TEACHING COMPANION / NO ACCOUNT NEEDED
The Hearing
Who holds the advantage, and what is your evidence?
Authoritarianism, unequal electoral competition & comparative evidence · 50–60 min
Learning goals
- Distinguish a documented event from an inference about its effect on political competition.
- Connect an actor, an action and a changed option using two supporting cards and a complication.
- Answer source-use challenges, identify a rival at an uncertain link, and request evidence that could distinguish the accounts.
- Compare two dated case windows and state a source limit relevant to the claim.
Before the activity
Self-contained case files; no prior country expertise required. Work solo or as a pair on one device with one shared record. Class mode requires typed responses; Just exploring can save an unfinished draft.
Syllabus description
Investigate incumbent advantages and opposition opportunities through case files from Russia, Malaysia, Malawi and Serbia. Open two files, build an explanation from sources and defend it at a hearing. Trace how an actor’s action changes another actor’s options, weigh a complication and a rival, and compare what makes electoral competition unequal or opens space for a challenge. Students produce source-based explanation, two hearing decisions, a competing account and evidence request, and a second-case comparison; full record and compact submission summary.
Discussion prompts
- Whose option changed, through which action, and which record supports that link?
- What does the complication weaken, and what remains supported?
- Did a hearing challenge change your claim, your evidence or the scope of your explanation?
- What observation would distinguish the rival accounts, and what can the second case add?
What to assess
A person reviews the actor–action–option explanation, support and complication, source-use decisions, claim-specific limit, rival and distinguishing evidence, and comparison. The main explanation aims for 60–85 words (50–120 accepted); the comparison requires 30–45. Completed records in either route use the same analysis checks. Inclusion checks and word bands do not grade reasoning. PDF printing, readable HTML and full-copy records are available alongside a compact submission summary with a manual-copy fallback.
Limitations
Historical outcomes are fixed. The supplied windows cover Russia in early 2024, Malaysia in 2013/2018, Malawi in 2019/2020 and Serbia in 2023–February 2024; they do not establish a country ranking or a predetermined national regime classification. The hearing frame and cover art are conceptual. Work is saved in the browser when storage is available; JSON backup supports resumption. No external AI, account or login is required. Finishing does not submit work or generate a grade.
Credit & permissions
Created by Yoav Duman. Free educational use, sharing and hosted embedding; software rights reserved. Software, artwork, branding and third-party materials are separate; see the full reuse information.
Suggested citation: Yoav Duman, “The Hearing: Teaching companion,” Possible States, https://possiblestates.com/teaching/the-hearing. Include your access date.
ASSESSMENT & SUBMISSION
Grade the explanation.
The interface has no opinion.
Set an endpoint, ask for the activity’s readable report, and use your existing LMS. Students can use Print / Save as PDF where a separate download is not offered. A progress backup is for restoring work, not grading it.
A suggested 10-point rubric
For each criterion: 0 = absent, 1 = partial, 2 = clear and supported. Adapt the weighting to your course; this is guidance, not automatic scoring.
- Concepts / 2
- Use the relevant political concept accurately.
- Evidence / 2
- Support a claim with a specific record or comparison.
- Mechanism / 2
- Explain how the rule or arrangement produces a consequence.
- Revision / 2
- Address a rival account or explain a change of mind.
- Limits / 2
- State what the model or evidence cannot establish.
Say this before they begin.
- Choose For class and follow the instructor’s endpoint.
- Save a progress backup before moving devices or changing website address.
- Open the readable report and check the required responses.
- Upload it to the course assignment. Check the LMS submission confirmation.
Switching from exploration keeps the current work, but skipped class responses may still need completing. A local report cannot establish authorship or make an activity tamper-proof.
Prepare an assignment to share.
Edit this text, then copy it into Canvas or your course website. These edits stay in this tab.
Syllabus description & discussion prompts
Syllabus description
Investigate incumbent advantages and opposition opportunities through case files from Russia, Malaysia, Malawi and Serbia. Open two files, build an explanation from sources and defend it at a hearing. Trace how an actor’s action changes another actor’s options, weigh a complication and a rival, and compare what makes electoral competition unequal or opens space for a challenge. Students produce source-based explanation, two hearing decisions, a competing account and evidence request, and a second-case comparison; full record and compact submission summary.
Questions for a discussion board or class debrief
- Whose option changed, through which action, and which record supports that link?
- What does the complication weaken, and what remains supported?
- Did a hearing challenge change your claim, your evidence or the scope of your explanation?
- What observation would distinguish the rival accounts, and what can the second case add?