notes and apply the thinking process to their papers.
* **CRITICAL REMINDER:** Papers MUST include in-text citations and a reference list using APSA style. Failure to do so will result in a zero grade. This will be emphasized on the submission portal.
* Instructor initiated a class group photo.
**Actionable Items:**
* **Presentations:**
* Follow up with Erhan regarding the submission of his presentation.
* Confirm if Azmat still needs to present or if their presentation slot was missed/rescheduled.
* **Grading:**
* Grade Sultanate’s presentation.
* Grade Anusha’s presentation.
* **Final Paper Support:**
* Consider offering additional guidance or reviewing the outline for the student developing the “elite mobilization” theme (Azmat, based on transcript details).
* Potentially follow up with the student who was struggling to define a non-case-study-based theme.
* Check in with the student intending to use “primordialism vs. instrumentalism” to ensure they understand the potential limitations and how to frame it effectively within a broader theme.
* **Assignment Administration:**
* Ensure the APSA citation requirement and the consequence of non-compliance (zero grade) are clearly stated on the final paper submission instructions/portal.
* **Class Community:**
* Share the group photo with the students if desired/appropriate.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
No new homework was assigned during this lesson; the session was dedicated to workshopping the previously assigned final literature review paper, with the stated goal being that students should leave the class with a clear plan, leaving only the writing of the paper itself.