Trial Papers: Reflection and Improving Practice
-Is there any significant section of the artifact/evidence that demonstrates a positive improvement in a student’s ability to demonstrate historical imagination or empathy?
Overwhelmingly, students excelled at utilizing historically relevant evidence. I believe this is largely because we spent a significant time (2-3) days on the primary and secondary sources surrounding the event. There was also a concerted effort by at least half of the students to adopt a formal tone and rhetoric that would have appealed to the Ancient Athenian people. With the exception of a few anachronistic phrases, 11 of the students either scored a 4 or 5 for adopting a historical perspective different from their own. Amelia’s paper in particular, exemplifies efforts to adopt an Athenian tone.
-Is there any significant section of the artifact/evidence that highlights a need for improvement in my own teaching practices?
While many students attempted to develop a formal tone that considered their roles and the audience, it is important to note that students, also used arguments and language that were anachronistic. Although I wanted to see thoughtful language, the larger concern for me is the uses of an anachronistic argument. Understanding what arguments would be appealing to an audience of a specific historical context demonstrates one of the most important components of historical empathy. Ultimately, I wanted my students to be able to consider how a context results in opinions and perspectives different from their own. Tamara’s argument of Socrates sexuality exemplifies how many students’ still struggle with this concept. Athenians would have been more likely to identify with an argument that suggested Socrates’ ability to destabilize the fragile democracy as opposed to an argument that focused on his sexuality in a way that was not congruent with their own fluid concept of the term.
-Reflections and Room for Improvement
Previous to this analysis, I viewed historical empathy and historical imagination as complementary concepts. I assumed assignments that required one almost always entailed the other. However, interrogation and interpolation, a component of imagination, is not always suited for role-play assignments that require re-enactment and the adoption of a different perspective. I found that students, who excelled at interrogating the sources, did not successfully adopt a perspective and tone of a historical character. For example, Mathew received high marks at interrogation and interpolation but his academic voice and anachronistic terms prohibited him from presenting his argument in an Athenian perspective.
In contrast, Amelia excelled at developing a creative re-enactment voice but she did not include all of the most pertinent arguments. While Mathew highlighted Critias, an important argument for the prosecution, Amelia made only a vague reference to the event. Creative students, like Amelia, that do not necessarily excel in traditional classroom settings have a chance to shine in role-play assignments. But teachers still need to require a certain level of interrogation and interpolation from all students. I should have been more explicit with my expectations.
These inconsistent results are the product of an assignment that was poorly defined. I should have realized that if a student critically analyzed The Apology they would most likely stray from their adopted persona. I think if I conducted this lesson in the future I would have two sections of the paper; a historical analysis that focused on interrogation of the sources and a role-play assignment that allowed students to practice re-enactment. It would allow students, with different strengths, to express their understanding in a form that suits their strengths but also develop the form that they still struggle with. Creating two parts would also allow me to compare the student’s ability to write academically and creatively. I could gage how well their creative role-play perspective differs from their own academic perspective and voice.
Overwhelmingly, students excelled at utilizing historically relevant evidence. I believe this is largely because we spent a significant time (2-3) days on the primary and secondary sources surrounding the event. There was also a concerted effort by at least half of the students to adopt a formal tone and rhetoric that would have appealed to the Ancient Athenian people. With the exception of a few anachronistic phrases, 11 of the students either scored a 4 or 5 for adopting a historical perspective different from their own. Amelia’s paper in particular, exemplifies efforts to adopt an Athenian tone.
-Is there any significant section of the artifact/evidence that highlights a need for improvement in my own teaching practices?
While many students attempted to develop a formal tone that considered their roles and the audience, it is important to note that students, also used arguments and language that were anachronistic. Although I wanted to see thoughtful language, the larger concern for me is the uses of an anachronistic argument. Understanding what arguments would be appealing to an audience of a specific historical context demonstrates one of the most important components of historical empathy. Ultimately, I wanted my students to be able to consider how a context results in opinions and perspectives different from their own. Tamara’s argument of Socrates sexuality exemplifies how many students’ still struggle with this concept. Athenians would have been more likely to identify with an argument that suggested Socrates’ ability to destabilize the fragile democracy as opposed to an argument that focused on his sexuality in a way that was not congruent with their own fluid concept of the term.
-Reflections and Room for Improvement
Previous to this analysis, I viewed historical empathy and historical imagination as complementary concepts. I assumed assignments that required one almost always entailed the other. However, interrogation and interpolation, a component of imagination, is not always suited for role-play assignments that require re-enactment and the adoption of a different perspective. I found that students, who excelled at interrogating the sources, did not successfully adopt a perspective and tone of a historical character. For example, Mathew received high marks at interrogation and interpolation but his academic voice and anachronistic terms prohibited him from presenting his argument in an Athenian perspective.
In contrast, Amelia excelled at developing a creative re-enactment voice but she did not include all of the most pertinent arguments. While Mathew highlighted Critias, an important argument for the prosecution, Amelia made only a vague reference to the event. Creative students, like Amelia, that do not necessarily excel in traditional classroom settings have a chance to shine in role-play assignments. But teachers still need to require a certain level of interrogation and interpolation from all students. I should have been more explicit with my expectations.
These inconsistent results are the product of an assignment that was poorly defined. I should have realized that if a student critically analyzed The Apology they would most likely stray from their adopted persona. I think if I conducted this lesson in the future I would have two sections of the paper; a historical analysis that focused on interrogation of the sources and a role-play assignment that allowed students to practice re-enactment. It would allow students, with different strengths, to express their understanding in a form that suits their strengths but also develop the form that they still struggle with. Creating two parts would also allow me to compare the student’s ability to write academically and creatively. I could gage how well their creative role-play perspective differs from their own academic perspective and voice.