Teaching International Relations Program

Dear Pat,

Thank you for participating in TIRP outreach! This folder is for your four session reports. This is a public forum and we encourage your professors and teachers to review your journal entries for feedback. Make sure your report of classroom activity is appropriate for public viewing.

Remember:
1. Each entry must be submitted within a week or before the next session, whichever comes first.
2. Entries need to be at least 500 words. It is your responsibility to save a copy of your report.
3. Your reports should focus on the content of the TIRP session. Spend no more than one paragraph discussing logistics. Include the key IR concepts and specific student responses.
4. Select "Post Reply" not "New Topic" when submitting each entry. This will ensure that all your
reports are posted in a way that will be easy for CALIS staff, professors and teachers to read.


A CALIS staff member will review your entry each week and leave a posted message approving it toward your extra credit. Thank you for your participation in TIRP!
~~~~~
Report 1 - APPROVED 10/23/09 - Alex
You did a good job showing that the kids understood the lesson. I'm glad it went well!
Report 2 - APPROVED 10/30/09 - Alex
Good work!
Report 3 - APPROVED 11/6/09 - Alex
Report 4 - APPROVED 11/13/09 - Alex

Having participated in TIRP last year at Crenshaw High, I was extremely surprised by the different attitudes of the students at Banning High School in comparison to the student’s at Crenshaw High. When we first asked them to discuss their understanding of the term ‘development,’ four hands immediately shot up and a couple kids began speaking without even being called on. It was a relief to see how enthusiastic they were from the start.
Their answers however, soon alerted us to the fact that they had trouble differentiating between long-term development (land and education) and things that provide short term help (food, water, shelter). We then clarified the distinction for them and asked them to locate Sri Lanka on a map. Some pointed to Africa, some the Middle East, but nobody pointed to its correct location, which is southeast of India.
We proceeded to give them some background information on Sri Lanka and passed out a handout that comprised a past development program in the country. The handout was about a high school teacher who, in 1960, began a movement in Sri Lanka to educate the local villagers on how to become self-reliant through training in projects such as health, nutrition, agriculture, education, and so on. Once they had finished the handout they were asked to answer a number of questions about how the program worked.
While most of the students understood that it was about teaching the locals to support themselves, a big issue we discussed was how to teach people to be self-reliant. Many of the students questioned whether this program could really survive without outsiders constantly providing training and support, which of course requires a lot of money and investment. Another issue raised by some students was how to maintain control of self-reliance projects when money is provided externally. The fact that this question was raised greatly excited me because the students clearly understood that while development may sound easy, there are many complexities to implementing it – something many often forget.
We then talked at length about how development options can actually be harmful to a community. One of the kids used the example of Zimbabwe, where multiple TNC’s and NGO’s sought rigorous economic development through different programs, but once Mugabe seized control and exiled all foreigners, everything that had been done was lost because the TNC’s and NGO’s hadn’t actually taught the local people anything. We made sure to hammer in the point that developing infrastructure and teaching self-reliance is essential before pursuing long-term goals because people need to understand how a system works before being able to improve upon it.
We ended up the discussion by asking the students what kind of projects they could introduce into their community to pursue development and increase self-reliance as a means of progress. The obvious issues that the kids brought up were gang violence, poverty, nutrition, and education. Before leaving we asked them to think about how they would institute programs to combat these issues, and promised that when we came back the next week we would bring some information on Sri Lanka to see if the old program is still successful. All in all it was a great start!

We started off last week’s class with a description of the vocabulary we would be using throughout the day. The teacher assured us that the kids did not know what ‘system maintainers,’ ‘system reformers,’ or ‘system transformers’ meant in a political context, but I was surprised (and she was also) when a number of kids raised their hands and actually gave pretty accurate descriptions of each of the words. When they asked what the system actually was, we responded by telling them that the system was ‘international society,’ and I then drew on the board a spectrum with system maintainers on the left hand side and system transformers on the right hand side. This gave them a better understanding of the extreme interests of system transformers in relation to the moderate interests of system maintainers.
After going over this preliminary vocabulary the students were then asked what ‘aid’ meant in terms of development. By the end of the discussion we had around six different types of aid on the board that the students had come up with: project aid (funds for specific activities), program aid (funds for capital), technical assistance (funds for experts and advisors), food aid, specific aid (emergencies), and military assistance. We then broke the kids into six groups – two groups of system maintainers, two groups of system reformers, and two groups of system transformers. Each group was given a list of three countries with descriptions that outlined what each country was looking for. Their task was to first read each country description and then prioritize which country they wished to help based on whether they were system maintainers, system reformers, or system maintainers. They would then select 2-3 different types of aid and allocate them to their selected country.
For about a half hour Jen, Beryl, and I went around to each group making sure they understand their task and what we were asking of them. Some were confused about which country they should help based on their group preference, but we helped clear each issue up as it arose and by the end we held a productive discussion. It turned out that system maintainers had chosen Country 1, system reformers had chosen Country 2, and system transformers had split between Country 2 and 3. After asking the students why this was so, it became apparent that they understood the activity because they spoke of system transformers preferring revolution and overthrowing weak governments, which occurred both in Country 1 and 2. On the other hand, system maintainers had chosen Country 1 because that country had not requested any military assistance and had a stable government, but simply needed food aid, technical assistance, and specific aid. Thus, each group clearly prioritized the correct countries and delivered the appropriate aid based on their group preferences.
We wrapped up the day by asking why different forms of aid mattered for different countries. Some students talked of authoritarian governments preferring military aid and democratic governments preferring humanitarian aid, and it became clear that they understood why different countries allocate aid differently. It was a very successful day!

It is truly motivating when a class becomes engaged in the lesson and takes away from it. We were lucky enough to have this happen last Friday during our debate on how best to solve the oil crisis in Nigeria. We started off the lesson by asking the students to locate Nigeria on a map. Of course many pointed to Africa, but it was only after meticulous searching that they were actually able to pinpoint Nigeria on the map (I love it when this happens because knowing a country’s physical location is vital to understanding the context of its problems). We then handed out a brief summary of the current situation in Nigeria which I had made the night before and Beryl introduced a fun concept called ‘popcorn reading,’ in which students would read a couple of sentences and call on someone else’s name to continue reading. Ms. Goodman particularly liked this and it obviously forced the students to pay attention because they displayed an adequate understanding of the problem throughout class.
After reading we asked the students some questions about Nigeria to clarify that they knew the background. Beryl, Jen, and I wanted to make sure that the students understood the complexity of the problem, such as how many different actors were involved and what their separate interests were. We proceeded to break the class up into 2 teams – 1 team consisted of Shell Oil Company and the government of Nigeria, and the other team consisted of the UN High Commission for Human Rights and the Environmental Rights Action group. The idea of the activity was that the Nigerian government and Shell would come up with a response to increasing pressure from the international community and Shell investors to solve the human rights and environmental issues of Nigeria.
I worked with the Nigerian government/Shell group while they tossed ideas around and it was rewarding to see them become so interested in coming up with a solution. It was evident that they understood the different opportunity costs that were associated with the case – if they decided to crack down on environmental standards, then this would surely raise expenses for Shell and decrease Shell’s income. In addition, although Shell’s investors were breathing down their necks to fix the human rights situation in the Niger Delta, the Nigerian government was extremely corrupt and could do little to actually change the current situation. In contrast, if Shell decided to ignore the international community and continue drilling at the expense of the environment and human life, then the Nigerian government would stop receiving loans from the IMF and World Back, which it desperately needed. These thoughts played out during the discussion and then came to life when we elected a spokesperson from each team to state their case.
The debate between the two spokespeople soon turned into a debate between the entire class because everybody had ideas about the issue. In the end, we wrapped up the discussion by asking the students what they would personally do if given the ability to provide a solution, regardless of their group. The silence that ensued after I asked this question reflected that the students understood how complex the situation was and understood that there really was no good solution. All in all, the students were extremely engaged all class and Ms. Goodman told us that it had been our best class yet!

For our last TIRP session, we decided to do a quick review of what had learned so far before proceeding with a new lesson. The first question we first asked the students was: “How do the different states we have studied approach development, and why are these approaches different?” Based on the students’ responses, they generally understood that a state’s government, history, and current economic situation played huge roles in determining how they approach development. Specifically, they brought up our recent case study in Nigeria, in which transnational corporations play pivotal rolls in maintaining the infrastructure and economy of the corrupt state.
This provided us with a smooth transition into the new activity. We introduced class by asking the students what they understood by the terms free trade and protection. While some had issues understanding what a protectionist state embodied, we cleared up all the questions and then split the class into six different countries. The countries we selected were Nigeria, China, Mexico, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba, and each group was given a sheet detailing that country’s background. The students were then to discuss in their groups whether or not their country should pursue development by engaging in free trade or remaining protectionist.
While the students discussed amongst themselves which option their country would pursue, Jen, Beryl, and I continued to walk around and clear up any questions the student’s had regarding their countries. After about twenty minutes we had the students elect a spokesperson for each team, and each spokesperson gave a short presentation on whether their country should pursue free trade or protectionism. It was interesting to notice that the countries that had previously been imperialized chose to pursue free trade as a means of development, whereas the students in Saudi Arabia and North Korea chose to remain protectionist. It was gratifying to see the students give sound reason for their arguments as well. According to them, the colonists from the imperial era had established mechanisms for free trade in the countries already, such as past tariff and no-barrier trade agreements with developed countries, as well as maintained extremely close ties with the developed nations of the West. Saudi Arabia and North Korea, however, had always survived independently and never relied on ties with the west or support for economic success (or what they interpreted it to be).
This was the argument that played out in the classroom and it was no doubt the most productive discourse we had had in the class yet. We rapped up the last class by asking what the kids what areas of development were needed in their local communities. Most of the replies related to gang violence, yet a number of replies concerned sex education and prevention. Before we left, we opened up the floor for the students to ask Beryl, Jen, and I any questions they had about college and admissions. I specifically remember talking with a couple of students about financial aid packages and other ways of paying for college (ROTC). All in all, it was a very productive day and a perfect end to another semester of TIRP.