Trial Papers: Introduction and Expectations
Description of the Artifact:
In the final assignment for their four-day mock trial of Socrates, students were asked to write a 2 to 3 page paper. I asked them to write a persuasive essay detailing their argument for Socrates’ innocence or guilt. If the students were on the prosecution or defense they had to write a paper in support of their assigned side. If the students were judges, they had to defend their final verdict. In addition to a basic rubric, I asked my students to focus on the below targeted writing skills.
1) Speaking to Citizens of Ancient Athens so use FORMAL LANGUAGE
2) INTRODUCTION- Intriguing intro that pulls the audience in
3) THESIS- A 1-2 sentence thesis that explains what you will argue
4) ORGANIZATION- Use paragraphs!
During this introduction to the assignment, I highlighted students’ assigned role (ancient Athenian) and audience (educated ancient Athenians) using the RAFT format.
Desired goal:
Ideally, the students would have demonstrated all of the below criteria for this specific assignment.
By the time of this assignment, students had spent four days reading and analyzing the information surrounding Socrates’ trial. I had spent significant time reviewing arguments and helping students analyze the available sources. I felt confident that a large majority of my students were comfortable with the material.
Given this established background knowledge on the subject, I expected my students to not only have clear, logical arguments but also a well-written essay. I assessed my students on both the content and the progression of their writing skills. Students were expected to adopt the role of an Ancient Athenian politician so I also wanted to see both historical imagination and empathy.
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?
While students may have agreed or disagreed with the side they were asked to defend, ultimately, all of the students had to adopt a perspective different from their own. They were asked to be an Ancient Athenian with an Ancient Athenian audience. I looked for styles and arguments that attempted to emulate the historical ethos. To judge this re-enactment, I carefully analyzed their introduction. Was it a simple introduction of an academic paper or did it have a style that seemed more unique to the Ancient era? Clearly, students did not know how Athenians wrote on a daily basis. But considering the controversy surrounding the trial in the Ancient world, I expected to see a sense of urgency and importance in the word choice and arguments, as opposed to a simple detached style of a compare and contrast essay.
2) Interpolation:
To what extent were the students were the students required to demonstrate the ability to interpolate?
Due to the lack of primary source documents, students were required to speculate in order to develop full and complete arguments. While students could not fabricate evidence, I expected them to suggest possibilities that supported their argument. For example, many of Socrates past students were actively anti-democratic. Did the prosecution use this evidence as a basis to suggest that Socrates himself may have espoused anti-democratic ideals? Additionally, after hearing the Oracle of Delphi’s prophecy, Socrates attempts to prove the Oracle right. Did the defense argue that this action demonstrated a level of piety as opposed to heresy?
There were many similar opportunities for students to practice interpolation in their paper. However, it's important to note that students practiced this skill while still assuming the role of an Ancient Athenian. Therefore, the adopted historical context still needed to limit their ability to make suggestions and intellectual leaps. For example, a student for the defense could not argue that if the Athenians made a martyr out of the “Father of Western Philosophy” it would inspire Plato to build the Academy. Not only is the epithet for Socrates an anachronism, Athenians at the time of the trial would have had no insight into Plato’s future plans.
3) Interrogation
To what extent were the students were the students required to demonstrate the ability to interrogate sources?
The students were given two major sources, a summary of The Apology and an interview with a historian I.F. Stone. We discussed the possible bias of The Apology in class. Since I modeled that interrogation technique for them, I expected students to at least briefly mention the bias in The Apology. The prosecution could have used it as an argument and the defense should have at least acknowledged the bias so it could move forward to more compelling arguments. I did not want to see students just using the arguments posed by Socrates in the Apology. Such a tactic would demonstrate that the students did not thoughtfully interrogate the reading, failing to realize that the source avoided key points of the case.
Desired Elements of Historical Empathy:
1) Describe in-depth the role that Students were asked to adopt.
The students were asked to adopt the role of an Ancient Athenian at the time of Socrates’ trial. As I outlined in my re-enactment question, I expected students to adopt a tone that was separate from a traditional academic writing voice. Additionally, they should have attempted to avoid anachronistic words or phrases.
Beyond just the style of writing, students needed to consider an Athenian’s perspective and reasoning. For example, a student should not have appealed to the audience by arguing freedom of religion. There was not a strong sentiment for that concept at the time. I paid particular attention to each paper’s approach to religion and sexuality. Students should have attempted to block their 21st century point of view on the subject. They should have recognized both the importance of religion and the fluidity of sexuality at the time. The students were aware of Socrates relations with his students but they should not have necessarily used that argument against him because it would not have had much impact on an Athenian audience.
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?
N/A
In the final assignment for their four-day mock trial of Socrates, students were asked to write a 2 to 3 page paper. I asked them to write a persuasive essay detailing their argument for Socrates’ innocence or guilt. If the students were on the prosecution or defense they had to write a paper in support of their assigned side. If the students were judges, they had to defend their final verdict. In addition to a basic rubric, I asked my students to focus on the below targeted writing skills.
1) Speaking to Citizens of Ancient Athens so use FORMAL LANGUAGE
2) INTRODUCTION- Intriguing intro that pulls the audience in
3) THESIS- A 1-2 sentence thesis that explains what you will argue
4) ORGANIZATION- Use paragraphs!
During this introduction to the assignment, I highlighted students’ assigned role (ancient Athenian) and audience (educated ancient Athenians) using the RAFT format.
Desired goal:
Ideally, the students would have demonstrated all of the below criteria for this specific assignment.
By the time of this assignment, students had spent four days reading and analyzing the information surrounding Socrates’ trial. I had spent significant time reviewing arguments and helping students analyze the available sources. I felt confident that a large majority of my students were comfortable with the material.
Given this established background knowledge on the subject, I expected my students to not only have clear, logical arguments but also a well-written essay. I assessed my students on both the content and the progression of their writing skills. Students were expected to adopt the role of an Ancient Athenian politician so I also wanted to see both historical imagination and empathy.
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?
While students may have agreed or disagreed with the side they were asked to defend, ultimately, all of the students had to adopt a perspective different from their own. They were asked to be an Ancient Athenian with an Ancient Athenian audience. I looked for styles and arguments that attempted to emulate the historical ethos. To judge this re-enactment, I carefully analyzed their introduction. Was it a simple introduction of an academic paper or did it have a style that seemed more unique to the Ancient era? Clearly, students did not know how Athenians wrote on a daily basis. But considering the controversy surrounding the trial in the Ancient world, I expected to see a sense of urgency and importance in the word choice and arguments, as opposed to a simple detached style of a compare and contrast essay.
2) Interpolation:
To what extent were the students were the students required to demonstrate the ability to interpolate?
Due to the lack of primary source documents, students were required to speculate in order to develop full and complete arguments. While students could not fabricate evidence, I expected them to suggest possibilities that supported their argument. For example, many of Socrates past students were actively anti-democratic. Did the prosecution use this evidence as a basis to suggest that Socrates himself may have espoused anti-democratic ideals? Additionally, after hearing the Oracle of Delphi’s prophecy, Socrates attempts to prove the Oracle right. Did the defense argue that this action demonstrated a level of piety as opposed to heresy?
There were many similar opportunities for students to practice interpolation in their paper. However, it's important to note that students practiced this skill while still assuming the role of an Ancient Athenian. Therefore, the adopted historical context still needed to limit their ability to make suggestions and intellectual leaps. For example, a student for the defense could not argue that if the Athenians made a martyr out of the “Father of Western Philosophy” it would inspire Plato to build the Academy. Not only is the epithet for Socrates an anachronism, Athenians at the time of the trial would have had no insight into Plato’s future plans.
3) Interrogation
To what extent were the students were the students required to demonstrate the ability to interrogate sources?
The students were given two major sources, a summary of The Apology and an interview with a historian I.F. Stone. We discussed the possible bias of The Apology in class. Since I modeled that interrogation technique for them, I expected students to at least briefly mention the bias in The Apology. The prosecution could have used it as an argument and the defense should have at least acknowledged the bias so it could move forward to more compelling arguments. I did not want to see students just using the arguments posed by Socrates in the Apology. Such a tactic would demonstrate that the students did not thoughtfully interrogate the reading, failing to realize that the source avoided key points of the case.
Desired Elements of Historical Empathy:
1) Describe in-depth the role that Students were asked to adopt.
The students were asked to adopt the role of an Ancient Athenian at the time of Socrates’ trial. As I outlined in my re-enactment question, I expected students to adopt a tone that was separate from a traditional academic writing voice. Additionally, they should have attempted to avoid anachronistic words or phrases.
Beyond just the style of writing, students needed to consider an Athenian’s perspective and reasoning. For example, a student should not have appealed to the audience by arguing freedom of religion. There was not a strong sentiment for that concept at the time. I paid particular attention to each paper’s approach to religion and sexuality. Students should have attempted to block their 21st century point of view on the subject. They should have recognized both the importance of religion and the fluidity of sexuality at the time. The students were aware of Socrates relations with his students but they should not have necessarily used that argument against him because it would not have had much impact on an Athenian audience.
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?
N/A