CLASSICS & COMPUTERS: GRUBER-MILLER (con't.)

back to December 2002 frontpage

The workshop began with a flight to Austin, Texas, followed by a 45-minute drive to Georgetown and Southwestern University, home of the ACS Technology Center. After barely enough time to unpack, we were at once treated to a festive, communal meal at a local Tex-Mex restaurant where we had the chance to meet participants from the Greek Seminar (Hellenistic Literature) and the Latin Seminar (Medieval Latin). The next day (Wednesday), the two groups met together to learn about the new ACS course delivery system and tips for putting together an on-line lecture. In fact, the new course delivery system requires no sophisticated technology and is simple enough that even inexperienced computer users can participate in the course: preparing lectures or participating in chat sessions is just a matter of point and click. Moreover, Suzanne Bonefas and the rest of the ACS Technology Center Staff are well-prepared to assist professors and students with any trouble that might arise. The other major topic of the day was a discussion of a new, wide-ranging assessment of the Sunoikisis Project by Mellon: how it’s working after several years, ways to improve it, ways to get more people involved. The preliminary and final reports should be most helpful to ACM/GLCA Classicists in deciding in what ways we might like to emulate Sunoikisis. In short, Tuesday night and Wednesday was devoted to helping people get to know where Sunoikisis is heading and getting to know colleagues in both the Greek and Latin Seminars.

Thursday through Saturday was devoted to planning the Medieval Latin course, which is available to both intermediate and advanced Latin students (syllabus available here; see esp. the Schedule of Assignments). Participants of the Medieval Latin Seminar planning group included myself, Hal Haskell (Southwestern University), Kenny Morrell (Rhodes College), John Quinn (Hope College), Susanne Hofstra (Rhodes College), and Rebecca Resinski (Hendrix College). Our two co-leaders were Anne Leen (Furman University) and Glenda Carl (Southwestern University). We were also fortunate to have Cynthia White (University of Arizona), Mellon Lecturer for the course, whose expertise was invaluable in helping us design the course. The course has three major components each week: 1) an on-line lecture with an on-line chat for students to ask questions and make comments both during and after the lecture; 2) a list of (usually) three study questions that students respond to and then post their responses on-line; and 3) a face-to-face meeting with one’s own students to read the Latin and to continue discussion of the lecture and readings.

Over the next several days, we essentially made several “runs” at developing a syllabus. Our first task was developing a reading list. Since we had to cover over a thousand years of Latin literature, the goal was to find readings that adequately represented such a long time period. We also wanted to make sure that the length of readings for each week was about 600 words for intermediate students and 1000 words for advanced students. Some additional primary texts in English translation were chosen to help provide background for the Latin passages. We also spent time developing themes for each week and organizing the readings around those themes. In our second run through the syllabus, we came up with lecture topics for each week, chose lecturers (I was chosen to speak about Constantine Week 3), and listed topics that we hoped would be covered in each lecture. In our third pass through the syllabus, we had to come up with three study questions for each week, one that focused on a close reading of one or more texts, another that asked students to synthesize various readings on a particular topic, and one that asked students to apply the material studied to their own lives. My favorite assignment (not a typical study question) asked the students to explore the effect that different presentations of a passage from the Bible (manuscript, printed book, web version, and students’ own hand-written version of the text) affected the way they read, understand, and value the text being read.

When we were not working on details of the syllabus, we were busy preparing and delivering reports on various background readings on the Middle Ages and Medieval Latin literature. The broad topics included religion, education and revivals of learning in the Middle Ages, ethnicity, and gender. I reported on Hiberno-Latin (Latin in Ireland from 500-800) and Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim, a poet and playwright who wrote, among other things, six plays in the manner of Terence. The readings and reports helped put me on firmer ground if I were to teach such a course. Although we frequently worked into the early evening, the end result was a course that is more coherent and better planned than a course designed by only one of us. In short, it was a short course on Medieval Latin.

What does the Sunoikisis model hold for Classicists in the ACM/GLCA? I can see many benefits. First, it allows us to offer an upper-level Greek or Latin course for our majors that might never get offered in a department of one, two, or even three Classicists. Second, each course—from planning stages to the actual implementation of the course to the archives for the course—provide a great opportunity for collaboration. As a faculty participant, I had the chance to meet and work together with faculty who teach at schools like my own on a common course. And students who participate from different campuses learn from each other and realize that there are other students out there who care about Greek and Latin and the pre-modern world. In both cases, Sunoikisis reduces our isolation and reinforces our common goals as teachers of the ancient and medieval world. Finally, the Seminar is a faculty development opportunity. I not only learned a great deal about Medieval Latin, but also about practical pedagogy as we discussed background readings, negotiated the topics, themes, and study questions for the course. Now wish me luck as I prepare to give my first on-line lecture in early October!

John Quinn's Quick Follow-Up Before Going to Press:
John Gruber-Miller's lecture was a success, and I even managed to survive my own lecture a week later. The relationship between Sunoikisis and the ACM/GLCA was further strengthened by the enrollment of students from Cornell and Wabash colleges in the course. Sunoikisis welcomes further participation from us: plan this spring to get yourself and/or your students involved in a language course in the fall of 2003!

Sunoikisis' good work has been garnering good publicity. Did you see the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education by David L. Kirp and Jonathan VanAntwerpen, "Academic E-Collaborations and Old-School Rivalries" (June 28, 2002, p.B16)? Here is part of what they wrote:

As a visit to one of Sunoikisis' online classes confirms, it is a pedagogically daunting
task to design courses that coordinate on-line lectures -- RealPlayer delivering
streaming audio, students posing questions to the professor and to one another
via a virtual chat-room -- with classroom teaching and the Oxbridge-style tutorials
that classics professors rely on. But by all accounts, the new courses are intellectually
challenging and academically first-rate.

Much more on Sunoikisis will be found in the authors' forthcoming book, Higher Education Goes to Market (Harvard University Press).