Ahmed Abozaid is a Lecturer in the Committee on International Relations (CIR). His research interrogates security and power through a decolonial lens, especially as they pertain to small states in the Global South. A prolific scholar, Dr. Abozaid has published eleven books (two in English and nine in Arabic) and more than seventy peer-reviewed articles. His forthcoming book, Racial Injustice and Decolonial Praxis in Global Academia, will be published by The American University in Cairo Press. He is currently completing a book manuscript for Oxford University Press that develops a non-Eurocentric account of state formation grounded in comparative historical sociology and global political thought. His teaching experience extends over a broad range of topics in international relations, from human rights to the climate crisis to crisis management and conflict resolution.
Ahmed Abozaid talked with us about how he uses student-led presentations to engage students in his “International Security of the Global South” course.
Tell us a bit about the course context for “International Security of the Global South”.
In “International Security of the Global South” (INRE 34910), advanced undergraduate and graduate students engage with international relations topics through a non-Eurocentric lens on issues such as state failure, development, human security, and energy security. They become familiar with theory and cases related to the Middle East, Africa, Asia, South America, and the Caribbean, engaging with postcolonial, decolonial, and global theories of international relations. To my knowledge, this course is the first of its kind at UChicago. The student-led group presentation lets students practice their interpersonal skills, time management, critical thinking, and collaboration skills—all necessary abilities for students who take this class, most of whom plan to work in think tanks, research centers, domestic agencies, and/or publication venues after graduation.
Tell us about how you approach student presentations.
In my view, presentations are another form of academic writing, and in my class, they bridge the gap between theory and practice to simulate a real-world work environment where students work on a team, defend their ideas, and address criticism. Students work on presentations in groups of four, which I form in order to ensure a range of expertise, “situated knowledge” perspectives and academic interests. Together, they choose an issue and geographic area (for example, climate change policy in Southeast Asia) and collaboratively write a policy memo and presentation on the topic. They also craft questions on major focal points for their classmates to consider as they listen, receive, and address their peers’ criticism. The entire class period is devoted to these activities; students present for 25 minutes, then each of the remaining 15 students has a few minutes to respond to the presentation with verbal feedback and questions. After that, the presenting group has about ten minutes to respond to their peers’ feedback, and near the end of the class, I offer my own feedback and questions for them. If they don’t do well, they have a chance to edit their policy memo and/or slides using my and other students’ feedback. Following a discussion, they have a chance to edit their policy memo and/or slides using my and other students’ feedback.
What teaching challenge did you want to address with this approach/technique?
Students' backgrounds, experiences, and knowledge vary broadly and sometimes in conflicting ways. This can make collaboration challenging, yet at the same time it’s an opportunity for students to engage with different views while developing a sense of shared work (especially because the group’s work is evaluated as a whole). Collaboration is the norm in so many jobs in this field. It’s also an opportunity to help them bond and relate to each other as they work together, rather than striving individually toward a goal.
How does the group presentation serve as an AI-resistant assignment?
I believe collaborative groupwork is one of the strategies that helps students resist AI overuse. It allows them to engage in collective work that requires a clear division of labor, shared responsibility, and peer collaboration. Instead of spending time alone with their screens and thoughts, they meet up, discuss, develop ideas, and deepen their interpersonal skills. One of the reasons I believe students (and all of us, to some extent) use AI is that we don’t otherwise often have the chance to examine and verify our thoughts. I offer students a clear AI policy in my class: the red line is content creation. You can use it to create visuals or do tasks that aren’t related to the learning goals (like formatting slides, making your works cited list, etc.). But if you use it to fully create content, you haven’t thought through it, which can have dire consequences in real-world work scenarios.
If students use AI, they’re required to cite it and be clear about where they used it. This policy reflects my philosophy that we cannot stop or prevent students from using AI, but we can help them navigate how to use it constructively. In political science, you’re expected to have an opinion in every situation, and challenging other people’s ideas is a core part of any job. I offer students the chance to do those things in my course – without using AI, when they only have access to their own minds and knowledge, which can happen often in real workplace scenarios.
What did you do to prepare to put it into action in your class? (e.g., did you read any research, did you consult with the CCTL, etc.)
This is my first year in Chicago, so as I prepared to teach this course, I was becoming familiar with different resources on campus. I had already taught this course in the UK but needed to adapt it to this new context. From CCTL staff I received constructive feedback on my syllabus, and during the course I requested a teaching observation, which was very useful to me. I also have learned a great deal from my colleagues in CIR and other programs; there is a great deal of freedom here to develop and explore pedagogy, which meant that through talking with colleagues I saw a range of possibilities for my own teaching. I also have learned a lot from my colleagues in CIR and other programs; there is a great deal of freedom here to develop and explore pedagogy, which meant that through talking with colleagues I saw a range of possibilities for my own teaching.
What’s working well about what you’re doing? Why do you think it’s working?
Students respond positively to the group-based presentations and feel comfortable engaging critically and contributing actively. They recognize the value of learning from and with one another, seeing each other as resources for learning, rather than spending class time listening to a lecture. In their responses to the presentations, I encourage students to challenge ideas and critically engage with the readings and with each other, a collaborative and dialogical approach that is central to my teaching philosophy.
What changes do you hope to make in upcoming terms?
I plan to continue using and refining these practices in the future, while developing and upgrading them as needed. The world we live in is not the same as when I started teaching during COVID, and as teachers, we need to remain not only relevant but also evolving. I’ll continue taking student feedback into account as well and would like to encourage more collaboration in the course because of the positive feedback around these presentations.