Lesson Report:
Title
Applying the 10-Point Regime Framework to Contemporary Cases
In this session, students transitioned from abstract political theory to applied comparative analysis. Working in groups, they evaluated four assigned countries across a 10-point regime framework, producing evidence-based, argument-evidence-analysis (AEA) paragraphs and a scored chart (1=open/free, 10=closed/restrictive). Emphasis was placed on rigorous sourcing, recency of evidence, and clear analytical reasoning linking facts to the assigned scores.
Attendance
– Students mentioned absent: 1 (student arrived ~15–20 minutes late and was not marked present)
Topics Covered (chronological progression)
1) Opening announcements and schedule changes
– U.S. ambassador talk postponed (was scheduled for tomorrow; new date TBD).
– Next Thursday at 3:30 pm: visiting diplomat (Akhmatov) to discuss Chingiz Aitmatov’s legacy and political dimensions of his writing; students have details by email. Instructor strongly encourages attendance.
2) Bridging theory and application: framing today’s task
– Recap of Tuesday’s class: practiced applying a 10-point regime framework to one country (Egypt) on one criterion (civil liberties).
– Today’s objective: replicate the full framework on a new country, scoring and justifying all 10 dimensions.
– Scoring scale reminder: 1 = most open/free; 10 = most closed/restrictive (recognizing “repressiveâ€� is a morally loaded term, used here descriptively).
3) The 10-point regime framework (as recalled in class)
– Criteria named during review: media, political parties, elections (including distribution of power), ideology, constitution, civil liberties, interest groups.
– Note: Two additional criteria were referenced but not clearly captured in the transcript. Instructor proceeded with all ten for the assignment.
4) What “good� looks like: required paragraph structure (AEA)
– For each criterion, each group must produce one short paragraph with:
– Argument: Clear claim plus numerical score and the country context (e.g., “In Hungary, media freedom is a 6…â€�).
– Evidence: At least one specific, credible, properly linked example supporting the score (more examples are welcome).
– Analysis: The crucial step explaining why and how the cited evidence justifies the score on openness/closedness (e.g., how a pattern of arrests of protest leaders indicates restrictions on civil liberties; how long-term electoral dominance might indicate constraints on competitive elections).
– Example of insufficient evidence: “Human Rights Watch says civil liberties are not protected in Egyptâ€� without specifics. The instructor stressed the need for concrete, verifiable facts (e.g., incident details, dates, policy texts, court outcomes) and not outsourcing argumentation to third-party generalizations.
5) Evidence standards and source credibility
– Prohibited sources: Wikipedia; generative AI tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, etc.). Students must provide actual links to original sources used.
– Recency requirement: At least five sources across the group’s full submission must be published within the last six months, with clearly identifiable publication dates to keep assessments current.
– Credible sources: Transparency about authorship/organization; reputable outlets; traceable facts; robust editorial standards. Avoid gossip/sensationalism outlets and unverifiable content.
– Language policy: Paragraphs must be written in English; sources may be in another language if students can accurately interpret and cite them.
6) Scoring guidance and analytic reasoning
– Reiterated the need to connect evidence patterns to score rationales (e.g., if one party has consistently won for ~15 years, explain mechanisms—media capture, opposition repression, electoral rules, gerrymandering, legal barriers—that would justify a higher “closednessâ€� score, rather than assuming dominance alone proves closure).
– Students should be cautious with moral labels; focus on empirics (laws, enforcement practices, institutional rules, and outcomes).
7) Group formation, country assignments, and work plan
– Groups formed by seating into four teams (target size: 4–5 students).
– Group 1: Germany (focus on roughly the last 20 years).
– Group 2: Hungary.
– Group 3: Pakistan.
– Group 4: United States.
– Division of labor: With 4–5 members, each person typically handles two criteria. Work individually first; reconvene for five minutes to compile and calibrate final scores and text.
– Anticipated deliverables by end of class: one completed 10-criterion scoring chart plus the set of AEA paragraphs, with names and source links.
8) In-class logistics and clarifications
– Student Q&A clarified: non-English sources acceptable; final written paragraphs must be in English.
– Time management: Instructor monitored progress and reminded students of the final minute to wrap up and submit.
9) Submission and wrap-up
– Before leaving: The designated group leader must email the complete packet (final chart + all AEA paragraphs), ensuring names and hyperlinks to sources are visible. Students may leave immediately after sending.
– If time permits in a subsequent session, groups may present their findings.
10) Individual consultation on research focus (post-activity guidance)
– Topic: U.S. sovereignty and policy levers (tariffs/protectionism; domestic production; PACs).
– Instructor guidance:
– Keep the paper’s focus on political sovereignty (defined as the state’s status as top rule-maker), with economic sovereignty as a subordinate component where relevant.
– For tariffs/supply chains/foreign ownership: articulate precisely how these conditions could constrain political decision-makers or the state’s independent rule-making capacity (e.g., leverage over critical inputs in crises).
– For PACs: first define the mechanism by which PACs might undermine sovereignty (e.g., influence over officeholders that compromises independent state decision-making), then evaluate regulatory options. Consider structuring as an exploratory analysis (diagnosis first, prescriptions later), rather than leading with a policy fix.
Actionable Items
Immediate (before next class)
– Verify submissions:
– Confirm all four groups emailed: completed 10-point chart, all AEA paragraphs, member names, and active source links.
– Check that at least five sources are ≤6 months old and that publication dates are visible.
– Spot-check that paragraphs use AEA and that analysis explicitly connects evidence to scores.
– Follow up on missing elements:
– If any groups did not finish or send, clarify late policy and set a short grace deadline.
– Identify which two framework criteria were not clearly captured during the oral list and circulate the definitive list of all 10 to the class.
Short-term (next session)
– Presentation planning:
– If time allows, schedule short group presentations. Provide a slide/outline template highlighting: final scores, 2–3 strongest pieces of evidence, and the core analytic rationale.
– Prepare a model AEA paragraph to project in class as a calibration example.
– Feedback:
– Return brief written feedback on one criterion per group before presentations to focus their revisions.
Administrative/Advising
– Event reminders:
– Share details again about next Thursday’s diplomat talk (Akhmatov, 3:30 pm) and encourage attendance. Note that the ambassador talk is postponed; update when rescheduled.
– Attendance/tardiness:
– Reach out to the student repeatedly arriving late (not marked present today). Invite them to email with any constraints and discuss accommodations or expectations to improve punctuality.
Policy/Clarity
– Reiterate source policy in writing:
– No Wikipedia or generative AI; English-only for student writing; non-English sources permitted with proper citation/translation; ensure credibility and specificity.
– Finalize framework reference:
– Distribute a clean handout or LMS post listing all 10 regime criteria with 1–10 scale definitions and a brief scoring rubric to eliminate ambiguity.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The only task assigned was an in-class group activity to be completed and submitted before leaving (“by the end of today’s class, your group should have made determinations for each of these 10� and “before you leave the room… [the group leader] has sent me the complete packet… Once… sent that to me, you’re free to go�), with no take-home work given.