Lesson Report:
Title
Predicting Support for Collective-Action Policies and Defining the State
In this in-person session, students first rebuilt classroom community with a name-memory icebreaker, then completed a prediction exercise using a simplified left/right ideological framework to infer policy preferences via indirect questions. The class closed by reviewing and applying a five-point checklist for identifying a state, working through concrete examples and edge cases to solidify conceptual understanding.
Attendance
– Students explicitly mentioned absent: 1 (Ekaterina)
– Note: Several students were noted as absent last Thursday but present today (Rustam, Dastan, Daniar).
Topics Covered (chronological)
1) Welcome, objectives, and return to in-person format
– Framed three goals for the day: (1) learn/relearn everyone’s names, (2) finish last week’s prediction activity, (3) wrap up “what is the state.â€�
– Emphasized benefits of in-person seminars vs Zoom.
2) Icebreaker — Name Memory Chain
– Instructions: In a snake/horseshoe order, each student says their name and then repeats all prior names; instructor goes last and must recite all names forward and backward.
– Purpose: Community-building and name recall, replacing the week-2 icebreaker missed due to online sessions.
– Execution notes: Coin toss determined which side starts; students were encouraged not to stand. Instructor successfully recited names forward and backward to close the activity.
– Names captured during the exercise and subsequent grouping (spellings as heard; some may be transcription variants): Dastan, Lola, Medina, Aishan/Aijan, Clara, Amina/Almina, Danyar, Ali, Tursunay, Jibek, Aydarbek/Idarbek, Alim, Alimbek, Rustam, Elaman, Aliyah, Karahan.
3) Reconstituting group work teams (from last Thursday) and seating plan
– Group 1: Ali, Ekaterina (absent), Elaman, Karahan.
– Group 2: Aijan, Aliyah, Lola, Medina; later added Dastan.
– Group 3: Idarbek, Almina, Tursunay; later added Rustam.
– Group 4: Alimbek, Clara, Jibek; later added Daniar.
– Seating map: G1 near door; G2 corner; G3 middle; G4 opposite side.
4) Recap: Simplified ideological framework for class use
– Definition refresh: Left wing = common good/community-oriented; Right wing = individual freedom/rights/individualism (stated as intentionally simplified for the course exercise).
– Reminder of last week’s application to an AUCA attendance policy.
5) Prediction activity setup — AUCA “Student Support� policy (hypothetical)
– Policy: Starting next year, 10% of every course grade must be “Student Support,â€� defined and measured by each instructor, capturing helping peers with notes/group work, active participation in group discussions, and being a constructive community member.
– Task framing: The AUCA President’s Office “hiresâ€� each group to predict which students will support or oppose the policy.
– Constraints:
– You may NOT ask students directly about the policy.
– You may NOT ask about their own participation in group activities or helping classmates.
– Deliverable: A two-question system that predicts support/oppose indirectly; 10–15 minutes group work.
6) Group presentations and instructor feedback on proxy-question design
– Core instructional themes:
– Avoid social desirability bias (e.g., “Do you like helping people?â€� will yield near-universal “yesâ€� and little predictive power).
– Stay within constraints (no direct questions about the policy or classroom helping/participation).
– Use proxy questions that tap underlying values (individualism vs collectivism) or behaviors not directly about class participation.
– Group inputs and feedback:
– Group (role-play by “ladiesâ€�): Proposed “Do you like helping people/your siblings?â€� → Instructor flagged social desirability bias. They added:
– Is 90% “enough,â€� or do you always aim for 100%? (Motivation/perfectionism—ambiguous linkage.)
– Are your achievements mostly your own work vs also due to people around you? → Instructor endorsed as a strong proxy for individualism vs collectivism.
– Are you an extrovert or introvert? → Potentially relevant but weaker/indirect link.
– Group 3: “Which study method is most effective: group study or individual?â€� → Too close to the prohibited domain (essentially about group participation). Revision: frequency of extracurricular/volunteering involvement → Instructor allowed as barely acceptable proxy (near the constraint boundary).
– Group 2: Suggested gauging how well students understand their classes; debated whether left/right would systematically differ in support. Aijan proposed embedding the measure as a short essay prompt. Instructor approved the essay approach but required a non-school topic to drive it.
– Aliyah proposed: “Do you agree that 10% of your taxes should go to a homeless/unemployment fund?â€� with the assumption of proper government use. Instructor strongly endorsed this as a clean left/right-aligned proxy likely to predict support for the student-support policy.
– Group 1: Raised the imprecision of the left/right dichotomy and pointed out incentives (e.g., easy points, workload/time constraints) that can cut across ideology. Instructor acknowledged real-world complexity and emphasized:
– Aggregation: With larger samples, patterns often emerge even with noise/outliers.
– For today, the simplified left/right frame is a teaching tool; more nuanced typologies to come.
– Rejected “Would you be a W&L Center tutor?â€� as confounded by time/responsibility, not just altruism.
– Interim outcome: Two strong indirect predictors to include in a 2-item instrument:
1) Agreement with earmarking a fixed share of taxes for a homeless/unemployment fund (yes/no + rationale).
2) Locus of achievement: “Are your achievements primarily your own or also the result of others’ help/community?� (scale or forced choice).
– A third, optional proxy (use cautiously): “How often do you participate in extracurriculars/volunteering?â€� (risk of edging too close to the constraint).
7) Synthesis: Why categorization and indirect measures matter
– Political science often predicts attitudes from broader value orientations; left/right is a simplified teaching scaffold.
– Future sessions will introduce more refined ideologies and expand the predictive toolkit.
8) Transition to “What is the State?� — Five-point checklist (review)
– Checklist to evaluate if an entity is a state:
1) Territory
2) Population
3) Sovereignty (supreme authority within territory; ability to make/enforce rules)
4) International recognition
5) Monopoly on force (legitimate use of violence via police/military)
– Clarifications:
– Population vs citizenship: population = people present; citizenship/passports are legal status, not needed to establish “population.â€�
– Sovereignty requires enforceability; a constitution alone is insufficient without the capacity to enforce rules.
9) Applying the checklist to India (concrete example)
– Territory: Visible borders on maps; physical border controls/checkpoints.
– Population: Direct observation (people in streets, housing), evidence of habitation; not just documents.
– Sovereignty: India makes and enforces laws within its borders; sovereignty is meaningful because the state can enforce compliance (ties to monopoly on force).
– International recognition: UN membership; presence of Indian embassies abroad as tangible indicators that other states treat India as a state.
– Monopoly on force: Existence of national military and police; state’s legitimate authority to use force to implement the law.
10) Edge cases and next steps
– Discussed Kosovo (partial recognition) and Abkhazia (narrow recognition) as cases that don’t cleanly check all boxes; failure to meet every criterion creates ambiguity rather than an automatic “not a state.â€�
– Instructor noted we will return to data visualization/graphs and more nuanced classification in future meetings.
11) Wrap-up and logistics
– Announced: A reading will be posted to e-course tonight; continue on Tuesday.
– Brief Q&A on recognition politics and student reassurance regarding course progress.
Actionable Items
Immediate (today/tomorrow)
– Post the assigned reading to e-course; verify access for all students.
– Bring/secure working markers for next session (classroom supplies issue noted).
– Mark attendance: record Ekaterina as absent today.
Before next class
– Finalize the two-question prediction instrument:
– Q1 (values): “Do you agree that X% of taxes should be earmarked for a homeless/unemployment fund? Why/why not?â€� (assume proper use of funds).
– Q2 (locus of achievement): “Are your achievements primarily your own or also due to support from others?â€� (define response scale).
– Optional third (use with caution): “Frequency of extracurricular/volunteering involvement.â€�
– Draft standardized wording, response scales, and a simple scoring rule for predicting support vs opposition to the Student Support policy; ensure questions comply with stated constraints.
– Circulate a cleaned roster to reconcile name spellings (e.g., Aijan/Aishan, Aydarbek/Idarbek, Amina/Almina; Ali vs Alim) and confirm who is in each group (G1–G4).
Near-term (this week)
– Prepare follow-up activity to test the prediction instrument (e.g., small pilot in class or online form), and plan to compare predicted vs actual attitudes (without violating the “don’t ask directlyâ€� rule in the pilot—use revealed preferences in a later exercise).
– Develop a short mini-lecture or visual on how aggregation smooths noise (introduce simple cross-tabs/graphs to show predictive patterns).
– Plan an applied “state checklistâ€� exercise with 2–3 contested cases (e.g., Kosovo, Taiwan, Abkhazia) to practice dealing with ambiguous criteria and competing recognitions.
Longer-term
– Build the next module introducing more nuanced ideological dimensions (beyond left/right) to improve prediction and move closer to real-world complexity.
– Create standardized examples and case packets for the “What is a State?â€� unit (include maps, embassy lists, UN status, and indicators of monopoly on force) for quick in-class application.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Pre-class Reading on Statehood and Political Ideologies
You will complete a short reading posted tonight to deepen two frameworks from today’s lesson: using the left–right spectrum to predict opinions indirectly (via proxy questions) and applying the five-point checklist to determine whether something is a state. This will prepare you to move beyond our simplified model next class and to analyze ambiguous real-world cases.
Instructions:
1) Access the course page this evening and locate the reading posted for the next class.
2) Read it carefully before our next meeting (Tuesday).
3) As you read, focus on:
– How political beliefs are categorized (beyond the simplified left/right used in class).
– How states are defined and how criteria resemble our five-point checklist: territory, population, sovereignty, international recognition, monopoly on force.
– How surveys measure beliefs indirectly through proxy questions (recall how we shifted from “Do you like helping classmates?â€� to questions like “Should 10% of taxes fund a homeless/unemployment program?â€�).
4) Annotate the reading and take concise notes linking concepts to today’s activities:
– Left vs. right distinctions we used when predicting support for the proposed 10% “student supportâ€� grade component.
– The checklist you used to verify India’s statehood (and why sovereignty depends on enforceable rules and a monopoly on force).
5) Prepare a one-page set of notes to bring to class (not for submission unless asked):
– Draft two proxy survey questions (not about the rule itself and not about a student’s classroom behavior) that could help predict whether a student would support or oppose the 10% “student supportâ€� policy. For each question, add one sentence explaining how responses would map to left-leaning vs. right-leaning attitudes.
– Apply the five-point state checklist to one contested case (e.g., Kosovo or Abkhazia, or another you know). For each criterion—territory, population, sovereignty, international recognition, monopoly on force—mark Yes/No/Uncertain and give a one-sentence justification.
– Identify one passage from the reading that either supports or complicates our simplified left/right framework and note why.
6) Bring your notes to the next class and be ready to discuss and use them in small-group work.