Teaching International Relations Program

Because this was my very first TIRP session, I was somewhat apprehensive, though very excited. Howard, Ashley and I met prior to our first lesson to plan out the logistics so we were very prepared. On Wednesday, we all biked over to Manual Arts and arrived pretty early. Mr. Andereck was not in class that day, but the substitute was helpful and we began the lesson right away.
After the three of us introduced ourselves and TIRP to the class, I began the mini-introduction lecture to “Food and the Global Division of Labor”. I explained the importance of division of labor and interdependence between different countries. The result of specialization is higher efficiency, which, as I explained, is why trade is far more common in modern times. A technique that was especially effective was just providing specific examples about the global division of labor (Middle East specializes in oil extraction, Japan specializes in technology, even within US, different states focus on certain industries). Providing examples and having students suggest their own ideas as well really sparked an interest and helped to get the idea across.
After the introduction, Howard explained other key terms and concepts such as interdependency, comparative advantage and equity in the global market. Ashley then described the activity and then divided the classroom into groups. WE split the class into six groups (three of each country, Agraria and Industria). The activity for the day was essentially a simulation in which each group had to achieve the best trade terms for their country, given different constraints about production capacity. Each group created its own trade policies and discussed the issues that Ashley set up at the beginning of the activity. I drew a production possibilities curve (food vs. clothing) and a supply/demand curve on the board to further explain how division of labor works and how it can affect the production and distribution of various products. Though some students were not too excited about the introduction of math and graphs to a social studies course, others found it pretty helpful and interesting to visualize the information in a new way. Ashley then mediated the rest of the activity. She handed out a foreign policy briefing to everyone that provided new terms about production, and then she asked the different groups to negotiate trade with one another.
At the end of class, we linked the foreign policy briefing to real world issues with trade and had a brief discussion with the students. Everyone was pretty involved and eager to share the results of their specific trade negotiations.
I really enjoyed my first day teaching through TIRP. The students’ enthusiasm and willingness to learn was really impressive. They immediately picked up on the activity and for the most part, were extremely involved. After Ashley asked how they thought the briefings would affect their countries’ policies, they explained that reliance on other countries depends on trust. Interdependency results in more efficiency and specialization ultimately means that more goods can be produced.

Report 1 -- APPROVED -- 10/19/2009 -- Scarlett
Thank you Nina for your feedback, sorry that you had to set up your own webboard! Can't wait to hear about your next session!

Week Two
This week’s lesson was essentially a more in-depth view of last week’s concepts. I began with a brief introduction just like last week. In the introduction we explained that most business decisions are not made in vacuum, but rather depend on the pressures and perspectives from the larger trade system in which all countries operate. Afterwards we divided the class into five groups, and then Howard introduced some key terms. Unfortunately Ashley was sick this week, so she was not able to make it to our TIRP session.
Each team was given a separate specialty – agricultural, industrial, consumer, energy, and mineral sectors. We discussed these differences with the class and then explained the concepts of commodities, tariffs, non-tariff barriers, imports, and exports. Interestingly enough, the students had actually just learned about tariffs and imports/exports from their teacher and eagerly shared their knowledge with us. Because the activity was somewhat related to the one we did last week, we reviewed key terms such as surpluses, shortages, supply, and demand. The students remembered these concepts and even mentioned the graph that I had used to illustrate supply and demand last week.
After the introduction, Howard and I explained the rules of the game. Each group was required to choose a “trade policy” A, B, or C that corresponded with either encouraging trade through lower tariffs and lower exported product prices, maintaining current levels, or increasing cost of major export products and higher tariff levels. We explained initially that if each team chose policy A, all countries would benefit. If only one country chose C, they would have a much larger advantage over others. However, the more countries would end up choosing C, the less benefit each country would ultimately gain.
It was really interesting to see the results of each round. Despite the fact that we told the entire class repeatedly that choosing A would result in benefiting each country, all of the students had different agendas in mind. They publicly announced to the class that everyone ought to choose A, but then each group individually chose C. Unfortunately this ended up harming every group. Even after everyone laughed about it and decided once more as a group to each choose A, some groups still went ahead and chose C, in hopes that other groups would be benevolent and each choose A or B. In our discussion and debriefing, Howard discussed this in relation to the prisoner’s dilemma. He then tied it back to our trade policy and explained the benefits and harms of raising or lowering tariffs and trade barriers.
We also discussed concepts such as interdependence, using the group activity to illustrate different countries’ reliance on each other. At the end of the activity, we asked the students to analyze which groups succeeded and what policies they might have used to win the game. By comparing the game to the “real world” we were able to teach a lot of important concepts to the students about trade and international cooperation.

Week 3
Because the Grid Simulation did not seem as though it would take as long as the others, we decided to include an additional activity this week. Interestingly, the teacher passed out a quick quiz at the beginning of class that was on the material we taught last week! After the students completed the assignment, we began our lesson as usual, with a brief introduction of the Grid Simulation and an attempt to tie it back to the real world. We explained that we would divide students into groups once again, assign each group a worldview and then ask them to develop political strategies based on these belief systems. Ashley explained several key terms this week – realism, liberalism, and neo-liberalism. I was extremely impressed by how many students took out their notes and wrote down the definitions of these concepts without being asked. They were very attentive in the beginning and clearly knew what was important and worth taking note.
Afterwards, we began the activity. Each group’s goal was to draw a path all the way across the grid first without being blocked off by other groups. We specified that they should keep the different worldviews in mind while making their strategies and try to tie it in to their own belief systems that they were given in the beginning. Though the students enjoyed the simulation, I do not think we did a good enough job tying it back to the concepts we were trying to teach. None of the groups really negotiated with one another and I am not sure if the different worldviews really played a role in each country’s strategizing. They were a little bit less focused and on task during this activity, perhaps because we were not as clear in the beginning about our expectations. Regardless, we did have a decent discussion afterwards about how belief systems can affect policy-making.
After this discussion, we moved on to begin the following activity. I passed out articles to each student. After giving them some time to read the articles, we had a brief debrief session. Up until this point, we had discussed the importance of international trade and cooperation. Each week we elaborated a bit more on different aspects of interdependence and the benefits of nations working together with one another, but now we decided to share one of the harms of globalization. This specific article discussed the side-effects of oil drilling on indigenous people in Peru, whose homes were being destroyed. The case study gave a more personalized account of the issue. Students were pretty involved in the discussion and interested in the concepts that we shared with the class. They brought up some interesting examples of other points in our past history when the US was exploitative, such as slave-trade up until the mid-1800s, American corporations’ involvement in Cuba up until Castro’s revolution, and even current corporations decisions to outsource jobs and factories to developing countries where there might not be as stringent labor or quality laws and regulations. The class was very receptive, involved in the activity and quick to make commentary.

It is hard to believe that this was our last TIRP session. Those four weeks just went by so quickly! This week we planned on creating our own lesson plan and incorporating various concepts that we had taught and discussed in the previous weeks. Our topic this week was the Nobel Peace Prize, which seemed especially relevant given the fact that Obama just received it several weeks earlier.
First we passed out two articles, one from India Today, and one from New York Times. After giving the students time to read the articles, we moderated a discussion in which we compared and contrasted points brought up in both articles. It was very interesting to hear students bring up issues such as the political implications of Obama winning the peace price, India Today’s international vantage point, and questions about whether or not Obama should have won the price in the first place. We compared the Obama administration to the Bush administration, in terms of liberalist vs realist policies. Some students mixed up liberalism (the IR theory) with liberal (the political group, Democrats), so we cleared that up as well. Then we introduced other factors that may have played a role in who was awarded the peace price, such as leaders’ choices to exercise hard vs. soft power, different policies that they may have taken in the past, and the alliances or coalitions that they may have been involved in creating.
Next, we asked some of the students to nominate their own candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, letting them know that they could choose anyone they thought would fit the job, as long as they provided a sufficient explanation for why that nominee contributed to world peace. It was really interesting to see the choices that some students came up with. Among some of the funniest candidates suggested were Angelina Jolie, Michael Moore, and Oprah. However, some students also suggested Caesar Chavez and gave a great explanation for why he should be nominated. Another candidate that had a lot of support was the teacher, Mr. Andereck. I was really impressed with their explanations for why he should be a nominee– it seems as though he is a very respected and inspirational teacher for many of the students, in terms of teaching them and helping them get into college. Interestingly enough, he was not even in the classroom that day (we had a substitute teacher instead).
After the nominations, we asked the students to vote, and narrowed down the choices to two nominees. The two final choices were Caesar Chavez and Mr. Andereck. The students were then divided into teams and prepared arguments in further detail for the debate. I really enjoyed watching the students prepare their positions and get up to debate with each other. They really came up with some great arguments and had interesting rebuttals.
In the debriefing, we had an interesting discussion about the implications of nominating people to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and how this would affect foreign policy. Then we tied it back to international peacekeeping and the effects of Obama being the most recent Laureate. The students were really competitive during the debate and it seems like they had a relatively good time during this activity. Overall, I enjoyed doing TIRP just because it’s a great way to experience teaching while learning a bit about IR myself. The students were also so much fun to get to know over the course of the few weeks that we worked with them.

Report 2 -- LATE -- 11/2/09 -- Scarlett
Thank you for your feedback, I'm glad that your team brought up the Prisoner's Dilemma. It seems like everything was very interactive and enjoyable for the class. Make sure to turn in your reports on time!

Report 3 -- APPROVED -- 11/2/2009 -- Scarlett
That is so great that your teacher gave them a quiz! Obviously, he finds what your group is teaching important.

Report 4 -- APPROVED -- 11/11/09 -- Scarlett
I am so happy that all of your sessions worked out so well, and I hope to see you participating in TIRP again!