international relations theory, as well as the ability to apply different international
... How could Constructivist IR theory explain a world with a zombie apocalypse ...
IB GLOPOL @NBPS !
CHARLES GLEEK
Theories of International Politics Guiding Question • How can we use intellectual constructs and analytical tools to make sense of (and predict?) complex social phenomena? Objectives The use of analytical theory is at the core of the social science experience. Drawing on the book that the students will have read for summer reading, as well in-class activities and discussions, students will come to have an introductory appreciation for international relations theory, as well as the ability to apply different international relations theories to subsequent learning experiences in the course. Connections to the Curriculum • AO1: demonstrate knowledge and understanding of specified content • power; sovereignty; cooperation; state; non-governmental organizations; non-state actors; civil society; treaties; strategic alliances; international legal agreements; collective security; global governance. AO2: demonstrate application and analysis of knowledge and understanding • • International Relations theories: Realism; Liberalism; Constructivism; AO3: demonstrate synthesis and evaluation • • Critically appraise secondary sources; incorporate secondary source material into written and oral arguments. • AO4: select, use and apply a variety of appropriate skills and techniques • Summarize and amplify understanding of secondary sources, both text and video Activities One World, Rival Theories Students will begin this inquiry into International Relations Theory by viewing the following videos: • Soomopublishing (Director). (2011, June 10). Theory in Action: Constructivism [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYU9UfkV_XI • Soomopublishing (Director). (2011, May 11). Theory in Action: Liberalism [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZbDMUaqwE8 • Soomopublishing (Director). (2011, May 04). Theory in Action: Realism [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnKEFSVAiNQ Once students have finished watching each video, they should respond to this poll: Based on what International Relations theory do you most identify with? Following a review of the class’ responses, students will write responses to this poll question: How do Constructivism (Idealism), Liberalism, and Realism each view states’ role in global affairs?
1
IB GLOPOL @NBPS !
CHARLES GLEEK
Students should then engage Snyder, J. (2004, November 1). One world, rival theories. Foreign Policy. Retrieved September 22, 2012, from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/ articles/2004/11/01/one_world_rival_theories?page=full. Review the Leading Brands chart within the article. Ask the students “to what extent does this chart make sense in light of the videos that they have watched?” Students should then read the article in class, as well as outside of class, and produce a Take Away for discussion and assessment in a subsequent class period. Applied IR Theory for the Zombie Apocalypse Students should begin the class by responding to the polls below. Be able to defend/ expand your response through discussion: • How could Constructivist IR theory explain a world with a zombie apocalypse? • How could Liberal IR theory explain a world with a zombie apocalypse? • How could Realist IR theory explain a world with a zombie apocalypse? After the poll results have been discussed, students will watch three video clips from zombie films. In each case, students should complete a See-Think-Wonder matrix for each clip; this will be used for the basis of discussion afterwards. Scene
What do you see?
What do you think about that?
What does it make you wonder?
Which IR theory is reflected here?
Day of the Dead (through the first 0.45) Night of the Living Dead (49.00 through 51.00 Shaun of the Dead
Students should then read Drezner, D. W. (2010, June/July). Night of the living wonks. Foreign Policy. Retrieved September 22, 2012, from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/ articles/2010/06/21/night_of_the_living_wonks?page=full. This brief article should be a refresher of their summer reading. Students should also complete a Take Away for this article for assessment in a subsequent class. This is also an opportunity to revisit Drezner’s ideas about international relations theory, its role in explaining world politics, as well as the transition to introducing the summative assessment, the Book Review. Finally, students should wrap up their initial survey of International Relations Theory by responding to the following poll: • Based on what you now know, how do you view the role of IR theory as it relates to your study of world politics? Assessments • Formative (unmarked) • Poll Questions • Formative (5 marks each) • Students will write 1 Take Away each for:
2
IB GLOPOL @NBPS !
CHARLES GLEEK
• Drezner, D. W. (2010, June/July). Night of the living wonks. Foreign Policy. Retrieved September 22, 2012, from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/ 2010/06/21/night_of_the_living_wonks?page=full • Snyder, J. (2004, November 1). One world, rival theories. Foreign Policy. Retrieved September 22, 2012, from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/ 2004/11/01/one_world_rival_theories?page=full Summative (30 marks) • • Students will write a book review on their summer reading, Drezner, Daniel W. Theories of International Politics and Zombies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2011. Print Rubrics The Take Away The seminar is at the core of any advanced course in all disciplines. Within the social sciences, seminars are designed to introduce students to leading ideas and methods in a discursive environment. Seminars are often "survey" or "gateway" courses to more advanced courses in specialized research. For our purposes, this seminar will focus on academic journal articles that relate to the topics explicated in the IB Global Politics syllabus. Each student will be responsible for presenting articles on a regular basis throughout the course. Students should able present the overall argument/thesis of the article in a discursive format that invites questions, criticism, and other contributions from the other seminar members. Excellent discussions are ones that are planned out to cover a full 50 minutes of class time and require little, if any, input from the instructor. Class sessions are laboratories for ideas. Our experiments boil down to our ability to formulate arguments, support them with evidence and persuasive language, and convince our colleagues of the merits of our reasoning. If learning is a process of both the differentiated backgrounds of the participants and the divergent outcomes of our investigations, then students will best learn in the context of the 'marketplace of ideas' where a myriad of propositions can be put to the test of a learning community. Students should approach each seminar meeting with both enthusiasm and rigor. In practice, this means developing a few points for discussion each and every time the seminar meets. One way of doing this is to organize a series of brief statements that reflect a nuanced and analytical understanding of the assigned material. Please review the example below:
3
IB GLOPOL @NBPS !
CHARLES GLEEK
Drezner, Daniel W. Theories of International Politics and Zombies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2011. Print Take Away • Summary: Drezner uses sarcasm and wit to connect the proliferation of zombies in popular culture in order engage learners about the complexity of International Relations theory. • Argument: As all theories in social science are intellectual constructs, the prospect of using popular cultural constructs (zombies) that involve issues of security, cooperation, and learning to explain these theories offers an intriguing and unique way of understanding how the world works. • Question: In what ways does the potential unfamiliarity with zombies across different cultures limit the utility of Drezner’s model? • So What?: The accessibility of Drezner’s examples and ideas should open up new opportunities for students of varying intellectual backgrounds to engage in a meaningful inquiry into International Relations. Discussion Questions • Why does Drezner call us to be concerned with zombies, post-humans, or the living dead? • In what ways does Drezner call our attention to deeper issues through the examples of zombies? • After reading this chapter, what do you think this book will be like?
A summary statement offers the basis for discussion; do your colleagues agree with your "take away" of the article or chapter that you read? An argumentative statement is more provocative; can you expand on the author(s) point or do you with to challenge their thesis? Thirdly, the question reflects both a synthesis of the material and a speculation about the material in a different light. In all three cases, students are tasked with developing their ideas before the session, articulating them in a parsimonious fashion, and being able to professionally debate various concepts and theories with their colleagues. Finally, you should be able to offer a statement regarding the relevance of the chapter, article, or other source that you have encountered. Scoring for the Take Away is as follows: 5 Marks Full detailed knowledge and pertinent analysis.
3 Marks Explicit focus and general knowledge of the topic"
1 Mark Unsubstantiated generalizations
0 Marks Evidence of plagiarism or failure to produce
Book Review Book reviews are not book reports. Rather, a book review is an opportunity for you to summarize and critically assess the authors’ arguments, ideas, and evidence presented in the text. A well-written book review will also answer the ’so what?’ question; how is the book/this author’s arguments important to the study of global politics. Some questions for you to consider as you write your review: How has the author presented and interpreted the the events in question? How would you describe the author’s writing style? What are the strengths of this book? What is the overall value of this book & why? How could this book improve this book in a second edition? Your review should be between 750 and 1000 words. Reviews are to be formatted in either APA or MLA style; you will be best served by referencing the Purdue Online Writing Center (OWL) as you draft your review.
4
IB GLOPOL @NBPS !
CHARLES GLEEK
Markscheme Outstanding
Excellent
Needs Improvement
Unsatisfactory
Inappropriate
30 Marks
4 or 8 marks
3 or 6 marks
2 or 4 marks
1 or 2 marks
0 Marks
Summary (8 marks)
Summary consists of a discussion of major themes and ideas providing at least 4 excerpts from the work. It combines ideas from the book into new sentences using your own words.
Summary consists of a discussion of major themes and ideas, providing at least 3 excerpts from the work. It combines ideas from the book into new sentences using your own words.
Summary consists of a discussion of major themes and ideas, providing at least 2 excerpts from the work. It combines ideas from the book into new sentences using your own words.
Summary is mostly Evidence of an outline of the plagiarism book and does not discuss themes or major ideas of the work. There may be one direct quote “thrown in” for effect.
Evidence (4 marks)
All direct quotes from the text are noted by citing page numbers in parentheses. e.g. (42) (no more than 5)
2 or 3 direct quotes from the text are noted by citing page numbers in parentheses. Quotes are overused.
1 or 2 quotes from the novel are noted by citing page numbers in parentheses. e.g. (42).
The summary Evidence of contains direct plagiarism quotes without any citation of page numbers. There is no consideration of evidence from the text.
Author & Sources (4 marks)
Student provides a detailed discussion of the author’s qualifications . Sources were examined in detail and the student determined whether or not they were appropriate for the work.
Student provides a limited discussion of the author’s qualifications. Sources are examined in a limited manner and the analysis may be limited
Student provides little discussion of the author’s qualifications. Sources may or may not be briefly examined.
The discussion of Evidence of author and sources plagiarism is vague or missing and lack detail.
Critique (8 marks)
Critique consists of thoughts, responses and reaction to the text. The student reviewer reacts to the themes, the author's aims or intent, he subject of the book, how well it is written and overall success or failure of the book.
Critique consists of thoughts, responses, and reactions to the text. The student reviewer may discuss only two aspects, for example, themes and writer’s style. There is not a thorough review of various aspects.
Critique consists of thoughts, responses, and reactions to the text. The student may discuss only one aspect of the text, such as themes. This review just states, “Well, I liked it.” or “Well, I hated it.” It lacks a critical eye.
Critique consists of Evidence of a basic opinion plagiarism based on personal feeling of “I liked it.” or “I hated it.” and is not considered a critique because it does not focus on themes, author’s intent, or writing style.
Uses complete sentences and a variety of sentence types.
There are 1-2 incomplete sentences or fragments. There are also run-on sentences
There are more than 2 incomplete sentences or fragments. There are more than 2 run-ons
Evidence of plagiarism
Less than 5 spelling errors
5 or more spelling errors
Mechanics (4 Uses complete marks) sentences and a variety of sentence types.
Spelling (1 mark)
5
IB GLOPOL @NBPS !
Format (1 mark)
CHARLES GLEEK
Less than 3 formatting errors
3 or more formatting errors
6
