methods_lp_10.docx | |
File Size: | 113 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Trial Lesson Observations: Introduction and Expectations
Description of the Artifact:
Many of the artifact analyses focus on student written work. While written work can chart individuals growth or stagnation, there is also value in analyzing the evolution of the classroom's group dynamic. Role-play activities that require classroom participation and student interaction have the potential to lead to more nuanced collective understandings of a theoretical concepts. In this analysis, I used my Penn mentor observation notes to chart and analyze student involvement and interaction during their mock trial.
Desired goal:
Ideally, the students would have demonstrated all of the below criteria for this specific assignment.
The activity required students to complete different tasks depending on their previously assigned roles. The justices were responsible for creating four challenging questions for each side.The prosecution and defense developed three to five minute speeches and answered the justice’s questions.Aware that the trial was situated within the historical context of Ancient Athens, students were expected to adopt roles and perspectives that fit within the context. I did not explicitly describe the term ‘anachronistic’. But the day before the trial, as students were preparing, I clarified and provided examples on what it meant to limit perspectives, arguments and language to a historical time period.
Desired Elements of Historical Imagination:
1) Re-enactment:
To what extent were the students were the students required to demonstrate the ability to Re-enact?
The mock trial clearly required students to re-enact, not just adopting a perspective different from their own but also physically acting out the role in front of the class. However, not all members of each group had to physically partake in this acting. The prosecution and defense teams could choose one to two people to represent their groups. The justices were required too sit in front of the class but only two students had to ask questions. I chose to give this option for two reasons. 1) I was concerned that if every student was required to speak, the trial would become extremely choppy and long 2) This type of role-play could be described as a very risky activity, I did not want to force students into this acting role if they did not feel as if they were ready to perform in front of the class. For those students that were performing, I wanted to see an authentic attempt at acting; adopting the formal language, gravitas and rhetoric of an Athenian at a controversial trial.
The class itself was split into two trials. While the one half of the students performed and questioned, the other half assumed the role of an ancient Athenian audience. As the audience, students were asked to be respectful and cast votes for either the prosecution or the defense. This is technically a re-enactment as well because they needed to react and reflect on the case as Athenians. However, I did not focus on this role because I wanted to examine the trial itself.
2) Interpolation:
To what extent were the students were the students required to demonstrate the ability to interpolate?
As trial participants and audience members, students had the opportunity to practice interpolation on multiple occasions. As the prosecution, students were required to interpolate Socrates’ possible influence on his anti-democratic students. As the defense, students could have considered the impact of Aristophanes’ “The Clouds” on Socrates’ reputation in Athens. The justices were in a specifically unique situation. They should have identified the multiple gaps in the sources, but rather than answer it themselves, they should have posed the questions to the prosecution and defense.
3) Interrogation
To what extent were the students were the students required to demonstrate the ability to interrogate sources?
Since students were asked to act as an ancient Athenian during the trial of Socrates, it would have been anachronistic to specifically identify the flaws in Plato’s Apology. However, the prosecution could have identified Socrates arguments (posed in the apology) and broke those arguments down. Additionally, the Justices/Athenian audience could have interrogated the bias and its impact on the arguments of both the defense and the prosecution.
Desired Elements of Historical Empathy
1) Describe in-depth the role that Students were asked to adopt.
See Historical Imagination Question 1: Re-enactment.
2) Were the students asked to explain their own perspective in addition to the role they were required to adopt? What do you expect will be the specific differences between these two perspectives and how are they limited to a specific historical time and place?
The students did not necessarily have a formal way to demonstrate their own opinions outside of their assigned role. However, I was aware of many students’ personal views on the topic because I had been working with the groups for about three days on the subject.
Many of the artifact analyses focus on student written work. While written work can chart individuals growth or stagnation, there is also value in analyzing the evolution of the classroom's group dynamic. Role-play activities that require classroom participation and student interaction have the potential to lead to more nuanced collective understandings of a theoretical concepts. In this analysis, I used my Penn mentor observation notes to chart and analyze student involvement and interaction during their mock trial.
Desired goal:
Ideally, the students would have demonstrated all of the below criteria for this specific assignment.
The activity required students to complete different tasks depending on their previously assigned roles. The justices were responsible for creating four challenging questions for each side.The prosecution and defense developed three to five minute speeches and answered the justice’s questions.Aware that the trial was situated within the historical context of Ancient Athens, students were expected to adopt roles and perspectives that fit within the context. I did not explicitly describe the term ‘anachronistic’. But the day before the trial, as students were preparing, I clarified and provided examples on what it meant to limit perspectives, arguments and language to a historical time period.
Desired Elements of Historical Imagination:
1) Re-enactment:
To what extent were the students were the students required to demonstrate the ability to Re-enact?
The mock trial clearly required students to re-enact, not just adopting a perspective different from their own but also physically acting out the role in front of the class. However, not all members of each group had to physically partake in this acting. The prosecution and defense teams could choose one to two people to represent their groups. The justices were required too sit in front of the class but only two students had to ask questions. I chose to give this option for two reasons. 1) I was concerned that if every student was required to speak, the trial would become extremely choppy and long 2) This type of role-play could be described as a very risky activity, I did not want to force students into this acting role if they did not feel as if they were ready to perform in front of the class. For those students that were performing, I wanted to see an authentic attempt at acting; adopting the formal language, gravitas and rhetoric of an Athenian at a controversial trial.
The class itself was split into two trials. While the one half of the students performed and questioned, the other half assumed the role of an ancient Athenian audience. As the audience, students were asked to be respectful and cast votes for either the prosecution or the defense. This is technically a re-enactment as well because they needed to react and reflect on the case as Athenians. However, I did not focus on this role because I wanted to examine the trial itself.
2) Interpolation:
To what extent were the students were the students required to demonstrate the ability to interpolate?
As trial participants and audience members, students had the opportunity to practice interpolation on multiple occasions. As the prosecution, students were required to interpolate Socrates’ possible influence on his anti-democratic students. As the defense, students could have considered the impact of Aristophanes’ “The Clouds” on Socrates’ reputation in Athens. The justices were in a specifically unique situation. They should have identified the multiple gaps in the sources, but rather than answer it themselves, they should have posed the questions to the prosecution and defense.
3) Interrogation
To what extent were the students were the students required to demonstrate the ability to interrogate sources?
Since students were asked to act as an ancient Athenian during the trial of Socrates, it would have been anachronistic to specifically identify the flaws in Plato’s Apology. However, the prosecution could have identified Socrates arguments (posed in the apology) and broke those arguments down. Additionally, the Justices/Athenian audience could have interrogated the bias and its impact on the arguments of both the defense and the prosecution.
Desired Elements of Historical Empathy
1) Describe in-depth the role that Students were asked to adopt.
See Historical Imagination Question 1: Re-enactment.
2) Were the students asked to explain their own perspective in addition to the role they were required to adopt? What do you expect will be the specific differences between these two perspectives and how are they limited to a specific historical time and place?
The students did not necessarily have a formal way to demonstrate their own opinions outside of their assigned role. However, I was aware of many students’ personal views on the topic because I had been working with the groups for about three days on the subject.