Deliverable

📊 Claim Grid and Peer Critique

Critical Thinking & Problem Solving Content Expertise Self Directed Learning Collaboration Effective Communication 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 Reflection Core Content Project Launch Essential Question Submission Required Grading Required

Draft a focused claim about how agreements are made or why enforcement failed, then organize supporting and contradicting evidence in a claim-evidence-limitation grid. Create a one-slide visual summary using a comparison chart, flow map, or cause-effect diagram. Give feedback to 2 peers, receive feedback, revise, and then discuss which interpretations are strongest and which evidence remains uncertain.

Plan day

Day 3

Duration

90 min

Grouping

Pair

Steps

7 steps

Lesson plan

7 steps · 90 min

#	What teachers do
1	Launch the task by posting the focused question options ('How are agreements made?' or 'Why did enforcement fail?'), reviewing peer critique norms, and showing the claim-evidence-limitation grid plus one-slide visual options so you can see the final product expectations. (10 min)
2	Draft a focused claim from the Mini Summit case, then complete your grid with supporting evidence, contradicting evidence, and at least one limitation or uncertainty using your coded notes, negotiation records, and relevant course texts. (20 min)
3	Turn your grid into a one-slide visual summary using a comparison chart, flow map, or cause-effect diagram that explains actors, motives, power, rules, and enforcement challenges in the summit outcome. (15 min)
4	Participate in Peer Critique Round 1 by presenting your claim and slide to one peer, asking for feedback on clarity, evidence, counterevidence, and limitations, then switching roles. (15 min)
5	Participate in Peer Critique Round 2 with a different peer, give specific feedback that builds on their reasoning, ask clarifying questions, and record at least two revision ideas you want to apply to your own work. (15 min)
6	Revise your claim grid and slide based on feedback, strengthen your strongest evidence, clarify one uncertainty, and add a brief revision note that explains what changed and why. (10 min)
7	Close with a short whole-group discussion in which you identify which interpretations seem strongest, which evidence remains uncertain, and what question you still need to investigate before the next discussion. (5 min)

Preparation (7 items)

Prepare a claim-evidence-limitation grid template with labeled spaces for claim, supporting evidence, contradicting evidence, limitation/uncertainty, and revision notes.
Prepare access to Mini Summit artifacts from the previous activities, including negotiation notes, agreements, breakdown moments, coded evidence maps, and any relevant course readings on anarchy, security dilemma, actors, interests, norms, and interdependence.
Create or post a concise peer critique protocol with sentence stems such as 'Your claim is strongest when...', 'A piece of counterevidence you may need to address is...', and 'One limitation or uncertainty I still see is...'.
Prepare a one-slide template or sample options for a comparison chart, flow map, and cause-effect diagram so you can choose a structure quickly.
Arrange peer critique pairings in advance so each person will receive feedback from 2 different peers and has a clear rotation path.
Post the focused question options, success criteria, and timing for each segment where everyone can see them throughout the activity.
Ensure materials are ready: devices or paper for slide creation, printed grids if needed, sticky notes or digital comments for feedback, and a visible timer.

Student-facing instructions

Your task is to turn evidence from the Mini Summit into a short, evidence-based argument about how agreements were made or why enforcement failed. You will choose one focused question, write a clear claim, and complete a claim-evidence-limitation grid using your coded notes, negotiation records, and relevant class texts. Include supporting evidence, contradicting evidence, and at least one limitation or uncertainty. Then you will create a one-slide visual summary using either a comparison chart, flow map, or cause-effect diagram. Your slide should explain what happened in the summit by naming key actors, motives, rules, power dynamics, and enforcement challenges. After that, you will share your draft with 2 peers, give and receive specific feedback, and revise your work. You will need your summit notes, evidence coding map, grid template, slide materials, and feedback stems. The goal is to build a strong partial answer to the essential question and leave with a revised claim and visual you can use in the next discussion and later in your self-assessment conference.

Success criteria

You are done when you have: 1) written one focused, arguable claim about agreement-making or enforcement in the Mini Summit; 2) completed a grid with at least 3 relevant pieces of supporting evidence, at least 1 piece of contradicting or complicating evidence, and at least 1 clear limitation or uncertainty; 3) created a one-slide visual that accurately represents your reasoning using a comparison chart, flow map, or cause-effect diagram; 4) used at least 2 international politics concepts correctly, such as anarchy, actors, interests, norms, interdependence, power, or enforcement; 5) given specific feedback to 2 peers and received feedback from 2 peers; 6) revised your claim grid or slide in at least 2 visible ways based on feedback; and 7) identified one question that still needs investigation before the next discussion.

Facilitator notes

Keep the pace tight by posting time checkpoints and modeling the difference between a topic, a summary, and a focused claim. Encourage claims that are specific enough to be tested with evidence rather than broad statements like 'international politics is complicated.' Push participants to include counterevidence and limitations, since many will only list evidence that supports their first idea. During critique, require feedback to reference evidence, concepts, or reasoning rather than personal preference. If participants struggle to start, offer claim stems such as 'Agreements were possible only when...' or 'Enforcement failed because...' and concept prompts like actors, interests, norms, interdependence, or lack of central authority. Differentiate by providing a partially completed grid, sentence starters, or a preselected visual structure for participants who need more scaffolding. Extend learning for advanced participants by asking them to compare state and non-state actor motives or to connect the summit to a real-world international example. Monitor peer pairings to ensure everyone speaks, listens, and records revision notes. In the final discussion, surface unresolved questions rather than forcing consensus so participants see that uncertainty is part of strong social science reasoning.

Resources

No resources yet