A way to develop a unit of study is to first identify an
insight concerning the topic under study.
Such an insight should be the product of responsible research or
journalistic work by a reputable source.
For this entry of this demonstration – a real time development of a
course of study started several postings ago – the writer starts with the next
– seventh – insight.
After World War II, the US actively
provided assistance to get the economies of those countries devastated by the
war viable again. While this assistance
was in part motivated by humanitarian goals, it was also encouraged by the
expectation that those economies would be eventual markets for American
products. But to a great degree those
nations, especially the defeated nations of Germany and Japan, did not open
their economies; instead they instituted regional and nationalistic
arrangements. This, in turn, led to
policies – tariffs, low currency valuations, and regulations – geared to
promoting exports and discouraging imports.
This curtailed US’s ability to sell American made products in those
nations.[1]
Lesson idea: students
test a hypothesis which states, if a nation builds up a lesser economically
viable nation, it will be rewarded by the (re)vitalized nation becoming a
market for its produced goods. Such
research would address related questions:
Have there been other cases other than the case of the US and the devastated
nations of World War II in which a nation provided this type of assistance? If so, what has been the results of such
assistance? Using the other cases, if
they exist, can test the hypothesis.
The eighth
insight is:
The Marshall Plan type thinking, that
called for a liberal, general foreign economic policy to Europe and Japan,
initially reestablished the viability of the victims of World War II. This was an attempt to employ the lessons of
World War I when there was little concern for the fate of the losers and sowed
the resentments leading to World War II.
But as the years since the end of the Second World War have transpired,
this bias has been judged to have lasted too long. Currently, any remnants of this thinking only
lead to the detriment to those who apply it.[2]
Lesson idea: The
teacher assigns students to write an “editorial” or a “letter to the editor”
reacting to this insight. Said written
product should cite supportive information from reputable sources. This exercise can be used to instruct and provide
practice in argument-building skills that utilize Stephen Toulmin’s model of
argumentation (described earlier in this blog).[3] As a reminder, this unit will end with a
debate. This lesson is supportive of
that final activity.
The ninth
insight is:
After the initial period after World
War II, in line with Marshall Plan thinking, there was a push to liberalize
international trade – low tariffs, less regulations, floating currency
valuations. An example was the Trade
Expansion Act (1962) pushed by the Kennedy Administration. Generally, this period advanced the interests
of certain economic entities such as import/export service industry, large
corporate entities, technology industries, and retail industries. On the other hand, certain labor interests,
specifically manufacturing labor unions, were proved right when they foretold
the act and similar policies would lead to losses of jobs to foreign
countries. There were even provisions in
laws, such as in the Trade Expansion Act, to meet the challenges labor was
going to face, but they proved ineffective.[4]
Lesson idea: the Trade
Expansion Act can serve as a case study.
The main question of this case is:
why weren’t the Act’s provisions to assist workers effective? The answer to this question would provide a
great deal of insight as to what determines policy in the American political system. A study of the case, therefore, would be
beneficial in developing an understanding of American politics. This question can be assigned to a student,
perhaps one who is a bit more sophisticated in this topic, who might express an
interest in it; have him/her investigate; and then present his/her findings to
the class.
A possible source of information can
be derived from interviewing a trade expert – perhaps a locally available
professor or business representative that deals with relevant issues. If this option is chosen, the teacher should
insure that the student is well prepared for the interview – the student should
not unnecessarily waste the time of an interviewee.
Now, this posting will provide a set
of factoids.
·
Americans aged 55 to 65 years old are the
best educated people of that age bracket in the world. Americans aged 25 to 34 are ranked 13th
in education attainment in the world.[5]
·
The US ranks 16th in the world
when it comes to the quality of its infrastructure.[6]
·
The US is last, by a long shot, among
advanced nations in retraining its workers.[7]
This development process has a few
more posting to go. This writer will
take this opportunity to remind the reader what this blog is attempting to
do. May it be said, the writer had
misgivings when this demonstration started.
Real time development is chancy, in that the writer must write out all
the ideas that go into this planning and he/she does not know if the idea will “bear
fruit.” In real life, this is done
mostly by merely thinking out the options and readily abandoning an
unproductive idea. Hopefully, the reader
is not thinking TMI (too much information).
Another point
to keep in mind; this unit of study is dedicated to foreign relations which
would be the last unit of a civics course.
The instructional approach advanced by this blog – although the reliance
on federation theory for content does not insist on a specific mode of teaching
– is based on debate. It presupposes
that during the course students are trained in a debate protocol. As the final unit, the assumption is made
that prior instruction has prepared the student to perform the activities these
postings will identify.
To this point,
this debate aspect has not begun, but in a not so distant future, a posting
will begin that phase of the demonstration.
The reader is forewarned.
No comments:
Post a Comment