Knowledge/Skill Building

🧭 Summit Evidence Coding Map

Effective Communication Content Expertise Critical Thinking & Problem Solving Self Directed Learning Collaboration CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.11-12.10 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.11-12.7 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.7 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.11-12.1 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.11-12.1 Core Content Project Launch Essential Question Submission Required

Revisit your Mini Summit notes, agreement draft, and role cards to code moments of bargaining, deadlock, enforcement problems, alliances, and norm-based appeals. Use a shared evidence table and color key to tag examples of anarchy, interdependence, security dilemma behavior, actor motives, and differences from domestic politics. End by selecting the 4 strongest pieces of evidence for your investigation notebook.

Plan day

Day 2

Duration

85 min

Grouping

Small Group

Steps

7 steps

Lesson plan

7 steps · 85 min

#	What teachers do
1	Launch the investigation by reconnecting to the Mini Summit Challenge, naming the purpose of the coding map, reviewing the essential question, and modeling one example of how a summit moment can be tagged with evidence and a concept such as anarchy, interdependence, security dilemma, norms, self-interest, alliance, or enforcement problem. (10 min)
2	Revisit your own summit materials independently and highlight or mark moments from notes, role cards, and the draft agreement that show bargaining, deadlock, enforcement challenges, alliances, or norm-based appeals; record at least 6 possible pieces of evidence in rough notes. (15 min)
3	Work with your group to build a shared evidence table using the color key; for each candidate example, identify the source, summarize the moment, assign one or more concept tags, and explain why the evidence fits that concept. (20 min)
4	Pause for a calibration check in which groups compare one coded example with another group, listen to alternative interpretations, and revise unclear or weak coding decisions based on discussion and text evidence from the summit record. (10 min)
5	Return to your group to sort the coded evidence into bigger explanatory categories connected to the essential question: structure of the international system, rules and law, power and decision-making, actors, motives, and differences from domestic politics. (15 min)
6	Select the 4 strongest pieces of evidence for your investigation notebook and write a brief justification for each one that explains what it reveals about how international politics works and why agreements are difficult to make or enforce without a world government. (15 min)
7	Close with a quick share-out and self-check in which you name one strong piece of evidence, one coding decision your group revised, and one gap or next question you still have for the next activity. (5 min)

Preparation (7 items)

Gather and organize all Mini Summit materials for easy access: student notes, role cards, draft agreements, and any negotiation records from the launch activity.
Create a shared evidence table template with columns for source, summit moment, quoted or paraphrased evidence, concept tag, explanation, and connection to the essential question.
Prepare and display a color key for the concepts students must tag: anarchy, interdependence, security dilemma behavior, alliances, self-interest, norms, enforcement problems, and differences from domestic politics.
Choose one clear summit example in advance to model how to move from raw notes to coded evidence and explanation.
Arrange students into discussion groups and prepare a comparison protocol for the calibration step so groups know how to present and challenge coding respectfully.
Provide notebook pages, digital copies, or exit slips for students to record their final 4 strongest pieces of evidence and brief justifications.
Post sentence stems that support academic discussion and evidence-based disagreement, such as 'This example suggests...', 'A stronger tag might be...', and 'The evidence shows this because...'.

Student-facing instructions

You will return to the Mini Summit as evidence for your investigation into how international politics works. Using your notes, role card, and the draft agreement, your task is to identify moments that show bargaining, deadlock, alliances, norm-based appeals, enforcement problems, interdependence, security dilemma behavior, self-interest, or differences from domestic politics. First, you will review your own materials and mark possible examples. Then you will work with your group to enter those examples into a shared evidence table, apply concept tags with the color key, and explain why each example fits. You will compare one coding decision with another group, revise weak or unclear tags, and then choose the 4 strongest pieces of evidence for your investigation notebook. You will need your summit materials, the shared evidence table, the concept color key, and your notebook. The goal is to build a strong evidence base for the next activity, where you will turn coded examples into claims about the international system.

Success criteria

You are done when you have: identified and discussed evidence from at least 3 different summit sources; contributed to a shared evidence table with clearly coded examples; used accurate concept tags and a written explanation for each selected example; revised at least 1 coding decision after peer discussion; selected exactly 4 strongest pieces of evidence for your investigation notebook; and written a brief justification showing how each piece of evidence helps answer the essential question about structure, actors, motives, rules, decision-making, enforcement, or differences from domestic politics.

Facilitator notes

Keep the focus on evidence from the summit record rather than unsupported opinions about world politics. Model the difference between describing what happened and explaining what concept it illustrates. Common pitfalls include overusing one tag for every example, confusing self-interest with security dilemma behavior, and choosing broad summaries instead of specific evidence. Push groups to cite a concrete moment, phrase, or action from the simulation. During calibration, listen for students who can explain why an example may fit more than one concept and encourage justified dual-coding when appropriate. Support discussion with sentence stems and visible norms for respectful disagreement. For students who need more structure, provide a partially completed evidence table, pre-highlighted sample excerpts, or a narrowed list of required tags. For students ready for extension, ask them to identify evidence that shows limits of the simulation or raises a new question about international organizations, transnational actors, or enforcement. Keep the pace tight so students protect time for selecting the final 4 pieces of evidence, since those will anchor the next claim-building activity.

Resources

No resources yet