Lesson Report:
# Title
**Audience Analysis Workshop and Final Project Group Formation**
This class focused on moving students from broad, abstract political descriptions toward more concrete audience analysis for the final/capstone project. The instructor used a short empathy-writing exercise, then organized students into project groups around propaganda themes and had each group begin narrowing both a target audience and a specific propaganda campaign, ending with preparation for an evidence-gathering homework task centered on authentic social-media artifacts.
—
# Attendance
– **Approximate live attendance noted by instructor:** 23 students
– **Students explicitly mentioned as absent:** **3**
– **Ibraimov Suban Kubanychevich** — explicitly noted as not present
– **Tabibzada Dina** — explicitly noted as not present
– **Uncertain: “Saima”** — mentioned as not present, but this name could not be confidently matched to the course roster
—
# Topics Covered
## 1. Opening Administrative Check: Final Project Topic Spreadsheet Completion
– The class opened with an administrative check of the shared spreadsheet containing final project topics.
– The instructor asked students to decide quickly whether they would:
– continue with their **midterm project topic**, or
– adopt a **new final project topic**
– Students who had not yet entered their topic were reminded to do so immediately, because:
– the spreadsheet was being used to **form project groups**
– students without topics could not be assigned properly
– delayed submission would make later coordination more difficult
### Students specifically addressed about missing or incomplete topic entries
– **Ahmadi Nahida** — instructor said her final project idea was still missing and reminded her to either keep the midterm topic or enter a new one
– **Ibraimov Suban Kubanychevich** — noted as missing a final project entry and absent
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna** — reminded to enter a topic
– **Joro Danek** — reminded to enter a topic
– **Danek** replied that he would use the topic he had done previously
– **Kasymova Chynara Iusubzhonovna** — noted as still needing to enter a topic
– **Lim Aleksei Vladimirovich** — noted as still needing to enter a topic
– **Tabibzada Dina** — noted as still needing to enter a topic; later explicitly noted absent
– **Silmonova Nilufar Sarvarovna** — noted as still needing to enter a topic
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna** — thanked by the instructor for updating the spreadsheet
### Framing of why this mattered
– The instructor explained that most classmates had already been grouped.
– Students missing topic entries had **not yet been placed into groups**, and the instructor stressed that this needed to be resolved **ASAP** so the class could move forward with the capstone structure.
—
## 2. Main Lesson Focus Introduced: Audience Analysis for the Final Project
– The instructor announced that the day’s main topic was **audience analysis**, a concept already touched on in earlier classes but now requiring more direct work.
– The lesson objective was framed as follows:
– students must show they can **think like a member of the vulnerable group** they are studying
– success on the final project depends not just on identifying a campaign, but on demonstrating an understanding of the **audience’s lived fears, anxieties, and motivations**
– The instructor described the spreadsheet entries as a kind of **diagnostic tool**:
– some students were already writing from a more grounded perspective
– others were still using **vague abstractions**
—
## 3. Guided Audience-Voice Exercise: Turning Abstract Analysis into a Realistic Quote
### Instructor prompt
– The instructor presented a deliberately abstract audience description:
– **“The audience is experiencing economic insecurity and fears the displacement of the native-born workforce by migrant labor.”**
– Students were asked to:
– imagine themselves as a person inside that audience
– convert the abstract audience description into a **direct quotation**
– write it as something that person might actually say:
– in conversation
– in a WhatsApp group chat
– or in another casual real-life setting
– Time was given for individual work before students posted responses in chat.
### Purpose of the exercise
– The point was not to endorse the statement or the ideology behind it.
– Rather, the instructor emphasized that students need to move from:
– broad political-science language
– to language that sounds like a **real human fear**
– This was presented as the first step in truly “entering the perspective” of a target audience.
### Student examples highlighted in class
– **Furmoly Floran**
– Contributed a quotation along the lines of:
**“We’re not against anyone trying to build a better life. We’re just worried there won’t be a place left for us in our own communities.”**
– The instructor praised this as sounding like something a real person might actually say in everyday communication.
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna**
– Contributed a quotation along the lines of:
**“I will lose everything one day. I am not against anyone, but I do not want to lose my job. I feel unsafe. This is my country.”**
– The instructor highlighted this as another strong example because it expressed fear, insecurity, and belonging in a realistic voice.
– **Gulobov Ruslan Sodikovich**
– Contributed a quotation framed as a question:
**“Why does it seem like companies prefer cheaper labor instead of hiring people from here?”**
– The instructor pointed out that this too felt like a plausible real-world statement from someone in the audience.
### Instructor debrief
– The instructor contrasted the original abstract description with the student quotations:
– the first version was analytically correct but emotionally distant
– the student quotes began to capture the **source of fear and insecurity**
– This exercise established the methodological approach for the capstone:
– define the audience
– imagine what that audience actually feels
– later locate real evidence of those feelings online
—
## 4. Capstone / Final Project Group Formation Around Shared Propaganda Themes
– The instructor explained that because many students had entered spreadsheet information after the previous class, he had **reorganized several groups**.
– He stressed that the groups were still **flexible**, and that he had tried to keep students within related themes even if exact group membership changed.
### Initial thematic groupings introduced
The following project clusters were announced:
#### Group 1: **Biolabs**
– Theme: propaganda around **American-funded biolabs**
– Named students:
– **Sangmamadova Zamira Marodbekovna**
– **Shoguniev Imat Imatovich**
– **Uncertain: “Saima”** (not present; not confidently matched to roster)
– Instructor note:
– likely to add another student later so the group would not be too small
#### Group 2: **Anti-Immigrant Messaging / “Great Replacement”**
– Named students:
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna**
– **Joro Danek**
– **Kasymova Chynara Iusubzhonovna**
– Instructor framing:
– focus on propaganda campaigns built around anti-immigrant narratives
– suggested thread: **the “great replacement” narrative**
#### Group 3: **Economic Scapegoat Narrative**
– Named students:
– **Turgunalieva Nazbike Baktybekovna**
– **Yousufzai Khadija**
– **Zulumbekov Alikhan Dastanbekovich**
– Instructor framing:
– anti-immigrant narratives built around the claim that migrants are **“taking jobs”**
– students were asked to think about which people would be affected by that message
#### Group 4: **Ethno-Nationalism in Russia**
– Named students:
– **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna**
– **Gulobov Ruslan Sodikovich**
– Instructor note:
– their previously described projects already aligned closely with this theme
#### Group 5: **China–Taiwan**
– Theme: propaganda campaigns related to relations between **China and Taiwan**
– Students would have flexibility to define a more exact angle within that larger geopolitical theme
#### Group 6: **Contested Statehood**
– Named students:
– **Musaev Timur Arsenovich**
– **Furmoly Floran**
– Instructor explanation:
– propaganda campaigns in which a larger country questions or denies the legitimacy of a smaller country’s statehood
#### Group 7: **South Caucasus Information Battle**
– Named students:
– **Silmonova Nilufar Sarvarovna**
– **Suslov Ivan**
– **Tabibzada Dina** (later noted absent)
– Instructor framing:
– state and non-state propaganda campaigns in the South Caucasus, especially around **identity**
#### Group 8: **Purity and Protection**
– Named students later associated with this grouping:
– **Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna**
– **Lim Aleksei Vladimirovich**
– **Mar Lar Seinn**
– Instructor explanation:
– although the students’ original ideas varied, he saw a common thread in propaganda about:
– purity of the body
– purity of society
– protection against external contamination or influence
—
## 5. Grouping Questions, Student Concerns, and Instructor Clarifications
Several students raised questions as the groups were being announced and adjusted.
### **Yousufzai Khadija**
– Pointed out that the class had already been grouped previously and listed an earlier grouping including herself, **Nazbike**, **Elaiym**, and **Kamilla**
– The instructor explained that he had regrouped students after reviewing later spreadsheet entries and that the current groups were **not permanent**
### **Beishenova Akylai Samatovna**
– Asked to be added to a group
– The instructor responded that he could not place her yet because her spreadsheet information was still missing at that moment
– He directed her to the link in the chat and asked her to enter:
– her audience
– her selected propaganda campaign
### **Harzu Natalia**
– Asked whether the newly announced groups were for the capstone project and noted she had thought grouping had happened in the previous class
– The instructor checked her spreadsheet entry and then placed her within the **China–Taiwan**-related grouping
—
## 6. Manual Breakout Room Assignment and Late Placement of Unassigned Students
– The instructor then manually built breakout rooms and assigned students to rooms corresponding to the thematic groups.
– This part of class involved significant logistical coordination, with the instructor moving students based on:
– missing topics
– topic fit
– balancing group sizes
– student preferences
### Additional placement decisions and student input
– **Ezgo Helen**
– Mentioned in relation to an Armenia-aligned topic
– The instructor suggested she join the **South Caucasus** group, and she agreed
– **Joro Danek**
– Requested a switch with **Amina**
– The instructor approved the swap
– **Beishenova Akylai Samatovna**
– After entering her information, described a topic involving:
– Western audiences
– anti-establishment online communities
– Iranian cyber warfare / propaganda targeting foreign audiences during the U.S.–Iran conflict
– The instructor said it was not perfectly aligned but added her to the **biolabs** group because that group needed another member
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna**
– Asked the instructor to check the topic she had entered
– She described an audience of **young adults and students active on social media**
– Her campaign idea involved **social media influencers promoting get-rich-quick schemes**
– Instructor feedback:
– said the audience description was still too broad
– questioned how the case connected to **propaganda by a state or non-state actor**
– She said she would be fine joining any group, and the instructor placed her with the **contested statehood** group
– **Amery Ainullah**
– Said his topic was related to the **Taiwan–China misinformation campaign**
– The instructor placed him into the **China–Taiwan** group
– **Azimshoev Ofarid Asalbekovich**
– Said he was open to any group
– The instructor first discussed contested statehood, then suggested **ethno-nationalism in Russia** because that group was underpopulated
– Ofarid accepted
### Mid-process switching after breakout work began
– After an initial breakout session, further group concerns surfaced:
– **Yousufzai Khadija** raised the issue of wanting to work with specific classmates with whom she already had a connection
– The instructor said switching was still possible if **Zulumbekov Alikhan Dastanbekovich** agreed
– Later:
– **Alikhan** confirmed he was willing to switch
– At the end of class, the instructor also noted that **Ainullah** had agreed to a switch involving **Alikhan**, and the instructor completed that change
—
## 7. Breakout Task 1: Each Group Chooses One Audience and One Propaganda Campaign
### Instructions given
– Once students were in groups, the instructor asked each group to do a short internal “democracy” exercise:
– decide on **one concrete audience**
– decide on **one propaganda campaign**
– Students were told they did **not** need to stay perfectly inside the initial thread suggested by the instructor, but should remain in a related area.
– They were told to return with:
– one clearly defined audience
– one clearly defined campaign/theme
—
## 8. Whole-Class Review of Group Proposals and Instructor Feedback on Specificity
After breakout discussions, the instructor reviewed each group’s emerging project focus and gave live feedback. This was a major instructional section because the feedback modeled how to move from a broad idea to a usable research frame.
### Group 1: **Biolabs**
– Proposed campaign:
– **U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine**
– Proposed audience:
– **Africans distrusting Western powers**
– Instructor feedback:
– The campaign itself was valid and interesting.
– The audience was **far too broad**.
– He told them to narrow from “Africans” to a more specific population:
– perhaps one country
– or a more clearly defined subgroup
– **Beishenova Akylai Samatovna** asked if using just one country’s audience would be better.
– The instructor said yes, and explicitly agreed that a single-country focus would likely be more effective.
### Group 2: **Great Replacement / Anti-Immigrant Propaganda**
– Proposed campaign:
– the idea that **white Europeans are being systematically replaced through mass immigration**
– Proposed audience:
– **white Europeans, specifically the French population**
– Group rationale noted in discussion:
– that large numbers in France believe some aspects of this theory
– Instructor feedback:
– Good direction, but still too broad
– “French people” alone is not enough
– They need to identify **which French people**, under what economic or social conditions, are especially vulnerable to the message
### Group 3: **Economic Scapegoat / Anti-Immigrant Disinformation in the United States**
– Proposed campaign:
– the claim that **immigrants are taking our opportunities**
– Proposed audience:
– **native-born American workers who feel economic insecurity and fear losing their jobs**
– Instructor feedback:
– This was already fairly workable
– He suggested narrowing a bit more, but said it was **good enough for the moment**
### Group 4: **Russia / Economic Instability / Migrants**
– Proposed audience:
– **people vulnerable to economic instability, both migrants and Russians themselves**
– Proposed campaign:
– if Russia loses the war in Ukraine, there will be economic instability, unemployment, and job loss for migrants and Russians alike
– Instructor feedback:
– Audience still too broad
– Campaign was also blending several narratives together
– The group needed to identify:
– one clearer audience
– one clearer message/narrative rather than several merged together
### Group 5: **PRC Cognitive Warfare Against Taiwan**
– Proposed campaign:
– **U.S. abandonment narrative** / inevitable reunification narrative
– Proposed audience:
– **local Taiwanese residents, especially youth and swing voters on TikTok, LINE, Facebook, and YouTube**
– specifically those who fear the human and economic costs of conflict and question whether the U.S. would truly intervene
– Instructor feedback:
– Very specific and strong
– He noted the description had become significantly more precise than before
– He was especially interested in seeing what artifacts the group would later locate
### Group 6: **China Denying Taiwan’s Statehood**
– Proposed campaign:
– **China claims Taiwan is not a real state**
– Proposed audience:
– **Chinese and Taiwanese domestic populations**
– Instructor feedback:
– This was still far too broad
– He pointed out that the group was actually describing **two parallel campaigns**:
– one directed at people in China
– another directed at people in Taiwan
– He asked them to choose **one side** and then define a specific audience within that country
### Group 7: **Armenian/Azeri Youth and Identity Polarization**
– Proposed audience:
– **Armenian and Azeri youth, ages 18–30**
– Proposed campaign:
– Azerbaijani rhetoric of never-ending war on social media
– identity-polarization narratives depicting Armenians as enemies
– Instructor feedback:
– Treated this as a sufficiently specific real target audience
– Noted it as a clear state-linked campaign and expressed interest in the evidence/artifacts they would find
### Group 8: **Religion / Foreign Influence / South Korea**
– Proposed audience:
– elderly people in South Korea connected to religion or concerns about foreign influence
– Proposed case:
– a debate over how Korean values are influenced by the West
– Instructor feedback:
– said a **debate** is not itself a propaganda campaign
– the group needed to identify:
– one actual propaganda campaign
– possibly one propaganda thread using that debate
– He said their audience idea could work, but only once paired with a more concrete campaign
### General conclusion of this feedback section
– The instructor emphasized that most groups had at least picked a reasonable direction.
– Main issue across groups:
– several still needed to **narrow the audience**
– some also needed to **reduce the campaign to one core narrative**
—
## 9. Breakout Task 2 Introduced: Find a Real Social-Media Artifact Showing Audience Anxiety
### New assignment prompt
– The instructor then moved students to the next stage of audience analysis:
– locating an authentic, real-world piece of evidence from social media
– Students were instructed to search for:
– **one real comment from one real user**
– who plausibly belongs to their target audience
– and who expresses a **fear, anxiety, insecurity, or frustration**
– Important clarification:
– the artifact did **not** have to be about the exact campaign the group selected
– what mattered was that it showed the **emotional vulnerability** or concern that the propaganda campaign could exploit
### Suggested sources
– Instagram
– X / Twitter
– WhatsApp groups
– YouTube
– TikTok
– any other relevant social platform
### Suggested kinds of anxieties
– taxes being too high
– jobs disappearing
– feelings of insecurity
– broader social or cultural worries
### Breakout goal for remaining class time
– Students were sent back to breakout rooms to discuss **how** they would search, including:
– which platforms to use
– what types of posts to search
– what communities, groups, topics, or videos might contain useful comments
– The instructor noted that they would not finish the full search in class, so part of the task would continue as homework.
—
## 10. Closing Instructions, Homework, and Individual End-of-Class Clarifications
### Homework for Monday
– Each group must come to class prepared with:
– one real social-media artifact/comment from their selected audience
– an explanation of the fear or anxiety expressed in that artifact
– discussion of how the artifact reveals the audience’s emotional state
– The instructor said Monday’s workshop would build directly on this evidence.
### Individual clarifications after dismissal
#### **Ahmadi Nahida**
– Asked about instructions for the **second video journal**
– Instructor response:
– same format as the first video journal
– a casual, unscripted **2–3 minute** reflection
– on some course-related idea connected to the **politics of truth**
– could continue the earlier topic or choose a new one
#### **Ahmadi Nahida**
– Also mentioned having emailed the instructor about a camera/participation situation
– Instructor response:
– as long as she was participating, she would be counted as **present**
#### **Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna**
– Asked whether her group could take more time to rethink its topic because the original South Korea / religious elderly frame felt difficult to work with
– She suggested they might instead frame it more broadly as **anti-Western propaganda**
– Instructor response:
– yes, they could take more time
– but they should still narrow the work to:
– one country
– one specific group within that country
– one more concrete campaign
– and make sure there is evidence they can locate online
#### **Yousufzai Khadija**
– Returned to the question of group membership, especially whether **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna** could join her group
– The instructor noted that this would create a problem by leaving too few members in Elaiym’s current group
– He said the issue might need to be revisited later, and **Khadija asked that no one else be added to her group** because it was already hard to organize
—
# Student Tracker
– **Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna** — updated the project spreadsheet early and was involved in later group-placement adjustments.
– **Ahmadi Nahida** — asked about project grouping, clarified video journal instructions, and raised an attendance/camera concern that the instructor resolved.
– **Amery Ainullah** — stated that his topic related to Taiwan–China misinformation and accepted later group reassignment.
– **Azimshoev Ofarid Asalbekovich** — said he was flexible about placement and was assigned to help balance an underfilled group.
– **Beishenova Akylai Samatovna** — asked to be added to a group, described her Iran-related topic after updating the spreadsheet, and asked whether narrowing to one country would improve audience analysis.
– **Ezgo Helen** — agreed to join the South Caucasus/Armenia-related group when the instructor suggested it.
– **Furmoly Floran** — contributed a strong model quotation capturing fear of displacement and later worked in the contested statehood grouping.
– **Gulobov Ruslan Sodikovich** — contributed a realistic audience quotation about employers preferring cheaper labor and was paired into the Russia-focused group.
– **Imomdodova Samira Khairullaevna** — asked the instructor to review her spreadsheet topic and accepted reassignment after receiving feedback that her case needed a clearer propaganda connection.
– **Ismailova Kamilla Renatovna** — contributed a strong audience-voice quotation centered on job insecurity and belonging and was involved in group-switch discussions.
– **Joro Danek** — said he would continue his previous project topic and later requested a group switch with Amina.
– **Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna** — asked substantive follow-up questions about narrowing her group’s South Korea/religion/anti-Western topic and about what kinds of evidence should count.
– **Harzu Natalia** — asked whether the announced groupings were the capstone groups and prompted the instructor to check her spreadsheet entry and placement.
– **Yousufzai Khadija** — questioned regrouping changes from the prior class, later raised membership concerns again, and asked that her group not be expanded further.
– **Zulumbekov Alikhan Dastanbekovich** — participated in group-switch discussions and later confirmed willingness to change groups.
—
# Actionable Items
## Urgent / Before Next Class
– **Confirm all final project topics are entered in the spreadsheet**, especially for students who were still missing entries during the opening check.
– **Verify final group membership after multiple swaps**, especially the changes involving:
– **Joro Danek / Akylbekova Amina Batyrbekovna**
– **Zulumbekov Alikhan Dastanbekovich / Amery Ainullah**
– any unresolved requests involving **Yousufzai Khadija** and **Samatbekova Elaiym Samatbekovna**
– **Follow up with groups whose audience/campaign definitions were still too broad**, especially:
– biolabs group
– French “great replacement” group
– Russia/economic instability group
– contested statehood / China–Taiwan broad-audience group
– South Korea / religion / anti-Western group
## Homework / Preparation for Monday
– Each group should **find one real social-media comment/artifact** from its target audience expressing a real fear or anxiety.
– Each group should be ready to explain:
– what the person is feeling
– why that artifact fits the target audience
– how the anxiety could be exploited by propaganda
## Follow-Up Administrative Notes
– **Ahmadi Nahida** was told that **Video Journal 2** follows the same instructions as Video Journal 1:
– casual
– unscripted
– 2–3 minutes
– tied to a course idea/topic
– **Ahmadi Nahida’s attendance concern** was resolved verbally: participation counts, and she should be treated as present.
– **Kendirbaeva Kanykei Oskonovna’s group** may need additional time/support to settle on a narrower, evidence-based campaign within its South Korea/anti-Western/religion theme.
– **Uncertain student “Saima”** was mentioned in group planning but could not be confidently matched to the roster; may need clarification if still enrolled/active.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Find and Analyze a Social Media Artifact from Your Target Audience
You will locate one real social media comment or post from someone who appears to belong to your group’s target audience and use it to identify a real fear or anxiety that audience is experiencing. This assignment builds directly on our lesson about audience analysis by asking you to move beyond abstract descriptions and instead show that you can think from the perspective of the vulnerable group your final project will address.
Instructions:
1. Meet with or contact your group members and confirm your project focus from class.
– Make sure you are all working from one clearly defined propaganda campaign.
– Make sure you have one clearly defined target audience.
– If your audience or campaign was still too broad during class, narrow it further before you begin searching. For example, do not stop at a very large category like “French people,” “Africans,” or “Chinese and Taiwanese domestic populations.” Instead, identify a more specific subgroup within that larger audience.
2. Review the purpose of the assignment before you search.
– You are not just looking for any online comment.
– You are looking for a real comment from a real person who seems to belong to your chosen audience.
– That person should be expressing some kind of fear, insecurity, frustration, or anxiety that helps you understand why that audience might be vulnerable to a propaganda campaign.
3. Decide where you will search for your artifact.
– You may use any relevant social media platform mentioned in class, including Instagram, X, WhatsApp, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, or similar platforms.
– Choose platforms that make sense for your audience and case.
– Think strategically about where your audience is most likely to speak openly in their own voice.
4. Develop a search strategy with your group.
– Identify the kinds of posts, videos, comment sections, hashtags, topics, or discussion spaces where your target audience is likely to appear.
– Think about what your audience might already be worried about in daily life.
– Remember that the artifact does not have to be about your exact propaganda campaign. It just needs to reveal a real concern or anxiety that the propaganda campaign could later exploit.
5. Search for one specific artifact.
– Find one comment or short post written by a user who appears to reflect your chosen audience.
– The artifact should contain a clear expression of fear, insecurity, anger, uncertainty, or social/economic anxiety.
– Examples from class included concerns about losing jobs, instability, safety, or being displaced, but your artifact may reflect a different fear depending on your group’s topic.
6. Make sure the artifact is appropriate for the assignment.
– It should be a real example from social media, not something invented.
– It should sound like an actual person speaking in their own voice.
– It should help you understand what this audience is feeling, not just what an outside analyst might say about them.
7. Save the artifact carefully.
– Copy the text of the comment or post exactly.
– Save the link, screenshot, or citation details so you can refer back to it.
– Record where you found it and on what platform it appeared.
8. Analyze the artifact briefly with your group.
– Identify what the person is feeling.
– Ask yourselves: What specific anxiety does this reveal?
– Consider why this fear matters for your final project.
– Think about how this anxiety could make the audience more susceptible to the propaganda campaign you selected.
9. Prepare to discuss the artifact in class on Monday.
– Be ready to explain what the artifact is.
– Be ready to explain why you believe the person belongs to your target audience.
– Be ready to explain what fear or anxiety the artifact reveals.
– Be ready to answer the question: How does this artifact show us what the audience is feeling?
10. Bring your findings to class fully prepared.
– You do not need to arrive with a finished final analysis, but you should have a concrete artifact and a clear explanation of the audience anxiety it demonstrates.
– This artifact will serve as the basis for Monday’s workshop and will help move your final project forward.