[[Original Post Date: February 28, 2018]]
The World History survey is perhaps the most influential history class at Auburn University. It's influential because it exposes undergraduates to the largest scope and scale of any history class they will take, and because it's included in the core curriculum. AU Students must take either the World History or World Literature surveys in order to graduate. That keeps enrollments high and steady throughout the entire year (including summer sessions). For many Auburn students, these will be the only history classes they take in college.
When it came time for me to finally start teaching classes as a graduate student in the summer of 2016, I adopted the Reacting to the Past (RTTP) "Democracy in Athens" micro-game for my World History I (HIST 1010) section. RTTP is an immersive game that assigns roles to students who are expected to sway an undetermined or undecided group of their classmates during a historical debate. My class was a mini-mester, meeting each day over the course of five weeks, and I thought that this type of role-playing exercise would help break up the monotony of class-discussions. The enrollment for that class was small (a little more than 20), so everyone had a chance to debate based upon their factional role sheets. It was wildly successful, and most students mentioned that game during their course evaluations as something they really enjoyed. I was converted.
The following semester, in Fall 2016, I was assigned to lead discussions sections for World History I. We all knew as discussion section leaders going into the semester that our lead professor would take time off to give birth, so we collectively decided to run the same RTTP game, although instead of it being a one off debate regarding the Reconciliation Agreement after the Peloponnesian War (the topic of debate in the micro-game), we followed the session schedule in the text and had 3 days of extended discussion relating to not only the internal tensions presented by the Thirty Tyrants, but also citizenship and foreign policy. One of my discussion sections really got into it, and it took the other a bit longer to get the swing of things, but overall the students were satisfied and engaged with the entire game. If anything, they wished we spent more time with preparatory sessions so they could become even more immersed in the social, cultural, and political norms of Athens' golden age.
This year I was fortunate enough to receive a Graduate Instructor Fellowship through the History Department, which allows me a little extra time to finish up my dissertation with a light teaching load. I've been assigned World History I in both the fall and spring semesters. When I got word that these would be the classes I'd be teaching this year, I knew I wanted to try and adapt the Athens game, which I now felt very comfortable with, to a larger classroom. My summer class began with an enrollment of 30, but it dropped to 24 quickly. My discussion sections ranged from 28 to 35 students. These are perfect sizes for RTTP games, as each student is assigned a specific role. But my enrollment for Fall 2017 was 140, a high number not unusual for a typical World History survey at Auburn, which is usually capped at 225 (only Honors History courses and individual discussion sections have enrollments of 35 or less).
Because of the high enrollment in my section, I was going to have to make some significant changes for RTTP to work. I wanted to avoid assigning multiple students the same role - the game would suffer if I had 3 or 4 Thrasybuluses running around trying to exile (or worse) the oligarchs. My own approach to teaching World History played a role in some of my decision making: I was initially unwilling to devote more than a week's worth of classes in my semester to Ancient Greece. Because this was a world history survey, not a western civilization survey, I try to avoid being too Eurocentric in focus. I simply couldn't afford to spend weeks on a game dealing with Ancient Greece. I hoped that three classes would do the trick: two preparatory sessions, one on Greece's contributions to the western intellectual tradition and another comparing and contrasting Greek city-states with the Achaemenid Empire, would give the necessary background leading up to a class devoted exclusively to debating the following question: "Should Athens adopt the Reconciliation Agreement or not?" This was the only topic that students were required to or expected to vote on, although if they wished, they could introduce other laws to vote on as well.
I split students along the usual ratios for this RTTP game: a third as indeterminates, a third as democrats (split between moderates and radicals), and a third as oligarchs and their Socratic sympathizers. However, I abandoned assigned specific character roles because of the high number of students. Instead, I only assigned factional affiliation. Instead, students would be responsible for doing their own research and creating their own historical characters. The assignment prompt read as follows:
This grade has two components: (1) the in-class debate and vote(s), and (2) a short 500-750 word “unessay” that will also be handed in on September 29. This “unessay” will act as an original biography that explains your character’s rationale for their factional affiliation and political beliefs (or lack thereof). Each “unessay” MUST include the following information:
Name and Age of Your Fictional Historical Character (remember, it must be Greek!)
Occupation of Fictional Historical Character (i.e. how does this individual make a living?)
Reasoning for Factional Affiliation (i.e., what matters most to this individual? are they driven by personal experience or ideology? are they willing to negotiate or not?)
Use your imagination as well as personal research into the Peloponnesian War and Athenian culture in order to create the most well-rounded character. In addition to the materials provided on CANVAS, students are required to cite at least two secondary sources when composing their “unessay.” For example, if your character is an Oligarch, you can include details regarding how his (and since this a Greek assembly, only men could participate - unless a women was in disguise!) family accumulated wealth.
I liked the idea of students developing their own characters for a number of reasons: it would get them into the library (or at the very least, the library's website) to do some independent research, and perhaps provide them some personal investment in their character (and therefore the overall outcome of the debate). It also would allow students a level of creative leverage that is usually not associated with historical research assignments. While they couldn't control their ideological viewpoint (whether a moderate or radical democrat, oligarch, follower of Socrates, or undecided), they did have the freedom to control their character's occupations and interests. I hoped this would make it a little easier for my students to step into the shoes of someone in the past, and cultivate some historical empathy.
The in-class debate was wildly successful. Many more students than I expected came to class in costumes (as you can see in the first image on this post, one young women actually brought real olive vines and used them as hair accessories!). They relished the opening prayers and sacrifice, and we had a vigorous debate. Like my students, I dressed up as Athena (I'm sure there are still photos of me in battle gear and a dress floating around on student's phones), and helped encourage discussion as the omnipotent Game Master. I knew going in to the debate that there was the potential that not everyone would be able to give a speech (there was no way to ensure that all 140 students enrolled in the class would be able to give a speech in a 50-minute debate), but I was encouraged by the fact that we ran out of time so quickly. I was floored - it worked! We had a wonderful debate that highlighted the advantages and limitations to democratic and oligarchical forms of government, driven by students' contributions in the form of speeches they crafted based on their historical character's biography. It. Was. Awesome.
The success of fall semester got me very excited about the spring. Although the enrollment in my spring course was even larger - 220 students - I felt like I'd be able to make some minor changes to get the same enthusiastic results. I made the required paper a little longer (from 500-750 words to 750-1000 words) to give the students more opportunities to give biographical details while also convincingly addressing their character's political viewpoints. I made sure I secured a lectern for the classroom so there would be a designated podium for students to give their speeches instead of just having factions yell at each other from across the room (which is what happened organically in the fall). Significantly, I also doubled the number of game sessions from 1 to 2. I didn't want to replicate the disappointment some students had in the fall because they didn't have an opportunity to speak, so I figured having two class days would guarantee everyone a chance to have their say. It did take a couple of minutes for students to get into the swing of things during the fall game sessions, so I thought that having a day in which some students who may be nervous about how they should act or perform would be helpful because they could observe their classmates and get more comfortable with the exercise overall. Additionally, students would be able to use the time between classes in order to refine their arguments without dealing with the pressure of having to give an on-the-spot response. I even made sure that I would formulate a slide that reminded students of the main topics and point of each faction's arguments after the first game session (see the image below). The first game session went smoothly, although one of the factions (the oligarchs) came to dominate the debate. I was excited to see how the discussion would continue into the second day.
It flubbed. PAINFULLY.
I was flabbergasted. How did the game get derailed so quickly? The second session opened with a handful of indeterminates making provocative speeches to open the assembly. But with the exception of two young women (acting as men, of course, because women were denied citizenship in ancient Athens and therefore could not participate in the assembly), the entire Democrat faction (both moderates and radicals) failed to take part in the debate. I'm not sure what brought about this attitude shift, but even the chiding and coaxing (and at one point, outright pleading) of their Indeterminate and Oligarch classmates failed to elicit any reaction. They were entrenched, and having none of the exercise.
Reflecting back, I can identify some reasons why this happened. The size of the class may have had something to do with it. 220 students is A LOT. When I positioned the lectern as the only place to give a speech, I (inadvertently) ensured that all attention would have been directed towards any student getting up to talk. During the previous fall, students could take comfort in knowing that they were surrounded by their factional allies. They could blend in, and easily defer to a classmate if they were at a loss for words. The lectern created a spotlight that probably intimidated some students. it's not easy to get in from of 200+ people and deliver a speech. I imagine the current political climate also may have had something to do with the debate being dominated by the oligarchs. Everyone has been hearing for months how inept and unprepared this presidential administration is, so overall (even if their factional allegiance cautioned against it) some students' personal political preferences may have sided with the arguments presented by the oligarchs and (especially) the Socratics. There also remains the (quite unfulfilling) possibility that it could have simply been bad luck; I organized factional affiliation according to last name, and that particular group (with few exceptions) simply wasn't buying the game or interested enough in abandoning caution to come to the defense of democracy.
All things considered, however, to have only one really rough game session out of four total semesters is still a pretty impressive success rate. I've learned from each of my experiences as a Game Master and look forward to my next RTTP session: this summer in my American Revolution class, when we debate patriotism and loyalism in 1775 New York City!
Comments