|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Critical Thinking & Problem Solving
|
- I can identify and restate a complex problem from the Mini Summit Challenge (e.g., climate/migration/trade) and list possible options I could pursue, using at least one source or class text to support my reasoning
- I can explain why my option might work or fail based on a clear factor (like incentives, enforcement limits, or competing interests).
|
- I can analyze the problem by breaking it into key parts (actors, interests, constraints, and rules) and evaluate multiple solution options using evidence from several sources
- I can justify trade-offs and refine my proposal when new negotiation complications arise (conflicting interests, weak enforcement, or external pressure).
|
- I can synthesize research and simulation evidence to develop a well-reasoned, discipline-based solution strategy (including predicted effects and likely responses from other actors)
- I can test my strategy against what happens in the summit, adjust my claims, and explain how power, norms, anarchy, and interdependence shape outcomes.
|
- I can independently generate a high-quality, evidence-based problem-solving approach that addresses both the agreement and the enforcement gap without a world government
- I can evaluate the robustness of my strategy under uncertainty and conflicting motives, and I can clearly argue for my chosen approach using precise claims grounded in multiple credible texts and simulation data.
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Collaboration
|
- I can participate respectfully in small-group and teacher-led discussions by listening to my peers, responding to ideas, and sharing my own perspective using evidence from our research when I speak.
|
- I can contribute to shared summit decisions by building on others’ ideas, asking clarifying questions, and using role- and task-based communication (e.g., negotiation brief updates) to move our group toward a workable agreement.
|
- I can collaborate effectively and flexibly by synthesizing research from multiple sources, proposing compromises that reflect my assigned actor’s interests, and resolving disagreements by explaining tradeoffs and seeking consensus on revisions to our agreement.
|
- I can lead collaborative work by facilitating equitable participation, integrating diverse viewpoints into a coherent strategy, and adjusting our proposals during the simulation with clear, evidence-based reasoning about enforcement, norms, and power.
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Effective Communication
|
- I can participate in structured, teacher-led and small-group discussions by listening to others, responding to their ideas, and sharing my own position about international politics in clear, discipline-appropriate language.
|
- I can initiate and contribute to collaborative discussions by building on others’ ideas, asking focused questions, and explaining my reasoning with relevant research details from our mini summit challenge and readings.
|
- I can communicate persuasively and responsibly in group work by synthesizing multiple sources, adjusting my claims when new information or counterarguments arise, and clearly articulating tradeoffs (e.g., interests, norms, power, and enforcement) during the simulation and debrief.
|
- I can lead effective discussions and presentations by expressing my viewpoint with strong evidence, accurately referencing complex sources, engaging diverse partners, and responding to challenges with well-structured arguments across both speaking (summit) and writing (policy/debrief).
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Content Expertise
|
- I can explain key international politics concepts (anarchy, interdependence, security dilemma) using accurate, grade-level evidence from assigned sources, and I can identify how these ideas shape my team’s positions in the Mini Summit Challenge
- I can correctly summarize a source’s main claim and use it to support a basic argument.
|
- I can analyze how competing motives (self-interest, norms, power, and the common good) influence decisions by states and other actors, citing multiple sources to justify my reasoning
- I can connect my research to specific moments in the simulation (e.g., where enforcement broke down) and revise my claims when new evidence or counterarguments appear.
|
- I can synthesize evidence from several complex sources to build a coherent argument about how international agreements are made and why they are difficult to enforce without a world government
- I can read and use history/social studies texts independently, accurately evaluate credibility and relevance, and explain trade-offs among realistic compromises my actor would accept.
|
- I can independently develop and defend a sophisticated policy position grounded in strong, cross-validated research, clearly linking concepts (anarchy, security dilemma, interdependence) to outcomes from the simulation and comparing them to domestic politics
- I can anticipate and address counterarguments with precise discipline-specific reasoning, and I can write a sustained, well-structured argument and discussion points that persuade diverse audiences using evidence.
|
|
Deeper Learning Competencies
|
Self Directed Learning
|
- I can set a clear learning goal and self-generate a focused question for my Mini Summit work, then use a simple plan (sources, deadlines, and checkpoints) to guide my research and writing
- I can use teacher and peer feedback to revise at least one draft or artifact (e.g., negotiation brief, policy position paper) and explain what I changed and why.
|
- I can independently narrow or broaden my inquiry as I research, using multiple credible sources to build a clear understanding of international politics for my claim
- I can read and apply complex social studies texts effectively, take organized notes, and use feedback to make targeted revisions across several drafts while tracking my progress toward my learning goal.
|
- I can direct my own learning by selecting the most relevant sources and refining my question based on evidence, not just initial ideas
- I can synthesize sources into a coherent argument (with discipline-specific reasoning), revise my work substantially after feedback, and document how my thinking evolved during the Mini Summit (including what evidence changed my stance).
|
- I can independently manage a sustained research and revision process—planning, monitoring, and adjusting strategies—to answer my self-generated question with strong, evidence-based claims
- I can critically evaluate sources and text complexity, justify revisions with reference to evidence and discussion outcomes, and demonstrate self-directed improvement across the full set of project products (briefs, summit agreement, debrief, and self-assessment).
|