PM Lesson Plan Feedback and Analysis
pm_observation_notes.docx | |
File Size: | 117 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Analysis of Historical Imagination in the Classroom_________________________
1) Students demonstrated the historical imagination concept of re-enactment.
The observation notes highlighted varying levels of abilities for re-enactment. The first boy mentioned in the notes (I will call him Steven), set the stage for an exciting trial day. “He’s in character! Very well scripted, a flare of oldness to the prose”. While there were clear arguments in the rest of the speeches not other prosecution or defense group had such a polished speech and clear role. “This group isn’t as well prepared. Have trouble finding their footing. Doesn’t feel as periodic as the others”. However, I was particularly surprised by the fervor and formality displayed by the second justice group “I like these jurors! They have tons of q’s. The P has trouble ans.”
The audience also surprised me. As I explained previously, during the class itself I had not focused on the audience because I was grading the performances given by the defense, prosecution and the justices. Since there were two trials, half of the class was asked to be an Ancient Athenian audience while the other half was performing. My Penn Mentor’s observation notes highlighted something that I had not really considered, the active participation of this audience. She identified multiple times when the audience appropriately engaged with the performance; “Quite authentic gasp in reaction to love triangle...the audience reacted 'OHHHHH!'....Girl stands and claps!”. The students attempts to incorporate their small roles as audience members into the larger performance really impressed me.
2) Students demonstrated the historical imagination concept of interpolation.
I cannot identify all attempts at the interpolation from the observation notes. However, my Penn mentor highlighted a line of questioning that demonstrated students’ ability to identify the gaps in the arguments and the historical record. The justices in the second round went above and beyond the 8 questions requirement. For both the prosecution and defense, the Justices did not just recite questions (as previous justice groups had done). In contrast, they first asked questions and then improvised follow up questions that directly addressed the answers given by the prosecution and defense. “Jurors go right to q’s without st prompt. (can’t hear q but kids react)….quiet. Defense. ‘children ask q’ ‘will you punish them?’ … ‘can’t blame teacher, s’s make own choices’ ‘chewing gum in class’”. This line of abbreviated questions and answers summarized a larger Q and A between the justices and defense. The justices questioned and poked holes in the defense’s argument claiming that teachers cannot be blamed for their students' actions.
3) Students demonstrated the historical imagination concept of interrogation
I did not find any real attempt at interrogation in the observation notes.
Analysis for Historical Empathy:__________________________________________
1) Students clearly adopted a historical role different their own perspective.
The first speech of the prosecution is the best example of a student adopting a perspective clearly distinct from his own. I was aware that Steven was a great fan of Socrates. However, he gave a convincing performance as his prosecutor, “He’s in character! Very well scripted, a flare of oldness to the prose”. However, students in other groups were prone to break character, my Penn mentor observed “presenters are giggling now…. This group isn’t as well prepared. Have trouble finding their footing. Doesn’t feel as periodic as the others.” So there was varying level of abilities of historical empathy in the performance. Students that were described as out of character or unprepared for the speech by my Penn mentor, did not demonstrate clear empathy. The students may have assumed that I would be more lenient in grading for a performance assignment and therefore did not commit themselves as well as they could have.
2) The student’s historical role was bound to a historical context established by secondary and/or primary sources.
The performance format for this simulation actually allowed students to act as a check for their classmates, to ensure that students limited their performances and arguments to the context. For example, the second group of justices were able to challenge the prosecution when they referenced “chewing gum”. The justices addressed their classmates' mistake, “what is gum?” While the justices also intended to be funny, they highlighted the anachronism to their classmates.
Towards the end of the second trial, my Penn Mentor highlighted an incident when one girl in the audience wanted to insert herself in the trial to correct her classmates, “G in back: ‘I have a q… love triangle’”. The note referred to Ryea’s challenge when she believed the justices were harping on the possible love triangle between Socrates, Alcibiades and Antynus. She asked whether it was relevant to the case. Ryea attacked the justices in an attempt to demonstrate that they were using their 21st century understandings of sexuality and morality to an Ancient Athenian relationship. Our class had spent time exploring the Greek’s notion of sexuality in a previous lesson.
3) Student demonstrated the ability to “distinguish between past perspectives and to shift from one another from a relatively detached point of view.
N/A
4) Student incorporates historically relevant evidence and facts.
My Penn mentor’s notes focused on the behavior and overall performance of the students, she did not focus on the incorporation of historically relevant evidence and facts.
1) Students demonstrated the historical imagination concept of re-enactment.
The observation notes highlighted varying levels of abilities for re-enactment. The first boy mentioned in the notes (I will call him Steven), set the stage for an exciting trial day. “He’s in character! Very well scripted, a flare of oldness to the prose”. While there were clear arguments in the rest of the speeches not other prosecution or defense group had such a polished speech and clear role. “This group isn’t as well prepared. Have trouble finding their footing. Doesn’t feel as periodic as the others”. However, I was particularly surprised by the fervor and formality displayed by the second justice group “I like these jurors! They have tons of q’s. The P has trouble ans.”
The audience also surprised me. As I explained previously, during the class itself I had not focused on the audience because I was grading the performances given by the defense, prosecution and the justices. Since there were two trials, half of the class was asked to be an Ancient Athenian audience while the other half was performing. My Penn Mentor’s observation notes highlighted something that I had not really considered, the active participation of this audience. She identified multiple times when the audience appropriately engaged with the performance; “Quite authentic gasp in reaction to love triangle...the audience reacted 'OHHHHH!'....Girl stands and claps!”. The students attempts to incorporate their small roles as audience members into the larger performance really impressed me.
2) Students demonstrated the historical imagination concept of interpolation.
I cannot identify all attempts at the interpolation from the observation notes. However, my Penn mentor highlighted a line of questioning that demonstrated students’ ability to identify the gaps in the arguments and the historical record. The justices in the second round went above and beyond the 8 questions requirement. For both the prosecution and defense, the Justices did not just recite questions (as previous justice groups had done). In contrast, they first asked questions and then improvised follow up questions that directly addressed the answers given by the prosecution and defense. “Jurors go right to q’s without st prompt. (can’t hear q but kids react)….quiet. Defense. ‘children ask q’ ‘will you punish them?’ … ‘can’t blame teacher, s’s make own choices’ ‘chewing gum in class’”. This line of abbreviated questions and answers summarized a larger Q and A between the justices and defense. The justices questioned and poked holes in the defense’s argument claiming that teachers cannot be blamed for their students' actions.
3) Students demonstrated the historical imagination concept of interrogation
I did not find any real attempt at interrogation in the observation notes.
Analysis for Historical Empathy:__________________________________________
1) Students clearly adopted a historical role different their own perspective.
The first speech of the prosecution is the best example of a student adopting a perspective clearly distinct from his own. I was aware that Steven was a great fan of Socrates. However, he gave a convincing performance as his prosecutor, “He’s in character! Very well scripted, a flare of oldness to the prose”. However, students in other groups were prone to break character, my Penn mentor observed “presenters are giggling now…. This group isn’t as well prepared. Have trouble finding their footing. Doesn’t feel as periodic as the others.” So there was varying level of abilities of historical empathy in the performance. Students that were described as out of character or unprepared for the speech by my Penn mentor, did not demonstrate clear empathy. The students may have assumed that I would be more lenient in grading for a performance assignment and therefore did not commit themselves as well as they could have.
2) The student’s historical role was bound to a historical context established by secondary and/or primary sources.
The performance format for this simulation actually allowed students to act as a check for their classmates, to ensure that students limited their performances and arguments to the context. For example, the second group of justices were able to challenge the prosecution when they referenced “chewing gum”. The justices addressed their classmates' mistake, “what is gum?” While the justices also intended to be funny, they highlighted the anachronism to their classmates.
Towards the end of the second trial, my Penn Mentor highlighted an incident when one girl in the audience wanted to insert herself in the trial to correct her classmates, “G in back: ‘I have a q… love triangle’”. The note referred to Ryea’s challenge when she believed the justices were harping on the possible love triangle between Socrates, Alcibiades and Antynus. She asked whether it was relevant to the case. Ryea attacked the justices in an attempt to demonstrate that they were using their 21st century understandings of sexuality and morality to an Ancient Athenian relationship. Our class had spent time exploring the Greek’s notion of sexuality in a previous lesson.
3) Student demonstrated the ability to “distinguish between past perspectives and to shift from one another from a relatively detached point of view.
N/A
4) Student incorporates historically relevant evidence and facts.
My Penn mentor’s notes focused on the behavior and overall performance of the students, she did not focus on the incorporation of historically relevant evidence and facts.