Okay, how did you
do? For the recurring readers of this
blog, this writer gave them an assignment.
In the previous postings, he identified eighteen insights regarding the
study of foreign trade and how that trade affects the availability of jobs in
the US. The reason for this listing was
that he is developing, in real time, a unit of study that could serve as the
final unit of a civics course at the high school level. The insights identify the bulk of the content
the unit will teach.
In the last posting, he re-identified
them, in shorten form, so that they all appear in one place. The assignment was to determine, after
listing them in the order of presentation, which insights should be included as
the content components of the actual lesson plans. Not all insights could probably be used
because being a two-week unit, with nine instructional days, there would not be
enough time to address all eighteen. This blog addresses the first of these steps:
what will be the order of presentation.
So,
along with participating readers, this developer, for this posting, orders the
insights and that listing is indicated below.
Does the reader agree with the developer’s ordering of these insights? Here is that listing, in even more shorten
form, and the identified number initially assigned to each insight:[1]
1. ninth
(post World War II bias),[2]
2. third
(NAFTA, WPO, and TPP),[3]
3. seventh
(liberal policy backfire),[4]
4. eighth
(too long caring about resentment potential),[5]
5. first
(inability to follow the jobs),[6]
6. fifth
(“rise of the rest”),[7]
7. sixth
(Peterson memo),[8]
8. twelfth
(State Department vs. Peterson memo), [9]
10. eleventh
(globalization’s benefits to third world countries), [11]
11. thirteenth
(“beggar thy neighbor policy”), [12]
12. second
(function of technology),[13]
13. fourth
(job loss due to aversion to adjust),[14]
14. fourteenth
(European pro-market strategies), [15]
15. sixteenth
(advanced technology culprit?),[16]
16. tenth
(MNCs and TNCs),[17]
18. fifteenth
(states and cities competing).[19]
Again,
each entry is cited to indicate in which posting – accessible through this blog’s
archival feature – one can find a fuller description of the insight plus a
lesson idea by which the insight can be “taught.” In addition, this listing should be an
attempt to employ a historical approach.
The aim is to have students develop a narrative of how public policy in
foreign trade has evolved over the course of the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries. Therefore, the order they are
addressed in the teaching of the unit becomes even more important.
The
next posting will conduct the elimination of some insights and perhaps begin
the actual inclusion of a lesson plan or two.
[1] In terms of the initial numbering, the reader is
directed to see the previous posting.
For example, as number 1 here, this insight was the ninth identified
insight and it first appears in this blog in the posting entitled “Excessive
Marshall Plan Thinking?” That posting
was posted on September 15, 2017.
[2] See “Excessive
Marshall Plan Thinking?”, September 15, 2017.
[4] See “Excessive
Marshall Plan Thinking?”
[5] See “Excessive
Marshall Plan Thinking?”
[6] See
“Problematic Consequences.”
[7] See “Counting
on a Strong Position Too Heavily,” September 12, 2017.
[8] See “Counting on a
Strong Position Too Heavily.”
[9] See “The
Face of Globalization,” September 19, 2017.
[10] See “To
Be Pro Market or Not,” September 26, 2017.
[11] See
“The Face of Globalization.”
[12] See
“Restrictive or Liberalized,” September 22, 2017.
[13] See
“Problematic Consequences.”
[14] See “Is
Globalization Inevitable?” September 8, 2017.
[15] See
“Restrictive or Liberalized.”
[16] Wang Wen, “A
US-China Trade War Would Cause Huge Damage and Benefit Nobody,” Financial Times, March 27, 2017,
accessed September 22, 2017, https://www.ft.com/content/3b49cd2a-10ad-11e7-b030-768954394623 . See “Restrictive or Liberalized.”
[17] See
“The Face of Globalization.”
[18] See “To
Be Pro Market or Not.”
[19] See
“Restrictive or Liberalized.”
No comments:
Post a Comment