Lesson Report:
**Title: Greed vs. Grievance and the Craft of Analytical Paragraphs on Political Violence**
This session focused on strengthening students’ academic writing skills—especially the analysis component of paragraphs—within the substantive topic of political violence. Using a “greed vs. grievance� framework, students reviewed theory, constructed general indicators, and began drafting a tightly structured analytical paragraph on a specific act of political violence that will feed into their preparation for the revised final exam.
—
### Attendance
– Students explicitly mentioned as absent: **5**
– Names noted as not present: **Azadiet, Altanay, Ala, Murat, Bek**
—
### Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Activity/Content)
#### 1. Course Logistics, Public Lecture, and Reflection Paper
– The instructor opened by:
– Thanking students for strong attendance and participation at the **public lecture** featuring the **UN World Food Programme ambassador**.
– Highlighting that the **quality of student questions** at the lecture had notably improved and impressed the ambassador.
– Connection to assessment:
– Those questions will be valuable input for students’ **upcoming reflection papers**.
– **Deadline:** Reflection papers are **due Saturday**, with ~48 hours remaining at the time of class.
– Contingencies:
– Students who **could not attend the event** or **did not get to ask a question** were told they must:
– Find an alternative way to gather the information needed, especially for the **“field reflectionâ€�** portion of the assignment.
– Do this immediately due to time pressure before the deadline.
#### 2. End-of-Semester Roadmap and Final Exam Focus
– Time remaining in the semester:
– Today’s class.
– Next Tuesday’s class.
– Next Thursday (one week from today), which will be the **last class meeting**.
– The instructor emphasized “the clock is tickingâ€� both for the semester and for the reflection paper.
– **Final exam changes** (announced previously on Tuesday) were briefly referenced:
– The main instructional goal for the final three lessons (including today) is to improve students’ **confidence and competence in paragraph writing**, particularly:
– Structuring a solid **academic argument**.
– Doing so in the context of **political science** topics.
#### 3. Writing Diagnosis from Midterms: Argument, Evidence, and Especially Analysis
– Based on midterm grading, the instructor shared a diagnosis of common writing patterns:
– **Strengths:**
– Students are generally **good at coming up with arguments**.
– Students are usually **able to find examples** that could support those arguments.
– **Weakness:**
– The **analysis** is often missing or underdeveloped.
– Students frequently **fail to explain explicitly** how the example connects back to the main argument.
– This leads to the core skill target for today:
– Moving from “argument + exampleâ€� to “**argument → evidence → analysis**,â€� with explicit reasoning that links example to claim.
#### 4. Review of Political Violence Framework: Greed vs. Grievance
– The class revisited the **analytical framework** introduced earlier in the course:
– Central question: **“Why does a group commit an act of political violence? What drives them to such extremes?â€�**
– Two broad explanatory categories:
1. **Greed**
2. **Grievance**
– Clarification of **greed-motivated violence**:
– Motivations:
– Seeking **benefit**, but specifically:
– **Power** for the leaders.
– **Resources and money** for the leaders.
– The **beneficiaries**:
– The **leaders themselves**, not the broader population.
– Example (hypothetical):
– A rebel group bombs or seizes **oil fields** and then:
– The leaders sell the oil.
– They amass large personal fortunes (e.g., millions in Swiss bank accounts).
– Interpretation:
– The group’s actions appear **primarily aimed at enriching leadership**, so the violence can be reasonably classified as **greed-driven**.
– Clarification of **grievance-motivated violence**:
– Motivations:
– Still often about **power and resources**, but:
– Intended to address **injustice, inequality, or ideological goals**.
– Benefits are framed as for **the group, constituency, or society**, not just the leaders.
– Key question: **“Who gets the power/resources?â€�**
– Under grievance:
– Power/resources are (at least in principle) **redistributed** or used for what the group claims are broader societal or ideological goals.
– Example (hypothetical):
– Rebels seize oil fields that were previously exploited unjustly by the government and then:
– Claim to redistribute revenue.
– Frame actions in terms of **justice** or **rights of a marginalized group**.
– This would be **indicative of grievance**, assuming behavior is consistent with stated ideology.
#### 5. Model Paragraph Critique: The IMU Example
– To demonstrate writing issues, the instructor presented an **example paragraph starter** about the **Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)**:
– Topic sentence: “**The IMU was motivated by greed.**â€�
– Followed by bare factual statements:
– “Their leaders were X and Y.â€�
– “The leaders did not live in luxury.â€�
– “They were funded by the U.S., which was illegal.â€�
– Class critique:
– **What works:**
– **Clear topic sentence** that states an **argument** (claims IMU was motivated by greed).
– Students recognized that this topic sentence is structurally a “nearly perfectâ€� opening for a paragraph.
– **What is missing / problematic:**
– After the topic sentence, the text becomes **just a list of facts** or statements with no explanation.
– There is **no explicit analysis** explaining:
– How “not living in luxuryâ€� supports the claim of greed.
– How “funded by the U.S.â€� is linked to greed (if at all).
– Without analysis, the instructor cannot see the **logical connection** from evidence to argument.
– Pedagogical point:
– A “good paragraphâ€� in this course is defined as:
– **Argument (topic sentence)** → **Evidence (examples, facts, data)** → **Analysis (explanation of the link)**.
– The class’s main deficit is consistently the **analysis** step.
#### 6. Group Formation and Topic Assignment: Specific Acts of Political Violence
– The instructor then transitioned to a hands-on activity:
– Students were asked to **work in pairs** to develop a paragraph about a **specific act of political violence**.
– Partnering:
– The instructor helped form pairs (e.g., Sofia & Nuris, Banu & Tamara, etc.) so everyone had a partner.
– Topic recall from two weeks ago:
– Two weeks earlier, students had:
– Identified **countries and events** involving political violence.
– Chosen one case per group to research.
– Some groups remembered their case; others did not.
– For those who did not remember or did not have a written record, **new topics** were (re)assigned or selected.
– Critical instruction:
– Students **must focus on a specific event**, not on entire organizations or long historical periods.
– Example: “The PKKâ€� over 50 years is too broad.
– Instead, pick a particular **attack**, **operation**, or **massacre** in a specific year.
#### 7. Step 1 Activity: Initial Case Research and Preliminary Classification
– Task:
1. **Go online** and read about the chosen specific event:
– What happened?
– Who did what to whom, when, and where?
– What explanations do sources give for **why** the group carried out that act?
2. Based on that reading, decide **provisionally**:
– Was this act of violence **primarily motivated by greed** or by **grievance**?
– The instructor stressed:
– In reality, motivations can be mixed and “grey.â€�
– For the purposes of this analytical exercise, each pair must **pick one side** and argue for it.
#### 8. Attendance Check During Activity
– While students were working in pairs, the instructor took **roll**:
– Confirmed presence of most students by name.
– Marked several students as **not here** (see Attendance section above).
#### 9. Sharing Round: Cases and Provisional Greed/Grievance Judgments
– Each pair reported:
– **The event** (what incident of political violence?).
– **The actor(s)** (which group?).
– **Preliminary classification** (greed vs. grievance).
– Reported examples included (summary-level for instructor reference):
– **Sofia & Nuris**:
– Topic: **Chinese Civil War**, focusing on Mao Zedong’s **Chinese Communist Party (CCP)** vs. Chiang Kai-shek’s **KMT**.
– Focus: Primarily on the CCP side.
– Classification: **Grievance**.
– **Amin & Khusneedin**:
– Topic: **Taliban ambush on U.S. military forces in Afghanistan**, June 2020.
– Classification: **Grievance** (students initially suggested “both,â€� but on instructor’s insistence chose grievance as primary).
– **Ajmal & Samira**:
– Topic: **2021 capture of Kabul by the Taliban**.
– Classification: **Greed**.
– **Tamara & Banu**:
– Topic: **2020 Taliban attack on Kabul University**.
– Notable: Banu shared personal experience of studying at that university and narrowly avoiding being present during the attack; classmates did suffer, and their materials were left inside.
– Classification: (Implied as **grievance**, though exact label was less clearly stated; instructor accepted the event choice as strong and personally meaningful.)
– **Aydana & Nuria**:
– Topic: **PKK-related violence** during late 1980s–1990s involving attacks that contributed to conflict in Northern Iraq and drew in the Turkish government.
– Instruction: Must narrow to **one specific PKK attack**.
– Classification: **Grievance**.
– **Another Taliban-focused pair** (Nuriza & partner; transcription has some name overlap):
– Topic: **Taliban insurgency** in general.
– Classification: **Grievance**.
– Instruction: Again, must narrow insurgency down to **one concrete action/incident** for the paragraph.
– **Akhtar & Sami (joined later by Asadet)**:
– Topic: **Shanghai Massacre of 1927**:
– KMT (Nationalists, Chiang Kai-shek) vs. Chinese Communists (CCP).
– Classification: **Greed**, specifically from the KMT side.
– Discussion points:
– Soviet Union’s past support of KMT vs. CCP and the internal conflicts within communist movements.
– Student confusion: international actors advancing ideology vs. power; whether that should be coded as greed or grievance.
– Instructor guidance: For this course exercise, if actions appear primarily ideological and consistent with stated beliefs, they can be treated under **grievance**, but the student group ultimately decided to **argue KMT = greed**.
– Instructor takeaway:
– By this point, **every group had**:
– A specific or nearly specific **event of political violence** to focus on.
– A clear **one-word classification** (“greedâ€� or “grievanceâ€�) that serves as the **core argument/topic sentence**.
#### 10. Step 2: Designing General Indicators of Greed vs. Grievance
– To avoid paragraphs collapsing into mere chronologies, the instructor introduced the idea of **indicators**:
– Before applying anything to their case, students were asked to think **in general**:
– If an act of violence is done for **greed**, what patterns or signals would we expect to see?
– If an act of violence is done for **grievance**, what patterns or signals would we expect to see?
– Working in pairs, students generated **at least two indicators for each category**, not tied to their specific case.
– During the debrief, several indicators were surfaced and refined:
**Indicators of Greed-motivated Violence (General):**
– Leaders’ **personal enrichment**:
– After or alongside the violence, leaders become **very wealthy**, accumulating resources for themselves.
– **Indiscriminate or heavy civilian casualties**:
– Large numbers of civilian deaths suggest **little concern for who is harmed**, consistent with instrumental, self-interested use of violence.
– Systematic **violations of human rights**:
– Torture, mass killings, abuse, etc., particularly if widely practiced and not restricted by internal norms.
– **Contradictions between ideology and behavior**:
– Leaders claim an egalitarian or justice-based ideology but:
– Personally enrich themselves.
– Live or act in ways that contradict their stated principles.
**Indicators of Grievance-motivated Violence (General):**
– **Vengeance / revenge**:
– The violence is explicitly framed as a response to past wrongs or repression (“they did X to us, so we are retaliatingâ€�).
– **Willingness to compromise**:
– The group shows some **restraint** or readiness to negotiate rather than maximizing violence and destruction.
– **Target selection consistent with political/ideological aims**:
– Violence is more **selective** (e.g., targeting security forces or political officials rather than random civilians), suggesting a focus on specific perceived enemies.
– **Sacrificial actions in service of ideals**:
– Mention of self-immolation / self-sacrifice that **hurts the group or individual materially** but is done to pursue an ideological or justice-oriented goal.
– Indicates that motivations are not purely material gains for leaders.
– The instructor emphasized:
– These indicators are **not yet tied to any one event**—they are a **simple, quasi-scientific “testâ€�**.
– Next, each pair will **run their case through this test**.
#### 11. Step 3 Activity: Case Checklists Against Indicators
– Task:
– For each pair’s specific event, they were asked to:
– Take the general indicator list for **greed** and **grievance**.
– For each indicator, ask: **“Does this describe what we see in our case?â€�**
– If yes, mark it.
– Do this separately for the greed indicators and the grievance indicators.
– Output:
– A **count** of how many greed indicators the event fits.
– A **count** of how many grievance indicators the event fits.
– Purpose:
– To give students a more **structured rationale** for their initial classification.
– To provide **raw material for analysis sentences**:
– “Because we see A, B, and C behaviors in this event, which match typical indicators of grievance, we can argue that…â€�
#### 12. Final Step: Beginning the Analytical Paragraph (Argument → Evidence → Analysis)
– With about 5–10 minutes left, the instructor outlined how to **assemble the full paragraph**:
**Paragraph Structure Expected:**
1. **Topic sentence (Argument)**:
– Clearly state:
– The **group**.
– The **specific event**.
– The **time frame** (if possible).
– The classification: **motivated by greed** or **motivated by grievance**.
– Example structure:
– “The Taliban was motivated by grievance when they attacked Kabul University in 2020.â€�
2. **Evidence (Case-specific facts)**:
– Provide **concrete details** about what happened in the event:
– Who was targeted?
– Were civilians affected?
– Did leaders gain resources or power?
– What did the group say about its motivations?
– These should be **traceable to online sources** the students have consulted and **citable** (the instructor noted he will later address how to cite properly).
3. **Analysis (Linking evidence to the greed/grievance claim)**:
– For each piece of evidence, follow it with **one or more sentences** explaining:
– **Why** this evidence shows greed or grievance.
– Which **indicator** it corresponds to.
– Example the instructor gave (paraphrased):
– If the PKK only targeted police officers when they could have also attacked civilians:
– Statement of evidence: “The PKK limited its attacks to police officers, although civilians were also accessible targets.â€�
– Analysis: “This restraint suggests the attack was politically targeted, consistent with grievance-based motivations rather than indiscriminate, greed-motivated violence.â€�
– In-class writing:
– Students were asked to **begin drafting at least four sentences**:
– A topic sentence plus at least a couple of evidence–analysis pairs.
– Several students **sent their initial work to the instructor** by the end of class.
– Closing notes:
– This paragraph is **not a standalone assignment**; it is part of a **sequence** that will continue next week, feeding into **final exam preparation**.
– The instructor reminded students:
– Next week is the **final week**.
– They will continue working with these paragraphs and further sharpen their **argument–evidence–analysis** skills.
#### 13. Post-Class Q&A: Reflection Paper Clarification
– A student stayed after class with questions about the **reflection paper**:
– Topic: something related to **“weak state / weak capacityâ€�** (interpreted from the WFP ambassador’s public lecture).
– The student attended the lecture and has a **recording of their own question**.
– Instructor’s guidance:
– The student should:
– Write the **full reflection paper** (not just a brief note).
– Structure it around:
– What they **previously understood** about weak states or weak state capacity.
– How the ambassador’s answer **confirmed, refined, or changed** that understanding.
– Use the recorded question and response as a **source for reflection**.
– Implicitly, this advice applies to all students doing the reflection paper based on that lecture.
—
### Actionable Items (Organized by Urgency)
#### High Urgency (Before Saturday / Next Class)
– **Reflection Papers (Due Saturday)**
– Ensure all students submit their **full reflection paper** by Saturday.
– Follow up with any students who:
– Did **not attend** the public lecture, or
– Did not ask a question and therefore need an **alternative way** to gather “field reflectionâ€� material (e.g., recording, alternate event, or other data).
– Consider sending a **reminder email** summarizing expectations:
– Reflect on prior understanding vs. post-lecture understanding.
– Explicitly reference the question-answer interaction with the ambassador, where applicable.
– **Paragraph Draft Completion**
– Ask students to:
– Finalize their **4–6 sentence analytical paragraph** (topic sentence + evidence + analysis) on their chosen political violence event before the next class.
– Ensure they have:
– A clearly stated **greed or grievance** argument.
– **At least two concrete pieces of evidence**.
– **Analysis sentences** explicitly linking each piece of evidence to a greed/grievance indicator.
– Encourage students who have not done so to **email or message** their draft paragraphs.
– **Narrowing Overly Broad Topics**
– For any groups still using **broad labels** like “Taliban insurgencyâ€� or “PKK in the 1990sâ€�:
– Require selection of **one specific act/incident** (date, location, action) **before** the next class so they can write a coherent paragraph.
#### Medium Urgency (Before Final Exam)
– **Citation Instruction**
– In a subsequent class, explicitly:
– Explain what **“citationâ€�** means in this course (format, expectations, acceptable sources).
– Show students how to integrate **brief citations** into their paragraph (footnote/parenthetical).
– This was flagged in class (“we’ll talk more about what that word meansâ€�) but not yet done.
– **Final Exam Rubric Clarification**
– Since the final exam will be **modified** and heavily based on **paragraph-writing skills**:
– Provide students with a **simple rubric** or checklist:
– Clear, arguable **topic sentence**.
– Accurate, relevant **evidence**.
– Strong, explicit **analysis** connecting evidence to argument.
– Basic **citation** of sources where appropriate.
– Clarify how much of the exam grade will depend on **analysis quality** vs. content recall.
#### Lower Urgency / Follow-Up
– **Support for Absent Students**
– Contact the 5 absent students (Azadiet, Altanay, Ala, Murat, Bek) to:
– Share a brief summary of today’s **skills focus** (greed vs. grievance, indicator method, paragraph structure).
– Assign them:
– A partner (or allow solo work if needed).
– A **specific event of political violence**.
– The same **paragraph-writing task** so they are not disadvantaged on the final.
– **Emotional/Contextual Sensitivity**
– Given that at least one student (Banu) has **direct personal experience** with a chosen event (Taliban attack on Kabul University):
– Be mindful of potential **emotional impact** of working with traumatic material.
– Optionally offer:
– The chance to **switch topics** if they find it too distressing.
– A brief acknowledgment in class that these topics can be personally painful and that students can speak to you if they need adjustments.
– **Collection/Review of Drafts**
– As drafts come in:
– Quickly scan for:
– Presence of **topic sentence**.
– Adequate **evidence**.
– At least one explicit **analysis statement**.
– Select **1–2 anonymized examples**—one strong, one weak—to use in the next class as **teaching tools** for illustrating effective vs. ineffective analysis.
This report should give you a detailed reconstruction of the session’s flow, content, and activities, and a clear view of where to pick up next class (refining indicator-based analysis and citation, and moving toward exam-ready analytical writing).
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Reflection Paper on Public Lecture with UN World Food Program Ambassador
You will write a reflection paper based on the recent public lecture with the ambassador to the UN World Food Program, using that event as a “field� experience to deepen and critically assess your understanding of course concepts (for example, weak states and state capacity). This assignment asks you to connect what you heard in the lecture—especially in the Q&A—to the ideas we have been studying, and to practice clear, analytical paragraph writing.
Instructions:
1. **Confirm your participation status and plan your information source**
1.1. If you *attended the lecture* and asked a question:
– Use your own question and the ambassador’s answer as the core material for your reflection.
– If you recorded your question/answer (as mentioned by the student at the end of class), have that recording ready to replay so you can quote or paraphrase accurately.
1.2. If you *attended the lecture but did not ask a question*:
– Choose one question from the Q&A (either yours or another student’s) that you remember clearly and that connects to a key course concept (e.g., weak states, state capacity, political violence, food security, etc.).
– If possible, use any available notes, recordings, or follow-up materials to reconstruct the question and the ambassador’s response as accurately as you can.
1.3. If you *did not attend the event*:
– As your professor said, you “need to figure out what you will be doing otherwise in order to collect the information that you need, especially in the field reflection aspect of the assignment.â€�
– Choose **one** of the following ways (or another method your instructor has approved) to gather equivalent information:
– Speak in detail with a classmate who attended and took notes or has a recording, and base your reflection on their description of one Q&A exchange.
– Use any official recording or transcript of the event, if one is available.
– If no direct materials from the event are available to you, draw on reliable sources (e.g., interviews, speeches, or reports by the same ambassador or the UN World Food Program) that address similar themes (such as weak states and food security).
– Make sure you are still able to write a “field reflectionâ€� that is grounded in a real-world perspective from the ambassador, not just in textbook theory.
2. **Choose your central concept and focus**
2.1. Identify **one main course concept** that your reflection will center on. Examples (based on the in-class conversation) include:
– “Weak statesâ€� / “state capacityâ€� (e.g., as in the one-on-one discussion where the professor said: *“What did you understand about what it means to be a weak state before this? And then what did the UN World Food Program guy… confirm or change?â€�*)
– Political violence and its causes
– The relationship between international organizations (like the World Food Program) and state capacity
– Any other clearly relevant political science concept that was discussed in the lecture and in our classes.
2.2. Formulate a **clear guiding question** for yourself, such as:
– “How did the ambassador’s answer change or confirm my understanding of what it means for a state to be weak?â€�
– “How did the ambassador’s perspective challenge my assumptions about how international organizations can or cannot compensate for weak state capacity?â€�
3. **Clarify your “before� understanding**
3.1. Before you write about the lecture, take a few minutes to write notes on:
– What you believed or understood about your chosen concept *before* attending the lecture (or before engaging with the replacement material, if you missed the event).
– For example: How did you understand “weak stateâ€�? Did you mainly think of it as poor, corrupt, violent, lacking resources, etc.? What did you think weak state capacity meant in practice?
3.2. Be specific:
– List 2–3 concrete points or assumptions you held (e.g., “I used to think that weak states are simply those that lack money and military powerâ€�).
– These will become part of the opening section of your reflection, where you explain your starting point.
4. **Analyze the ambassador’s answer or perspective**
4.1. Review the relevant part of the lecture (your question and answer, another student’s question, or the substitute material you are using):
– Re-listen to or reread the key section at least once.
– Take notes on what the ambassador actually said: main arguments, examples, and any data or anecdotes used.
4.2. Identify at least **two specific points** from the ambassador’s response that are relevant to your chosen concept. For each point, note:
– What exactly he argued or described (e.g., a particular example of how weak states struggle to deliver food aid, or how conflict interacts with state capacity).
– Any real-world cases or experiences he mentioned.
4.3. Begin connecting these to your prior understanding:
– For each point, ask: Does this **confirm** what I already thought? Does it **extend/complicate** my understanding? Does it **contradict** or **challenge** it?
5. **Plan the structure of your reflection paper**
Use the argument–evidence–analysis logic your professor emphasized in class: you are not just listing what happened, but explaining **how** the lecture connects to your understanding. A clear structure could be:
– **Introduction**
– Introduce the public lecture (who spoke, what the event was) briefly.
– State your chosen concept and your main thesis in one clear sentence (e.g., “This reflection argues that the ambassador’s explanation of weak states largely confirmed my previous view that weak states lack capacity, but also pushed me to see how international aid can sometimes reinforce those weaknesses.â€�).
– **Section 1: Your prior understanding (“beforeâ€�)**
– In one or two paragraphs, describe how you understood the concept before the lecture.
– Be concrete and specific, not vague.
– **Section 2: What you observed/heard in the lecture (“fieldâ€� component)**
– Describe briefly the relevant part of the lecture or Q&A:
– What was the question? (If it was yours, say so; if it was another student’s or from a recording, explain that.)
– Summarize the ambassador’s key points and examples.
– Keep this descriptive section concise; do not turn it into a full transcript.
– **Section 3: Analysis – how the lecture confirmed or changed your understanding**
– This is the most important part. For each major point from the ambassador:
– Present the point (evidence).
– Analyze it in relation to your prior beliefs (analysis):
– Explain *how* it supports, complicates, or contradicts what you thought before.
– Link this explicitly to course ideas, readings, or discussions.
– Use the paragraph skills your professor has been training you in: start with a clear argument sentence, then provide concrete evidence from the lecture, and then explain the connection.
– **Section 4: Field reflection and broader implications**
– Reflect briefly on the *experience* aspect:
– What did it feel like to engage with a real-world practitioner (an ambassador) rather than just reading about these issues?
– Did the way he answered questions (not just the content) tell you anything about how political actors think about weak states, violence, or state capacity?
– Conclude with 2–3 sentences on how this event will influence the way you approach the rest of the course or think about political science in practice.
6. **Draft your paragraphs carefully using argument–evidence–analysis**
6.1. As you write, remember the in-class critique of the IMU paragraph: simply listing facts is not enough. Your paragraphs must:
– Begin with a **clear argumentative/topic sentence** (what you want to prove in that paragraph).
– Include **specific evidence** from the lecture (what the ambassador said, examples he used).
– Provide **analysis** that explains the connection between that evidence and your argument (how this proves that your view was confirmed/changed, or how it illustrates a theoretical point from class).
6.2. Avoid just writing a chronological summary of the event. Always ask:
– “What is my claim here?â€�
– “What quote or example from the lecture supports this claim?â€�
– “How exactly does this example show what I am arguing?â€�
7. **Address the “field reflection� requirement explicitly**
7.1. Make sure at least one part of your paper clearly functions as a **field reflection**, as your professor emphasized (“especially in the field reflection aspect of the assignment�):
– Show that you are using the lecture as a real-world case or field observation, not just as a source of quotations.
– Reflect on how seeing/hearing a practitioner talk about these issues affected your understanding of abstract concepts like weak states, state capacity, political violence, or international intervention.
7.2. If you did not attend the event in person, briefly acknowledge how you accessed the material (peer report, recording, other ambassador speech) and explain why that still allows you to reflect meaningfully.
8. **Revise for clarity, cohesion, and academic tone**
8.1. Re-read your paper at least once, checking that:
– Your main thesis is clear and appears early in the paper.
– Each paragraph has a clear main idea and follows the argument–evidence–analysis structure.
– You explicitly reference the ambassador’s ideas rather than speaking in vague generalities.
8.2. Check for coherence:
– Does the paper clearly show a “before–event–afterâ€� progression in your understanding?
– Do your reflections connect back to course concepts, not just to your personal impressions?
8.3. Edit for grammar, spelling, and formal academic style (no casual slang; use complete sentences; be precise with terms like “weak state,� “state capacity,� “violence,� etc.).
9. **Prepare and submit your paper by Saturday**
9.1. Follow any formatting conventions your instructor has specified in this course (font, spacing, file type, naming your file, etc.).
9.2. Include your name and any other required identifying information at the top of the document.
9.3. Submit the **completed reflection paper by Saturday**, as your professor reminded you (“the papers will be due on Saturday… you have like 48 hours until the paper is due, so you really got to figure that out�).
9.4. If you anticipate any difficulty meeting the deadline, contact your instructor **before** the due date with a clear explanation and proposed plan.