Lesson Report:
# Title
**Midterm Paper Workshop: Finding Sources and Building Competing Arguments**
In this post–spring break session, the class shifted into a hands-on workshop designed to help students strengthen the analytical core of the midterm paper. The instructor focused especially on the challenge of **argument tracking**: finding op-eds/think tank pieces about each case study, extracting explanations from them, and organizing those explanations into **two competing arguments** that can later be substantiated with evidence and theory.
# Attendance
– **Absences explicitly named:** 0
– **Students named absent:** None mentioned in the transcript
– Note: The transcript does not provide a full roll call, so only explicitly mentioned absences can be tracked.
# Topics Covered
## 1. Return from spring break and course announcements
– The instructor welcomed students back from spring break and briefly reset the tone of the course for the week.
– A major administrative announcement was made: **the midterm paper deadline had been extended**.
– The instructor explained the reason for the extension in detail:
– After reviewing the assignment over the break, they concluded that students needed **more in-class time** to work through the more difficult parts of the assignment.
– They were concerned that if students had to submit by Thursday, many papers would likely be **underdeveloped or subpar**.
– The instructor then framed the goals for **today’s class and Thursday’s class**:
1. Identify the components of the assignment that will likely be most challenging.
2. Work on those challenging components collaboratively in class.
– Students were asked to sit with their **case study groups/partners** and briefly reconnect before beginning the workshop.
## 2. Framing the central challenge: argument tracking for the midterm paper
– The instructor identified what they expected to be the **hardest part of the assignment for most students**: the **argument tracking** component.
– The assignment requires students to build **two competing arguments** and “make them fight” analytically.
– The instructor emphasized that students are **not** simply supposed to find one neat argument from one source and summarize it. Instead, they need to:
– Find arguments “**in the wild**”
– Use materials such as **op-eds** and **think tank pieces**
– Look for authors in positions of authority explaining **why the case study outcome happened**
– The point of this step is to gather explanations from public-facing analytical sources and eventually **extract variables** from them that can be made to compete against each other in the paper.
– Example used by the instructor:
– If a student is studying U.S. belligerence toward **Greenland**, the task is to find authors explaining **why the United States is doing what it is doing**, then pull out the factors or causal variables underlying those explanations.
– The instructor clearly signaled that the first hurdle for many students would be the **initial on-ramp**:
– identifying usable sources,
– distinguishing arguments from background information,
– and translating source claims into variables that can be analyzed.
## 3. Group research task: locating articles and extracting arguments
– Students were given a concrete first activity to begin working through this challenge.
– Instructions:
– Use **Google** to locate relevant sources.
– Each student should find **at least two articles**.
– Acceptable source types:
– **Think tank articles**
– **Op-eds/opinion pieces**
– The articles must be about the student’s **specific case study**
– While reading, students were instructed to jot down notes answering the question:
– **What argument is the author making about why my case study is happening?**
– The instructor clarified that the articles should be focused on the **particular event/outcome being investigated**, not merely on the region or issue in general.
– A short work period of roughly **10 minutes** was given for collecting and beginning to process the sources.
## 4. Visual argument-mapping activity on the board
– After the initial search period, the instructor shifted the class into a more visual and movement-based activity.
– The stated reason for this change was pedagogical:
– to make the class more active,
– to make student thinking more visible,
– and to allow both instructor and students to literally **see the structure of the arguments**.
– Students were given markers and asked to claim sections of the board by group.
– Board logistics:
– The **Greenland group** was assigned its own board section.
– The instructor noted that they would normally have an additional board available, but since they did not, one of the other groups would need either to:
– share the large whiteboard, or
– use the smartboard.
– When no one strongly opted for the smartboard, the instructor decided to **split the whiteboard** to avoid “property skirmishes.”
– Students were told to build a **visual map** of the arguments they had found:
– Put the **dependent variable (DV)** in the center.
– Create bubbles branching outward for each article/source.
– Under each article, list the specific reasons or causal claims that author gives for why the outcome occurred.
– Instructor model/example:
– Central DV: **“Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.”**
– Branch out to sources such as **RAND**.
– Example reasons that might appear in bubbles:
– **NATO expansion**
– **Putin’s historical claims to Ukraine**
– The instructor explained that the exercise was not just a visual note-taking exercise; the real goal was to begin organizing these separate source-level explanations into **larger, coherent arguments** that could later be made to compete analytically.
## 5. Clarifications during group work: handling overlap, repeated variables, and source differences
As groups worked on the board, the instructor circulated and responded to practical methodological questions. These exchanges helped refine how students should structure their argument maps.
### A. Choosing what to put on the board
– A student from a China-related group asked whether the team should choose **just one case/source** for the board.
– The transcript suggests there were related but distinct China-focused topics in the room (e.g., **China–Taiwan**, **South China Sea**, **China–Japan**), and the instructor directed the group to **temporarily simplify** and stick with one for the immediate purposes of the exercise.
### B. Repeated explanations across multiple sources
– One student asked how to handle the case where **different sources repeat the same reasons**.
– The instructor’s guidance:
– Do **not** unnecessarily duplicate the same independent variables as separate causal claims every time.
– Instead, write the **source name** and connect it to the same variable already on the map.
– This allows students to show **where sources align** on the same causal factor.
### C. Multiple articles from the same organization
– A student explained that they had **five articles but only two source organizations**.
– The instructor said this was not a problem.
– The recommended solution:
– If the pieces have different authors, sort them **by author**.
– If there are **no authors listed**, distinguish them by **date**.
– One group specifically mentioned having multiple **Atlantic Council** reports with different dates (**February 28** and **March 11**), and the instructor noted that if the content/opinions shifted over time, the dates themselves become analytically useful.
### D. Clarifying variables for China/Taiwan
– In another interaction, a student raised a possible factor related to **Taiwan’s geographical importance/vulnerability**.
– The instructor reframed the idea as **geostrategic importance**, indicating that this would count as a distinct and potentially strong variable.
– The instructor also reassured students that they did **not** need to remain rigidly attached to variables defined earlier in the semester; they could revise and improve them as their research developed.
### E. Group participation reminder
– While checking the **Greenland group**, the instructor specifically noted that **Adam** had “amazing handwriting,” implying he was serving as the group’s writer on the board.
– The instructor also reminded the group that even if Adam was writing, **all members still needed to contribute their articles and ideas**.
– The instructor referenced another group member as **“Ryan”**, saying that this student had an opinion to add; however, this name does **not** confidently match the course roster and should therefore be treated as **uncertain**.
## 6. Whole-class pivot: from listed variables to stronger causal mechanisms
– Once groups had mapped out sources and reasons, the instructor brought the class back together to discuss how to **strengthen** those arguments.
– The key methodological point:
– It is **not enough** to list independent variables.
– Students need to connect those variables to a **core logic or mechanism** explaining how and why the outcome happened.
– The instructor explicitly encouraged students to connect their explanations to broader **international relations theories**, arguing that this would:
– make the arguments more logically coherent,
– place them in a bigger conceptual context,
– and help students build more persuasive analytical claims.
## 7. Detailed example discussion: U.S./Israel strikes on Iran
The instructor used one group’s board as a worked example of how to deepen a causal argument.
### A. Starting point on the board
– The class looked at an argument explaining why the **United States/Israel were bombing Iran**.
– The initial board-level claim was described roughly as:
– the strikes were tied to **U.S. pressure on Iran’s nuclear program** and/or **regime change**, in the context of resistance from Iranian authorities.
– The instructor said this was a **good start**, but also emphasized that there was still a **gap in the chain of reasoning**.
### B. From pressure to bombing: identifying the missing link
– The instructor pushed the group to explain:
– How do we get from concern about Iran’s nuclear program to **actual military strikes**?
– Why did the United States act **when it did**?
– An **uncertain student** contributed a key point:
– that the moment represented a **window of opportunity**.
– The instructor endorsed this and developed it into a stronger mechanism:
– The United States may have believed that **“the time is now”** and that delaying action would mean losing a strategic opportunity later.
### C. Evidence that could support the “window of opportunity” argument
– The class then identified possible evidence that could support this mechanism:
– **Domestic protests** in Iran, suggesting lower regime stability.
– A specific moment when many high-level Iranian officials were reportedly **meeting above ground in one building**, creating a rare targetable opportunity.
– The instructor used this example to show students how a general idea like “the U.S. was pressuring Iran” becomes much stronger when linked to:
– timing,
– strategic opportunity,
– state weakness,
– and concrete triggering conditions.
### D. Why the nuclear program matters in the first place
– The instructor then pushed the group another step deeper:
– Why does the U.S. care so much about **Iran’s nuclear program**, when many states have nuclear programs?
– Student contributions included:
– An **uncertain student** suggested that Iran’s nuclear program threatens **Israel**, including the possibility that Israel’s special position in the region would be challenged.
– Another **uncertain student** articulated a **balance-of-power** logic:
– Iran’s acquisition or expansion of nuclear capability would upset a delicate regional power structure.
– It could undermine **American supremacy** or freedom of action in the region.
– It could embolden Iran by making retaliation against it harder.
– The instructor highlighted this as a much stronger level of reasoning:
– the explanation is no longer just “Iran has a nuclear program,”
– but rather “Iran’s nuclear program threatens the regional balance of power and U.S./Israeli strategic dominance.”
### E. Methodological takeaway
– The instructor closed this section by summarizing the lesson:
– Students should not stop at naming variables.
– They need to connect variables to **salient mechanisms** such as:
– window of opportunity,
– threat perception,
– alliance politics,
– regional balance of power,
– regime vulnerability,
– or broader strategic logic.
## 8. Final short revision period
– Students were given a final brief work period—about **three minutes**—to revise their arguments on the board.
– The goal was to make sure their final board versions reflected:
– better logical structure,
– clearer mechanisms,
– and stronger wording before the end of class.
## 9. End-of-class discussion: China–Taiwan argument review
The instructor then turned to the **China–Taiwan side** of the room for a brief final check-in.
### A. Whether to revise
– The instructor asked whether the group had changed their arguments.
– The group representative said they had decided to **stick with the current version**.
### B. Hypothesis 1: Unification and deterring U.S.–Taiwan ties
– One of the group’s arguments was:
– China is increasing its military presence around Taiwan because it aims to **unify Taiwan with the mainland** and deter **U.S.–Taiwan cooperation**, especially **arms sales**.
– The instructor’s feedback:
– This was pointing in the right direction, but the phrase **“aims to unify”** was too weak.
– Many countries “aim” to do many things; that alone does not explain why they would spend so much money, accept so much risk, or potentially court a massive conflict.
– The instructor pressed for a deeper causal logic:
– Why is unification important enough to justify such dangerous behavior?
– Why is this idea politically powerful inside China?
### C. Student contribution on historical/national meaning
– An **uncertain China/Taiwan group student** responded that unification is tied to a **long-term national objective** and to the unresolved historical division associated with **1949**.
– The student explained that this issue is central to the government’s historical and political narrative, and that the source they had used discussed the story of **unification and politics**.
– The instructor validated this as a good starting point and noted that the next stage—especially on Thursday—would be to **substantiate** why that historical narrative translates into costly state action.
### D. Hypothesis 2: Regional power and deterring intervention
– The second China/Taiwan-side argument proposed that China’s actions are meant to **enhance its regional power** and deter outside intervention.
– The instructor said this was acceptable as a draft argument, but again pushed the group to deepen it:
– Why does China feel the need to expand or reinforce regional power?
– Why is it willing to incur serious risk in pursuit of that objective?
– The instructor emphasized that this “why” question would likely be one of the first things the student would be asked, so it needed to be answered more fully.
## 10. Closing instructions and next steps
– Time ran out before the instructor could fully review all remaining board work.
– The instructor said they would **take a picture of the board** and continue from there on **Thursday**.
– Students were told there would be a **short reading on eCourse** for that night; they were asked to **scan it before Thursday’s session**.
– The instructor reminded the class:
– **The paper is due next Thursday**.
– Thursday’s class will focus more specifically on **how to substantiate the arguments** students are constructing.
## 11. After-class individual issue
– After class, one **uncertain student** approached the instructor about an earlier request to send old papers, apparently related to planning for a **senior thesis next year**.
– The student explained that there was a **problem with their MacBook** and they may have lost access to their old work because they typically saved documents locally rather than on Google Docs.
– The instructor responded pragmatically:
– Since the student is in **Quantitative Methods with Professor Gumber**, they should submit their final paper there as normal.
– If they are able to recover their files or final paper, they should also send it to the instructor.
# Student Tracker
– **Wyatt Adam James** — Served as the Greenland group’s board writer and was specifically noted by the instructor while the group mapped source-based arguments.
– **Uncertain student (“Ryan” in transcript; not confidently matched to roster)** — Mentioned by the instructor as having an opinion/source for the Greenland group to add to the board.
– **Uncertain student (China-related group member)** — Asked how to handle selecting one case/source when the group had overlapping China-focused topics.
– **Uncertain student (source-method questioner)** — Asked how to represent repeated explanations across multiple articles and how to distinguish multiple pieces from the same source organization.
– **Uncertain student (China/Taiwan strategy contributor)** — Raised geostrategic/geographical importance as a possible explanatory factor in the China/Taiwan case.
– **Uncertain student (Iran-case contributor 1)** — Helped develop the “window of opportunity” explanation for U.S./Israel action against Iran, including timing and state vulnerability.
– **Uncertain student (Iran-case contributor 2)** — Pointed to protests and the rare gathering of high-level Iranian officials as evidence that timing mattered.
– **Uncertain student (Iran-case contributor 3)** — Suggested that Iran’s nuclear program matters because it threatens Israel and/or the regional balance of power.
– **Uncertain student (China/Taiwan group representative)** — Explained the historical significance of 1949 and national unification as part of China’s motivation toward Taiwan.
– **Uncertain student (post-class follow-up)** — Asked about lost files on a MacBook and how to provide past writing samples for future senior-thesis preparation.
# Actionable Items
## Urgent
– **Midterm paper deadline** is now **next Thursday** after the extension.
– **Thursday’s class** will continue this workshop and focus on **substantiating the two arguments** students are building.
– Students need to **scan the short eCourse reading** before Thursday’s session.
## Important follow-up
– Instructor plans to **use photos of the board work** to continue from the current draft arguments next class.
– Groups may still need to tighten causal logic by linking listed variables to **clear mechanisms/theoretical reasoning**.
## Individual student support
– One student may need follow-up help regarding **lost files on a MacBook** and recovering/submitting prior writing for senior-thesis preparation.
– If that student finds the missing work, they should **send the recovered/final paper to the instructor** in addition to submitting it in Quantitative Methods with **Professor Gumber**.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Short Reading for Thursday’s Class
You need to complete a brief preparatory reading tonight so that you are ready for Thursday’s class, when you will continue developing and substantiating the two competing arguments for your midterm paper. This reading is meant to help you think more carefully about how to connect the reasons you identified for your case study to broader mechanisms, stronger explanations, and the larger theories discussed in class.
Instructions:
1. Find the short reading assigned for tonight.
2. Scan through the reading before Thursday’s class, as instructed in class.
3. As you read, keep your midterm paper topic and case study in mind.
4. Pay particular attention to ideas that may help you strengthen the two competing arguments you are building for your paper.
5. Look for concepts that help explain not just what happened in your case, but why it happened, since class focused on moving from listed reasons or variables to broader causal logic and mechanisms.
6. As you scan the reading, jot down a few brief notes on any concepts, theories, or explanations that seem useful for your case study.
7. Identify anything in the reading that could help you better substantiate the arguments you mapped in class, especially where your group was asked to deepen explanations, clarify reasoning, or connect independent variables to larger international relations frameworks.
8. Come to Thursday’s class prepared to use the reading as support while you continue refining your arguments for the paper, which is due next Thursday.