Summative Assessment: Group Video Assignment

This assignment was developed by Andrew Majeske, associate professor of English at John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Citizen, Rights, Expression: Dred Scott V. Sanford

Assignment Description

Read the article entitled “How the Fight for Birthright Citizenship Shaped the History of Asian American Families” from Smithsonian Magazine (3/27/2023), and listen to the podcast “By Accident of Birth” (NPR) (6/19/2022) relating to the US Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark case.

For our Module Eight synchronous class you need to have a rough draft of your script prepared, as well as a folder of the images you would like to use to accompany your script (see #3 below for what the script and images should contain). Each group will have prepared for the Module Eight synchronous class a “sales pitch” designed to persuade why their group’s plan for their video (the script and images they have been developing) is ideally suited to convey the required information.

During class each group will meet with Prof. Majeske to discuss their group’s assignment. Additionally, groups will enter breakout rooms in pairs to workshop their scripts and images.

After meeting with Prof. Majeske and other groups in the Module Eight synchronous class, each group needs to prepare and record a screen share video presentation (approximately 3 minutes in length) in which you summarize Wong Kim Ark’s story and what the Supreme Court decided about his citizenship case. Be sure also to mention the main point raised by the dissenting justices about how and why they thought the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language of the 14^th Amendment should apply in Wong Kim Ark’s case. The presentation should consist of images on slides (with perhaps some very brief text), and you should read (voice over) from an accompanying script; your images should be related to and illustrate the script text you are reading while the images display. (hint: the eight Dred Scott in text and context videos I prepared, and which you have watched can be considered models for the type of video you are to prepare—but the length of your videos will of course be much shorter, and you will be using more images)

Upload your group’s video to the “Group Video Assignment” in the Module Eight folder. The following video shows you the steps you need to take to successfully upload your video to the Assignment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI-0xDkQWZ0

Summative Group Research Project

This assignment was developed by Guido Giordano, an adjunct faculty member at John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Stop, Question, Frisk & The Law: Terry v. Ohio in Cultural and Historical Perspectives

Instructor Facing Section

Assignment Overview

In this assignment, Students will work in groups to generate a final written research product that meets the standards of a scientific and academic investigation and contributes to their classmates’ understanding of “Terry v. Ohio,” specifically the role of proper and effective law enforcement activities in assuring general citizens safety and respecting all individuals’ constitutional rights.

Research groups will be distributed considering class size and Students previous chosen roles in Assignment 02, as well as their views (and possible view changes) through the course process. To assure scientific freedom of research and of assembly, Students preferences will be prioritized as much as possible in the process of assembling groups. This can only be changed if the Instructor has strong, valid and academic reason(s) to use some degree of discretion into group making.

This Assignment has five stages or “tasks”. All tasks are done in group by the “Research Team”. In the first four (04) stages each Research Team works entirely by itself; while in the last task if the course has more than one Research Team, each team present its research to the rest of the course, and each of the other Research Teams provides feedbacks to this work. The assessment is still done at the individual and team level at this last stage, but the dynamic is different because it is shared in the common space.

The rationale behind these dynamics is for Students to be able to experience a whole research process: from its individual inception; to a shared interest with colleagues about researching a topic; to setting scientific goals, procedures and roles to meet said goals; to actually conducting said activities; to producing a research product as a result of said process; and finally to sharing said product with other members of the scientific community and being able to know their feedback on the work.

This assignment would be the culmination of a process that began with Assignment 01 (“Introductory Assignment”); continued with Assignment 02 (“Career Related Assignment”) and finished here. As such, the course would be covering main goals of any academic instance, such as training Students into critical thinking; providing them with technic specific knowledge; preparing them for the labor market; and helping them to develop pure academic reasoning and activities.

With that said, the core of this third and final assignment relates to “thinking through the moment”: while the second assignment was much more focused on handling the challenges of job pressures, this final stage is more closely related to the typical academic activity of thinking about problems more calmly (i.e. scientifically) and being able to draw strong valid conclusions from said process, that can hopefully be applied to improve society’s problems in the future.

The Tasks Students will complete include: 1) Putting together the Research Team: as said above Students will have freedom for this. It is important that Students practice transparency, intellectual honesty and critical thinking (e.g. assumption of their own potential biases) from this initial point, so that any research process and product is as sound as possible. 2) Assigning roles inside the Research Team: as any working team that aims at being effective in a task, Students are required to organize their team and to provide each other with roles and tasks to comply. Students can also exercise freedom here (e.g. “All do all tasks”, “Each does one task”, etcetera) so long as every member of the team has assigned task(s); there is a reasonable degree of equivalence in efforts, contributions and human hours put by each member; and members are in general equally comfortable with the tasks that they will be fulfilling. 3) Developing the research process: through practices that meet basic scientific and academic standards, the Research Team will plan and develop a research process that intends to better understand the case along with basic aspects around it, such as considerations about its historical role and sociopolitical implications; and recommendations on how stronger cultural and institutional practices can improve the effectivity and fairness of similar situations in the future. This process will also have the ultimate goal of delivering a final written research product, which is a separate task and is explained next. 4) Delivering the research product: under the same rules just mentioned and following also basic academic standards for writing and publishing, the Research Team will work to deliver a final written research product that contains the usual contents of this type of pieces, such as literature review; analyses of the case and its issues; considerations about its historical role and sociopolitical implications; conclusion; and recommendations on how stronger cultural and institutional practices can improve the effectivity and fairness of similar situations in the future. 5) Presenting the research product to the class as a whole: under the same rules already mentioned and following also basic standards for dissertations, the Research Team will present the highlights of the research process and of the final written research product to the rest of the class, including the Instructor. After said presentation, each of the other Research Teams (if existing) and the Instructor will provide a feedback to the work done by the Research Team.

The material (see references below) Students will have available and will have to use, includes at least: 1) All the material already used for the previous assignments (the “Introductory Assignment” and the “Career Oriented Assignment”) which included at least: a.- the case “Terry v. Ohio” itself; b.- the case debate; c.- at least one (01) source that discusses some of the legal and justice issues related to the case; and d.- at least one (01) source that discusses the historical, cultural and sociopolitical consequences it had and has both in the US at large, and in New York City (NYC) in particular. 2) All the material related to the value, importance and critical analyses of the rule of law, criminal law and criminal procedures in general. 3) All the material related to moot courts bylaws and possible rules, including its functioning and dynamics. 4) All the material related to scientific and academic researching, writing, publishing and presenting.

The value of the assignment to course goals includes: 1) General Education goals. 2) Knowledge and understanding of the focal case and of the law in general. 3) Knowledge and understanding of how the law is set in motion and actually functions in real-Life scenarios. 4) Knowledge and understanding of how the law (constitutional, criminal, procedural) and activities related to it (law enforcement, criminal procedures, legal debates) can and should be researched through the rules that govern the production of scientific knowledge. 5) Knowledge and understanding of how scientific and academic research, writing, publishing and presenting should be conducted. 6) Knowledge and understanding of how scientific and academic work can impact cultural and institutional practices to provide communities with stronger approaches and solutions to social problems. See below under “Purpose” for more information related to these matters.

Purpose

The significances of this assignment to the justice issues the course explores are: 1) Assessment and development of Students’ abilities to understand and practice key skills related to scientific and academic researching, writing, publishing and presenting. 2) Assessment and development of Students’ abilities to understand and practice key skills related to how scientific and academic work can help into analyzing similar situations; drawing specific and general conclusions; considering the application of practices in different times, places and contexts; and ultimately generate impacts on cultural and institutional practices to provide communities with stronger approaches and solutions to social problems. See below under “Purpose” for more information related to these matters. 3) Development of Students’ understanding of how scientific and academic work functions; and how these activities compose a specific labor field in which they can develop professionally.

The skills or knowledge that this assignment helps Students to develop are: 1) Abilities to understand and practice key skills related to scientific and academic researching, writing, publishing and presenting. 2) Abilities to understand and practice key skills related to how scientific and academic work can help into analyzing similar situations; drawing specific and general conclusions; considering the application of practices in different times, places and contexts; and ultimately generate impacts on cultural and institutional practices to provide communities with stronger approaches and solutions to social problems. See below under “Purpose” for more information related to these matters. 3) Abilities to better understand the specific labor market of scientific and academic activities, as well as some of the rules that govern it. 4) Understanding and critical analyses of the different roles related to these situations, dynamics and procedures. 5) Ability to craft recommendations that can generate cultural and institutional practices to provide communities with stronger approaches and solutions to social problems such as those related to this and similar cases.

Timeframe: Students should complete this assignment in 05 modules, which should start immediately after the end of Assignment 02. At the beginning of this stage, Students should already be familiarized with the case; its challenges; the values at stake; the different actors related to it and their roles; the historical relevance of the case; its sociopolitical implications, along with their national and local particularities.

As said above, this Assignment 03 is composed of 05 specific tasks. The first task (“Putting together the Research Team”) and the second task (“Assigning roles inside the Research Team”) should be completed in a maximum of 01 module. Students should then have at least 03 full modules to do the third task (“Developing the research process”) and to prepare to comply with the fourth task (“Delivering the research product”) by the end of this period. Finally, at least 01 more module should be devoted to the fifth task. If needed be, these timeframes could be enlarged; mainly considering the size of the class and the number of Research Teams present in it.

Albeit at an intense rhythm, it is speculated that activities can be conducted properly and sufficiently in these timeframes, at least to serve as examples for Students on how to conduct these tasks and what is the importance and potential that they have. To be noted, Assignment 01 and Assignment 02 should have already served at this point as strong steppingstones for Students to conduct this Assignment 03 satisfactorily.

Connection with wider aspects: this assignment requires Students to make connections with the core scientific and academic work; to better understand them; to think about them as professional paths to follow; and to gain perspective on to what extent they can have impacts on cultural and institutional practices to provide communities with stronger approaches and solutions to social problems.

Course learning outcomes addressed by the assignment

1. Acquiring scientific knowledge regarding the “Terry v. Ohio” case: its factual side; basic issues; historical, cultural and sociopolitical context; historical, cultural and sociopolitical consequences; amongst other key contents.

2. Being able to understand and integrate diverse scientific, cultural, ideological and institutional points of view.

3. Developing the ability to research and critically analyze this and other cases.

4. Understanding the challenges and opportunities related to the key matters in “Terry v. Ohio” in the 21st century, considering recent changes and differences throughout diverse local communities.

5. Understanding the extent to which scientific and academic research can impact cultural and institutional practices to provide communities with stronger approaches and solutions to social problems in cases similar to “Terry v. Ohio”.

Goals/Milestones

By completing this assignment successfully, Students will become familiarized with: 1) The existing tasks of scientific and academic researching, publishing writing and presenting in general. 2) The challenges related to these tasks, and in particular as they relate to the fields of criminal justice, criminal law and law enforcement activities. 3) The extent to which these activities can impact cultural and institutional practices to provide communities with stronger approaches and solutions to social problems. 4) The role of the academic community in society, as well as the importance that peer-to-peer interactions have within the academy. 5) The specific skills that are and/or should be demonstrated to properly conduct certain professional roles (e.g. academic researching).

Materials

This assignment would include at least the following resources:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 383 (Supreme Court of the United States June 10, 1968, Decided). https://advance-lexis-com.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=1516831

Terry v. Ohio. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved June 6, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67

Jones-Brown, D. D. (2013). Stop, Question & Frisk Policing Practices In New York City: A Primer. http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/SQF_Primer_July_2013.pdf

Thornton – It’s Not Purely Academic, legal writing and practice (2012).

Goel, Rao & Shroff – Precinct or prejudice, understanding racial disparity in NYC’S SQF.

Coviello & Persico – An economic analysis of Black-White disparities in NYPD’s SQF (2013).

Cook – Suspicionless Policing (2021).

Street Law – Street Law’s Classroom Guide to Moot Courts (2021).

Street Law Strategy Video: Mini-Moot Court https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7D0E3UN11c&ab_channel=StreetLawInc

Street Law – Mini-moot courts a strategy (bundle). Retrieved from https://pressbooks.cuny.edu/lcassignments/chapter/__unknown__-3/

Sociological inquiry principles: Qualitative and quantitative methods – table of contents. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2022, from https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/sociological-inquiry-principles-qualitative-and-quantitative-methods/

Critical thinking in academic research. (2022). Open Textbook Library. https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/critical-thinking-in-academic-research

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. (2016). https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/457

Open Pedagogy/Learning Strategies

Through this assignment Students will learn via:

Collaborative learning via teamwork: working with peers in Research Teams is an absolutely widespread practice in the scientific and academic world; many of the most notable scientific contributions in history were made by research teams and not by sole individuals.

Comprehensive learning via results sharing and feedback processes: the final stage of this assignment implies a Teams Research interaction by the course at large that allows Students to learn about how to provided and be provided with scientific, academic, serious, mature and constructive feedbacks. The results of these interactions will also become part of an OER repository, which once again we hope that serves the role of better engaging Students with the process and its result, as they should further contribute to stronger (i.e. fairer and more efficient) law enforcement and legal responses.

Assessment Strategy

The “Putting together the Research Team” and the “Assigning roles inside the Research Team” tasks will be measured by: 1) The quality of the process to assemble the Research Team. 2) A small rationale that Students may provide to assembling the Research Team as they did, especially as this links to the standards of transparency and intellectual honesty already explained. 3) The quality of the role assignment and tasks distribution amongst Research Team members, in which fairness of distribution and democratic decision-making will play a central role.

The “Developing the research process” task will be measured by: 1) The quality of the collaborative process amongst Students when working as a Research Team, which will be assessed mostly at a team level. This includes all steps, from the initial outline until the end of the process. 2) The extent to which the Research Team is able to address challenges during the process. 3) The extent to which the Research Team is able to provide flexibility if needed during the process, without altering fundamental rules of the scientific and academic research.

The “Delivering the research product” task will be measured by: 1) The quality of the research product in terms of written expression, which will be assessed at a team level and will be incorporated as an OER in our repository. 2) The quality of the research product in terms of scientific and academic soundness, which will be assessed at a team level. 3) The quality of the research product in terms of original contributions to the state of the art in the topic, which will be assessed at a team level.

The “Presenting the research product” task will be measured by: 1) The quality of the presentation in terms of oral and audiovisual expression, which will be assessed at both a team and an individual level and will be incorporated as an OER in our repository. 2) The quality of the presentation in terms of scientific and academic effectiveness, which will be assessed at a team and an individual level. 3) The quality of the feedbacks process in which the Research Teams engages after the presentation with the Instructor and with other teams, which will be assessed at a team and an individual level. This includes the ability of the team and its members to work with these comments and to respond constructively to them.

Rubric or other feedback tools

The rubric tool will again assess variables like Assignments 01 and 02 did (“Team process work”; “Argumentative logics”; “Grasping of contents”; “Originality”; “Amplitude and standing”; “Organization, style and mechanics”) but adapted to these specific tasks. For each variable again 4 or 5 categories of success could be built, ranging from the most to the least satisfactory.

Student Facing Section

Assignment Description:

Assignment title: Researching “Terry v. Ohio”.

Assignment goals: 1) Assessment and development of Students’ abilities to understand and practice key skills related to scientific and academic researching, writing, publishing and presenting. 2) Assessment and development of Students’ abilities to understand and practice key skills related to how scientific and academic work can help into analyzing similar situations; drawing specific and general conclusions; considering the application of practices in different times, places and contexts; and ultimately generate impacts on cultural and institutional practices to provide communities with stronger approaches and solutions to social problems. See below under “Purpose” for more information related to these matters. 3) Development of Students’ understanding of how scientific and academic work functions; and how these activities compose a specific labor field in which they can develop professionally.

Assignment instructions: this assignment has 05 tasks. Tasks 01 through Task 04 are done by the Research Team as a whole; Task 05 is also done by the Research Team as a whole but in interaction with the rest of the course, including other Research Teams when existing. Tasks 01 through 05 have to be completed in order, starting from Task 01 and ending with Task 05.

Task 01 (“Putting together the Research Team”): in this task you simply have to associate with those peers that you want to work with. You have freedom for this, under certain reasonable parameters. Class size is the first of these: the Instructor may use decide to decide bandwidths under which Research Team numbers may exist. Next, it is important that you practice transparency, intellectual honesty and critical thinking (e.g. assumption of their own potential biases) as they put together their teams, so that any research process and product is as sound as possible. You are initially free to associate with all persons that think about the case and its many faces exactly like you, similar to you, or not at all like you; the proportions of these views amongst the group may also vary, but in any case keeping these aspects in mind is needed as a truly scientific and academic approach.

Task 02 (“Assigning roles inside the Research Team”): as any working team that aims at being effective in a task, you are required to organize your team and to define roles and tasks to comply amongst each other. You can also exercise freedom here (e.g. “All do all tasks”, “Each does one task”, etcetera) so long as every member of the team has assigned task(s); there is a reasonable degree of equivalence in efforts, contributions and human hours put by each member; and members are in general equally comfortable with the tasks that they will be fulfilling.

Task 03 (“Developing the research process”): through practices that meet basic scientific and academic standards, you will plan and develop a research process that intends to better understand the case along with basic aspects around it, such as considerations about its historical role and sociopolitical implications; and recommendations on how stronger cultural and institutional practices can improve the effectivity and fairness of similar situations in the future. This process will also have the ultimate goal of you delivering a final written research product, which is a separate task and is explained next.

The research process has to be structured; has to present a clear methodology based on accepted scientific and academic standards; and has to comply with the work done in Task 01 and Task 02. An initial outline of the whole process is due after the end of the first module of this Task, and must be submitted to the Instructor for review. The outline must contain at least the hypothesis/es to be tested; the methodology to be applied; and a mention with brief explanation of tasks to be conducted, provided with a realistic timeline to conduct them and a distribution of them amongst the Research Team members. The Instructor will provide feedback on this outline. You have to apply said feedback to the rest of this task and to upcoming ones as well.

Task 04 (“Delivering the research product”): under the same rules just mentioned and following also basic academic standards for writing and publishing, you will deliver a final written research product that contains at least the usual contents of academic pieces, such as literature review; analyses of the case and its issues; considerations about its historical role and sociopolitical implications; conclusion; and recommendations on how stronger cultural and institutional practices can improve the effectivity and fairness of similar situations in the future. More specific guidelines about format; style and contents are provided separately. The research product will become a part of our OER repository, for the strengthening of future cohorts.

Task 05 (“Presenting the research product”): under the same rules already mentioned and following also basic standards for dissertations, you will present the highlights of the research process and of the final written research product to the rest of the class, including the Instructor. The presentation will last between 20 and 40 minutes. Ideally, all members of the Research Team will play an active role in it; Students uncomfortable with public presentation may reduce their portion of these activities and compensate with other tasks (e.g. organizing the display), although the Instructor highly encourages all individuals to take this opportunity as a practice to present in the future.

After said presentation, each of the other Research Teams (if existing) and the Instructor will provide a feedback to the work done by the Research Team. These feedbacks will take a maximum of 30 minutes. The Research Team must take notes on them and will provide a 2-10 minutes devolution on the feedback, where it should be demonstrated that the feedbacks were understood, considered and assessed for the future.

4. Assignment grading value: globally, this assignment is worth 30% of your Final Grade. Tasks 01 and 02 are graded together, being worth 7.5% of your Final Grade. Each of the other tasks are graded independently, each being worth also 7.5% of your Final Grade. More details are provided below (see “Grading Scheme” section).

5. Attachments: Handouts or other instructional materials students will use to complete the assignment

To properly fulfil all Tasks, follow our syllabus and all guides and indications provided via BlackBoard, email or synchronous interaction with the Instructor.

6. Grading Scheme

Each Task is graded on a scale from 0 to 100, as indicated in our syllabus (see section “General grading policies” in our syllabus).

Unless an exception is decided based on specific and corroborated circumstances, the Research Team is graded as a team in Tasks 01; 02 and 03, which are graded equally for all course/team members: every person obtains the same percentage of the Final Grade as all others (for example, if a value of “100” is provided to a team in Task 02, all members obtain 100, which equates to 6% of their Final Grade).

Tasks 04 and 05 are graded both at the team and the individual level, and in that sense it is possible that different individuals of the same team obtain different scores, based on individual performances. All work is provided with sufficient feedback from the Instructor so that Students can better understand what they did well and what they need to improve, according to the Instructor’s perspective.

Summative Assessment: Moot Court

This assignment was developed by Nora M. Cronin, JD a teaching faculty member with the International Criminal Justice Program at John Jay College.

Stop, Question, Frisk & The Law: Terry v. Ohio in Cultural and Historical Perspectives

Assignment Overview and Purpose

Conducting a “moot court” is a more advanced version of an in-class debate, except in this case, students will be set up as Justices in the Supreme Court, with their classmates participating as attorneys. Unlike a debate, where students prepare one side of an argument, exploring the appellate process in the United States allows students to consider arguments from all sides.

Description

The goal of the assignment is for students to actively engage with Terry v. Ohio, the seminal Supreme Court stop and frisk case, by recreating it in a classroom setting. Students may use primary resources from news of the day, research on Lexis of additional case law, and their own creative reasoning to help prepare for their oral arguments. Students may also find audio of previous arguments before the court to be helpful in reviewing prior to the presentation.

This summative assessment, will be students’ final assignment for the semester and will require them to synthesize readings and assignments on Terry V. Ohio into a thoughtful, informed argument. To participate in the moot court, students will need to build on the verbal and written argumentative skills they have built throughout the semester.

Course learning outcomes addressed by the assignment

Display oral argument skills beyond “simple” debate by engaging in appellate process

Demonstrate ability to work as a team, even when presenting as adversaries!

Apply critical thinking, specifically the ability to anticipate arguments and “think like a lawyer”

Understand the function of the Supreme Court and the appellate process in U.S. courts.

Display comparative writing skills in the form of written opinions

Display an understanding of basic legal citation

Materials

John Jay e-reader

Terry v. Ohio

Audio of previous arguments before the court to help with review

A comparative writing primer to help students prepare their opinion.

In class, the professor will also review the appellate process in the United States that occurs before a case goes before the Supreme Court, as well as procedures for oral argument.

Open Pedagogy/Learning Strategies

Active learning, Reusable assignment

Student Facing Section

Assignment Description

Students will be broken into groups of at least three, with at least one of the students representing justices of the Supreme Court, and two students representing the attorneys for both parties involved in this action. If class size is sufficiently large, multiple justices will be “appointed” to question and prepare final written decisions.

Students should be prepared following the oral argument to deliver a written decision of the court to complete the assignment. Students need not decide the case the same way the 1968 Court did, but they are free to do so, using the same or different rationales. It is also acceptable to reject the court’s reasoning entirely, and you may do so based on new evidence or case law presented. Although it will be only the justices questioning the attorneys and normally only justices would be issuing a written opinion, note for the purpose of this assignment all students should be prepared to assist with the writing of the opinion, although only one opinion needs to be turned in to complete the assignment. Students may find this comparative writing primer helpful when preparing this opinion. It is suggested that students use Google Docs or another sharing software to help facilitate creation of the opinion.

Assignment Process and Timeline

You will work in groups to research the case and prepare oral arguments for the court.

After completing preparations as groups, you will participate in the moot court.

After the moot court has finished, you will each submit a brief (1-page maximum) self-reflection on the coursework and how your understanding of law and society has been affected.

While the final piece of writing is short, you should spend time reflecting, journaling, and even talking with friends or family outside the course about your experience to help you think about what you have learned.

Grading Scheme

This final assignment is worth 50 points towards the final grade. The breakdown will be as follows:

20pts Oral Argument Presentation

20pts Final Written Opinion

10pts Self-Reflection