Lesson Report:
# Title
**From Midterm Memo Critique to Final Project Planning: Audience Vulnerability, Rabbit Holes, and Counter-Propaganda Design**
This session shifted the course toward final-project preparation while still building on the midterm memo work. The instructor used peer review, whole-class analysis, and breakout discussions to help students identify why otherwise reasonable anti-propaganda interventions fail, especially when audience identity, fear, loneliness, distrust, and fast-moving social media ecosystems are involved. The class ended with preliminary final-project group formation and clarification of upcoming deadlines.
—
# Attendance
– **Students explicitly marked absent by name:** **0**
– **Late arrival noted:**
– **Amery Ainullah** *(name match somewhat uncertain from transcript rendering “Ainula/Ainullah”)* joined late due to connectivity issues.
—
# Topics Covered
## 1) End-of-semester timeline and course planning
– The instructor corrected the course end date and clarified that the **last class meeting will be Wednesday, April 29**.
– Students were reminded that only a few weeks remain, and the instructor explained that the class will now spend significant time preparing for the **final project/final assessment**, while still reserving upcoming classes for the course’s final thematic discussions.
– The instructor framed the remaining classes as a chance to “make good” on the remaining time by helping students get properly oriented toward the final.
## 2) Critical Reflection Journal 2 and general course housekeeping
– The instructor announced that the **second critical reflection journal** is now posted on **eCourse** and is due **Wednesday the 15th**.
– Assignment expectations were reviewed:
– Students should submit **2–3 minutes of conversational speech**.
– The recording should reflect on something learned in the course that feels new, interesting, useful, or connected to current events, propaganda examples, the memo, or the final project.
– The instructor emphasized that nearly any topic is acceptable **as long as it meaningfully connects to the student’s experience in the course**.
– Students were also told to have their **midterm/policy memo** open because it would be used immediately in class activities.
### Student contributions
– **Mar Lar Seinn** *(likely the student addressed as “Sen”)* asked for clarification about the journal schedule because the syllabus had originally suggested one video journal every two weeks.
– The instructor clarified that students **have not missed anything** and that the workload had been reduced.
– The revised plan is **roughly three total journals** across the semester: one already completed, the second due on the 15th, and a final capstone-style journal near the end of the course.
– **Beishenova Akylai Samatovna** asked when the **midterm memos** would be graded.
– The instructor said grades are expected **by the end of next week**, after finishing grading in another course.
– Feedback will be posted on **eCourse**, and students can request **more detailed feedback** by email or through eCourse.
## 3) Peer-review setup: pairing students to review midterm memos
– Students were instructed to **find a partner over Zoom**, ideally using private messages.
– The instructor manually paired students who did not initially find partners:
– **Kasymova Chynara Iusubzhonovna** with **Joro Danek** *(name match somewhat uncertain from transcript renderings “Daniek/Dunyak”)*
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna** with **Furmoly Floran**
– **Ahmadi Nahida** with **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna**
– After joining late, **Amery Ainullah** was added to the **Nahida/Kamilla** group.
– Students were given a privacy-respecting choice:
– either **send the full memo** to their partner,
– or send **2–3 sentences** summarizing:
1. the propaganda problem addressed, and
2. the proposed solution.
### Student contributions
– **Amery Ainullah** *(uncertain transcript match)* briefly joked to confirm whether the task was something more than simply reading and appreciating the partner’s memo “as a work of art.”
– The instructor clarified that the purpose was critical analysis, not passive reading.
## 4) Peer critique activity: why policy solutions may still fail
– The instructor connected the activity to the previous class, where students had used concepts from **Van Bavel and Haidt** to explain why audiences are vulnerable to propaganda.
– The instructor praised students’ prior use of concepts such as:
– **the rider and the elephant**
– **the backfire effect**
– However, the instructor identified a continuing weakness in **audience analysis**:
– students were better at naming theory than at deeply explaining **why a specific audience would be vulnerable** and **why a solution might fail for them in practice**.
– Students were instructed to review their partner’s memo and explain, using:
– **the rider and the elephant**, and/or
– **the backfire effect**
why the proposed solution might fail to solve the propaganda problem for the targeted vulnerable group.
– Students entered anonymous responses into a **Google Doc**:
– no names,
– a one-sentence description of the solution,
– a brief explanation of why it may fail.
### Student contributions and activity management
– **Amery Ainullah** joined after the explanation and asked for clarification.
– The instructor restated the task and added Ainullah to the Nahida/Kamilla group.
– The instructor emphasized that students should not include names in the shared document.
## 5) Final-project scoping spreadsheet: identifying audience and propaganda threat
– While students finished the peer critique, the instructor opened a second task in parallel:
– students were asked to go to a **Google Sheet**, find their own names, and enter:
1. a **specific vulnerable group/audience** for their final project
2. at least one **relevant propaganda campaign** that the project would try to counter
– The instructor stressed the need for **specificity** in defining audience.
### Student contributions
– **Musaev Timur Arsenovich** entered **“general public”** as a vulnerable group.
– The instructor publicly corrected this as **far too broad** and told him to identify a **specific targeted identity or subgroup** instead.
## 6) Whole-class review of anonymous peer critiques
The instructor reviewed several entries from the shared document to model stronger analysis and to push students to connect proposed failures more explicitly to theory.
### Example 1: Tibet / state information control
– Anonymous topic reviewed:
– **Problem:** Chinese state propaganda and information control in Tibet, contributing to cultural assimilation and restricting alternative voices.
– **Solution:** Provide decentralized Tibetan-language content through low-risk, trusted channels.
– **Potential failure:** surveillance, censorship, and younger audiences already shaped by state messaging may reject alternative information.
– Instructor feedback:
– The failure analysis showed promise,
– but the instructor asked students to more explicitly connect it to **specific theoretical terms**, especially concepts explaining why ideologically enclosed audiences become difficult to persuade.
### Example 2: Ethno-nationalist propaganda targeting teenagers in Russia
– Anonymous topic reviewed:
– **Problem:** Ethno-nationalist propaganda aimed at Russian teenagers.
– **Solution:** Use a **moonshot-model-style** approach, avoiding direct argument and instead exposing them to different, safer content.
– **Potential failure:** their beliefs are identity-based and emotionally rooted, so contradictory content may be ignored.
– Instructor feedback:
– This was identified as conceptually strong,
– but again, students were urged to **name the relevant concepts directly** rather than leaving them implied.
### Example 3: COVID-19 misinformation targeting elderly people
– Anonymous topic reviewed:
– **Problem:** Elderly people’s vulnerability to COVID-19 misinformation due to low digital literacy, emotional influence, and reliance on informal trusted networks.
– **Solution:** Use community-based media literacy and emotional-awareness training delivered by trusted local actors such as doctors and family members.
– **Potential failure:** emotional identity-based trust can override rational evaluation.
– Instructor feedback:
– The student successfully inserted **“rider”** as a concept,
– but the instructor pushed the analysis further by asking:
– if trusted local actors are the messengers, **why exactly would the solution still fail?**
– in other words, where is the actual breakdown if the intervention is already being delivered by trusted sources?
## 7) Mini-lecture: three recurring failure points in anti-propaganda solutions
The instructor then shifted from critique to synthesis, telling students that most failures they had been identifying fall into **three recurring problem areas**. The rest of the class focused on brainstorming ways around those failure points.
### Failure Point 1: Rabbit holes driven by loneliness or fear
– The instructor asked students to define **“rabbit hole.”**
– The concept was discussed as:
– going deeper and deeper into a topic,
– often obsessively,
– sometimes beginning in something seemingly harmless and escalating into more extreme or politicized content.
– The instructor connected this to course ideas:
– people may fall into propaganda rabbit holes because they are **lonely**, seeking belonging,
– or **scared**, seeking answers and certainty.
– The instructor connected these ideas to prior course theorists, especially **Haidt** and **Booth**, emphasizing identity and fear as drivers of belief formation.
### Student contributions
– **Shoguniev Imat Imatovich** *(likely the student addressed as “Imad”)* linked rabbit holes to people feeling lonely or scared and said interventions must address **underlying needs**, not just content.
– **Gulobov Ruslan Sodikovich** defined a rabbit hole as going **“deep and deep”** into a topic or situation.
– **Harzu Natalia** added that rabbit holes often lead to **polarization**.
– **Joro Danek** *(uncertain transcript match)* gave a concrete example: someone feels a small pain, searches online, worries it could be cancer, and keeps spiraling through search results.
– The instructor used this to show how even health anxiety can become politicized if people begin distrusting professionals and seeking alternative, ideologically charged explanations.
## 8) Three breakout-room questions for solution brainstorming
Students were divided into **three breakout rooms**, each tasked with discussing one of the following questions and recording ideas in a shared Google Doc:
1. **If people fall into rabbit holes because they are lonely or scared, what could we build?**
2. **If people reject facts from the out-group, who should deliver the toolkit?**
3. **If algorithms reward fast, thoughtless sharing, how do we slow people down?**
– Instructions:
– brainstorm practical interventions,
– use specific examples where possible,
– work collaboratively in a shared document,
– return and post the document in the main chat.
– Students were given about **10 minutes**.
## 9) Breakout report-backs and instructor synthesis
### Room 1 report, presented by Harzu Natalia
Room 1’s ideas included:
– **Marking information as unverified or as conspiracy content**
– Using **in-group agents**
– **Diversifying information sources**
– For fast algorithmic sharing:
– **flooding** the environment with better, positive information
– organizing **more in-person community activities**
#### Instructor response
– The instructor pressed for more specificity:
– **Where** would users see those warnings?
– On what platforms or channels would this work: WhatsApp, Telegram, X/Twitter, meme pages, email lists?
– On in-group messengers, the instructor agreed with the principle but asked how “independent” mediators or organizations could actually become trusted **inside the target in-group**.
– The instructor particularly liked:
– the idea of **counter-flooding** with positive information,
– and the idea of using **in-person community spaces** to slow down rapid, thoughtless digital circulation.
### Room 2 report, presented by Yousufzai Khadija
Room 2 proposed:
– Building an **online group or social-media space** led with help from **in-group members** to create a supportive environment for vulnerable individuals
– Redirecting vulnerable audiences toward content that gives them a sense of support and away from extremist material
– Using as messengers:
– **someone from the in-group who changed their position**
– a commonly trusted authority
– trusted community members who share the audience’s identity and values
– Slowing sharing by using platform-level **warning tags** to show whether information is verified
#### Instructor response
– The instructor strongly endorsed the central logic:
– if loneliness and alienation are part of the problem, one solution is to **build or strengthen the in-group itself**
– and equip trusted insiders with tools and information
– The instructor gave an example from deradicalization efforts involving former extremists, especially **former neo-Nazis**, as credible messengers who can help pull others out of extremist identity structures.
– The instructor referenced **American History X** as a cultural example of in-group rehabilitation and identity exit.
– On warning labels, the instructor connected the idea to **community notes / platform-based fact-labeling**, especially on **X/Twitter**, and used this to discuss the strengths and limits of verification systems.
### Student contributions during synthesis
– **Ibraimov Suban Kubanychevich** was asked whether he recognized the X/Twitter feature the instructor was describing.
– **Mar Lar Seinn** added that Facebook and other platforms also use forms of **verification**, including checking whether accounts are real and whether information may be fact-checked or reliable.
– **Harzu Natalia** remarked that X/Twitter now uses **Grok-based labeling**, suggesting a change from earlier community-driven note systems.
## 10) Preliminary final-project group formation
– The instructor explained that student entries in the spreadsheet had already begun to reveal clusters of related topics, and these would be used to form **final-project groups**.
– The instructor said these groups were **preliminary** and would be posted on **eCourse** by the end of the night / by the following day.
– Students were told that the next class would focus on identifying a **single shared audience** and building **“strategic empathy”** for that group.
### Preliminary groups announced
– **Group 1: Institutional trust and biolabs**
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna**
– **Sangmamadova Zamira Marodbekovna**
– **Shoguniev Imat Imatovich**
– Shared theme: distrust related to **biolabs** and institutional credibility
– Task ahead: narrow to **one audience**
– **Group 2: Shared mechanism-based cluster**
– **Yousufzai Khadija**
– **Turgunalieva Nazbike Baktybekovna**
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna**
– Shared theme described by the instructor as a **similar mechanism**
– Task ahead: identify one audience and propaganda threat
– **Group 3: State-on-state information warfare**
– **Suslov Ivan**
– **Musaev Timur Arsenovich**
– **Harzu Natalia**
– Shared theme: propaganda involving attacks on sovereignty or the safety of neighboring states
– Task ahead: agree on one issue and one targeted audience
– **Group 4: Domestic public-health fear themes**
– **Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna**
– **Mar Lar Seinn**
– **Gulobov Ruslan Sodikovich**
– Shared theme: domestic fear, especially around **public health**
– Task ahead: agree on one audience for intervention
– The instructor noted that more students would still need to be added to groups, and additional group adjustments would follow.
### Student contributions
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna** asked whether the final project had to be on a different topic from the midterm.
– The instructor said students **may continue** with the midterm topic **as long as the target group is not their own identity group**.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** asked whether group members should wait until the next class to communicate.
– The instructor said they **can start contacting one another immediately** and may set up a group chat in advance.
## 11) End-of-class follow-up: group change request
– After dismissal, **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna** stayed to ask whether she could switch from her current theme to **something new**, specifically mentioning interest in working on **immigrants** rather than staying with the biolabs-related topic.
– The instructor approved the request and said:
– Kamilla would be **moved to Group 2**
– additional students would be added later to the **Institutional Trust and BioLabs** group to rebalance it
—
# Student Tracker
– **Mar Lar Seinn** *(likely “Sen” in transcript)* — clarified the reduced video-journal schedule and later contributed a point about platform/account verification and fact-checking features.
– **Beishenova Akylai Samatovna** — asked when midterm memos would be graded.
– **Kasymova Chynara Iusubzhonovna** — was identified for partner matching and paired for the memo-review activity.
– **Joro Danek** *(name match uncertain from transcript renderings “Daniek/Dunyak”)* — was paired for peer review and later gave a concrete “health anxiety” rabbit-hole example.
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna** — was paired with Floran for the peer-review activity.
– **Furmoly Floran** — was paired with Amina for the peer-review activity.
– **Ahmadi Nahida** — was paired with Kamilla and later part of the small group that also included late-arriving Ainullah.
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna** — participated in partner work, was initially placed in the biolabs group, and then requested/received permission to switch to a different final-project group to explore a new topic.
– **Amery Ainullah** *(name match somewhat uncertain from “Ainula/Ainullah”)* — joined late due to connectivity issues, asked for clarification on the activity, and made a light joke about simply appreciating a partner’s memo.
– **Musaev Timur Arsenovich** — entered an overly broad audience in the project sheet and was told to narrow it to a specific vulnerable group; later placed in the state-on-state information warfare group.
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna** — asked whether students could continue using their midterm topic for the final project.
– **Shoguniev Imat Imatovich** *(likely the student addressed as “Imad/Iman”)* — connected rabbit holes to loneliness, fear, and the need to address underlying needs rather than only content.
– **Gulobov Ruslan Sodikovich** — defined a rabbit hole as going deeper and deeper into a topic/situation; later placed in the domestic public-health fear group.
– **Harzu Natalia** — noted that rabbit holes can lead to polarization, represented Room 1 in the report-back, commented on platform labeling, and was placed in the state-on-state information warfare group.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** — represented Room 2’s breakout response and later asked about whether groups should start communicating before the next class.
– **Ibraimov Suban Kubanychevich** — was directly invited into the discussion about X/Twitter misinformation-labeling tools.
– **Sangmamadova Zamira Marodbekovna** — appeared in the preliminary biolabs/institutional trust final-project grouping.
– **Suslov Ivan** — appeared in the preliminary state-on-state information warfare grouping.
– **Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna** — appeared in the preliminary domestic public-health fear grouping.
– **Turgunalieva Nazbike Baktybekovna** — appeared in the preliminary Group 2 final-project cluster.
—
# Actionable Items
## High Priority
– **Students who have not yet completed the project spreadsheet** need to enter:
– a **specific vulnerable audience**
– at least one **propaganda campaign/threat**
– **Instructor to finalize and post final-project groups on eCourse**, including:
– adding remaining students to groups
– rebalancing the **Institutional Trust and BioLabs** group after Kamilla’s move
– **Begin next class with Room 3’s report-out**, which was not covered before dismissal.
## Upcoming Deadlines / Near-Term Follow-up
– **Critical Reflection Journal 2** is due **Wednesday the 15th**:
– 2–3 minute conversational recording
– should connect to course learning, concepts, memo/final project, or real-world propaganda examples
– **Midterm memo grades** are expected by **the end of next week**.
– Students who want **deeper feedback** beyond brief comments should **email the instructor or respond on eCourse**.
## Group Project Coordination
– Students may **contact group members before Wednesday** and set up a group chat or other communication channel.
– Next class will focus on:
– choosing **one shared audience**
– sharpening the group’s propaganda problem
– building **strategic empathy** for that audience
## Course Scheduling
– **Last class meeting:** **Wednesday, April 29**.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Critical Reflection Journal 2
In this second critical reflection journal, you will record a brief 2–3 minute reflection in which you speak conversationally about something from the course that is new, interesting, or meaningful to you. This assignment is designed to help you connect the course’s ideas about propaganda to your own learning experience, including your memo, your developing final project, and real-world examples you may have encountered.
Instructions:
1. Open the assignment page for the second critical reflection journal.
2. Choose a topic that connects directly to your experience in this course. Your reflection may focus on any of the following:
– something from the course that is new to you,
– something from the course that you find especially interesting,
– an idea connected to your midterm memo,
– an idea connected to your final project,
– one of the course concepts or thematic discussions,
– a real-world propaganda campaign you noticed in the news or on social media.
3. Make sure your topic is clearly tied to what you have learned in this class. You have flexibility in what you choose, but your reflection must connect to your course experience.
4. Plan a short response that will fit within 2–3 minutes. Since this is meant to be conversational speech, aim to sound natural and reflective rather than overly formal or scripted.
5. Begin your recording by briefly identifying the topic you chose.
6. Explain what you learned about that topic and why it stands out to you. For example, you might discuss why it was new, surprising, useful, relevant, or thought-provoking.
7. Connect your reflection to the broader course whenever possible. You may refer to:
– your policy memo,
– your ideas for the final project,
– propaganda concepts discussed in class,
– thematic issues the class has been working through.
8. If you choose a real-world example, explain how it relates to the course’s discussions of propaganda and why it is a useful or important example.
9. Record your journal entry, making sure your response is between 2 and 3 minutes long.
10. Review your recording before submitting it so that you can confirm it is clear, complete, and within the required time range.
11. Submit the assignment by Wednesday, the 15th, following the submission directions provided on the assignment page.