reading a Latin narrative: a case study of a Year 9 class in a mixed … · 2012. 7. 3. · students – are required to study Latin during their first year, after which Latin becomes

James Watson Assignment 1C PGCE Classics

1

Developing pupils’ understanding of ancient and modern politics through

reading a Latin narrative: a case study of a Year 9 class in a mixed-ability

comprehensive school

Introduction

If Classics is to help people to live, then a great many questions must be

asked of the Ancient World, to which answers can be discovered...that will

shed light on the choices perennially open to human beings and to human

societies in the conduct of their affairs. (Sharwood Smith, 1977, p. 4)

Of the many potential justifications which could be offered for the continuing

place of Classics in the school curriculum, a position of importance must be given to

the subject’s “capacity to increase pupils’ understanding of themselves and the world

in which they live” (DES, 1988, p. 2). Study of antiquity is able to give students

“insight into elements of western European and other societies: language, literature,

law, attitudes to religion, civil engineering and technology, and political structures”

(CSCP, 1999, p. 7). In this assignment, I present a case study of how students might

gain an insight into modern politics through the medium of learning about Roman

politics from a widely-available and widely-used resource, Stage 11 of the

Cambridge Latin Course (CLC) (CSCP, 2002).

Although it has now been possible for many years for school pupils to learn

about Greco-Roman antiquity without learning either Latin or Greek, by taking a

course in Classical Civilisation, it remains the case that those who do learn an

ancient language gain access to ancient literature in its original form, and thus come

closer to an original ancient thought. Furthermore, it is because reading Greek or

Roman texts in the language in which they were first composed considerably

enriches an understanding of ancient culture that learning Latin and Greek continue

to be such a desirable part of a classical education. One motivation behind this

research project was a wish to investigate the extent to which a class was already

aware, and could be made more aware, of the value of Latin stories themselves as

evidence for Roman antiquity.


2

A second motivation arose from observation of lessons during my first

professional placement, at a mixed comprehensive school in Peterborough. In that

school, I observed a Year 9 Latin class which – due to increased numbers studying

Latin in the school – had to be taught by two non-specialist teachers: one taught

them the ‘language’ aspects of the subject, the other the ‘cultural background’.

Although this arrangement did not seem to impair the students’ enjoyment of Latin, it

was unsatisfactory: when, for example, the reading of a Latin story provoked

questions about its content (rather than its grammar), the students were asked to

save their questions until their ‘background lesson’, which took place several days

later. This prompted a dislocation of their learning, as by the time of the ‘background

lesson’, the interest that had been stimulated by the story had been forgotten, and

the particular points raised by the story could no longer be linked seamlessly into a

discussion of the topic. Observing this class emphasised the way in which the

reading of Latin stories – even when those stories had been specially constructed in

modern times for school use – can raise issues of and generate excitement about

‘cultural background’ by themselves – without any need to turn to the ‘background’

section of a textbook. Additionally, my observations showed me how important it is

for the linguistic and paralinguistic elements of Latin to be taught alongside each

other in a single lesson, rather than quite separately.

I therefore determined, with this research project, to explore how a Latin text

might be used as the main source for learning not only a new grammar feature but

also about a feature of Roman life and culture – but this was not my sole aim. For, as

Sharwood Smith notes in the quotation with which I began, study of Classics – in this

case Latin – can give access to an improved understanding not only of the ancient

world but of the modern world too. At a time when Classicists have realised that this

potential of their subject has much to contribute within the ‘new’ subject of

Citizenship (Copson, 2006), I was keen also to test out a series of lessons which did

indeed seek to develop students’ understanding of their place in the modern world as

much as to inform them about the Roman world.

My research was carried out during my second professional placement, at a

mixed comprehensive upper school in Hertfordshire. The school is situated in a small

market town but attracts students from a wide, predominantly rural area in the north-


3

east of the county. Those students considered to have a high aptitude for languages

(as assessed before they join the school by the verbal Cognitive Abilities Test) – who

on arrival at the school form two of eight Year 9 teaching groups, each of thirty

students – are required to study Latin during their first year, after which Latin

becomes optional for GCSE and A Level. The class with which I carried out this

research project was one of those two Year 9 Latin classes, comprising nineteen

girls and eleven boys. Although all students in the class are considered to be

linguistically gifted, a range of abilities is nevertheless present within the class; one

pupil in the class is named on the school SEN register as he has difficulties with

listening and has some behavioural issues, but the class does not receive support

from a teaching assistant. The class has two one-hour lessons every week, and by

the time of my research, had been learning Latin for approximately six months; I had

taught the class for three weeks by the time my research lessons took place. This

school does not teach Citizenship in a timetabled slot, but organises a number of

PSHCRE (Personal, Social, Health, Citizenship and Religious Education) Days for

the whole school during the course of the year to satisfy requirements for Citizenship

education.

I chose to base my research with this class around their study of Stage 11 of

the CLC, “candidati”, which focuses on local elections in Pompeii. This stage was

chosen partly to fit in with the class’s scheme of learning, but also because the

subject matter was particularly suitable for a study seeking to investigate how

Classics might contribute to Citizenship. The subject matter also seemed peculiarly

relevant as a General Election in the UK was known to be imminent at the time of my

research, even if the date of the election was not announced until several weeks

later.

Literature review

Although calls for “Citizenship” to be part of the school curriculum have been

made since at least the 1930s, this subject has only become formalised in British

schools since the introduction of the Citizenship cross-curricular National Curriculum

‘theme’ in 1990 and, above all, since “Citizenship became a Foundation Subject of

the National Curriculum at key stages 3 and 4” in 2002 (Beck, 2003, p. 159).


4

Although there continues to be some debate about what Citizenship should be – “is it

a conglomeration of facts about the democratic system of government in the UK

which are to be learned, or an opportunity to participate in the democratic process, or

a mixture of both...?” (Brandom, 2007, p. 275) – programmes of study now exist for

the subject (QCA, 2007), and it is a statutory requirement for schools to teach

Citizenship to their pupils. As noted by Brandom (2007, p. 269), “the model of

citizenship education put forward in the Orders emphasizes the need for pupils to

have knowledge, skills and understanding of their role in society in order that they

might better understand what participation in a variety of arenas might actually look

like.”

Beck (2003) has observed the extent to which the current Citizenship

programmes of study have their roots in the conception of citizenship first proposed

by Marshall in 1950. Marshall saw citizenship as comprising three distinct but

interwoven strands: civic rights, political rights, and social rights. The range and

content of Citizenship to be covered at Key Stages 3 and 4 (QCA, 2007) includes

each of Marshall’s strands, but the programme also emphasises that Citizenship is

not merely a subject to be taught: students should also learn by participating in

“citizenship activities” and in “individual and collective action.” For citizenship

education to be effective, it is suggested, it needs to go beyond the teaching of facts:

“pupils need to own the process of democracy, not just be taught about it” (Brandom,

2007, p. 277).

Although the “content” of Citizenship is thus clearly defined by the National

Curriculum, the way in which that content is to be delivered is left very much for

individual schools to decide. Some schools teach Citizenship in designated timetable

slots – whether a regular (‘weekly’) slot or else, as with the school in which I carried

out this research, on less frequent, special ‘citizenship days’. But it is also possible

for Citizenship education to be delivered through other subjects; indeed, the

programme of work makes it clear that a school’s Citizenship curriculum should

“make links between citizenship and work in other subjects and areas of the

curriculum” (QCA, 2007). As Classics teachers have been quick to realise, theirs is

an excellent subject for addressing areas of Citizenship.


5

Although as long ago as the 1930s Classics was seen to be just as suitable

for the teaching of Citizenship as History and Politics (see AEC, 1935), the recent

formalisation of Citizenship in schools has prompted much work by Classicists to see

how their subject can contribute to the teaching of Citizenship. Sometimes, such

work serves a double purpose, by seeking also to justify the place of Classics in

schools at all. As Lister (2007, p. 159) notes,

Overcoming misconceptions about classics is an important first step in

persuading staffroom doubters that classics has a right to be included in the

curriculum; and if...the classics department is seen also to make a significant

contribution to the teaching of citizenship, classics is all the more likely to gain

acceptance with colleagues.

Nevertheless, it would be hard to deny that “in its history and literature...Classics has

something distinctive to offer Citizenship” (Copson, 2006, p. 4). Quite apart from the

fact that many modern political and legal structures have their origins in antiquity,

meaningful comparisons can be made between modern citizens and the inhabitants

of ancient Greece and Rome and their experiences of government. Although

“Citizenship can give to Classics the chance to show that its content is both topical

and timeless” (Copson, 2006), thoughtful teaching by Classicists in return may

provide many opportunities for the teaching of Citizenship.

Some of those opportunities have been identified by the Cambridge School

Classics Project (CSCP) in a document which suggests how the CLC may be used

to teach Citizenship (CSCP, date unknown). It notes that “much of the political

vocabulary used today...is derived from Latin, and students can learn this difficult

terminology through Latin” and that “the highly-politicised Roman society, with its

degrees of citizenship and belonging, is an appropriate basis for the examination of

citizenship issues in today’s world” (CSCP, date unknown, p. 1). The document also

identifies certain stages from the first two books of the CLC – including Stage 11 –

“which provide particular opportunities for stimulating discussion of citizenship”

(CSCP, date unknown, p. 1).

It is important, however, for Classicists to recognise that


6

If a contribution from Classics is to be officially classified as part of a school’s

citizenship curriculum, the element of a lesson which is to do with citizenship

must be pronounced – it is not sufficient merely to identify the common

elements of Classics and citizenship; the links between what is being taught in

Classics and the Citizenship curriculum must be clear. (Copson, 2006, p. 4)

More bluntly, Classicists wanting to teach Citizenship as well as their own subject

need to think carefully about how to ensure that students will leave such lessons

informed about modern times as well as antiquity. How to engage students in the

issues of Citizenship – which, as noted above, they should learn about through

participation as much as through the acquisition of new facts – is an important

question for Classicists (and others) to address.

In this context, investigations into increasing student engagement and

motivation should be considered. Brewster and Fager (2000), through research in a

number of schools in the United States, indicated the benefits for students who have

‘intrinsic motivation’ – students who are motivated not by the expectation of a reward

(or threat of a punishment), but from “within”; such benefits include the attainment of

higher grades and longer retention of information. The researchers go on to suggest

how such ‘intrinsic motivation’ may be encouraged by making schoolwork more

engaging. They note that “students are more engaged in activities when they can

build on prior knowledge and draw clear connections between what they are learning

and the world they live in”, and suggest that teachers should “arouse students’

curiosity about the topic being studied...[by] giving students an opportunity to direct

inquiry and ‘discover for themselves’” (Brewster & Fager, 2000, pp. 14-15). They

also observe that “active parent involvement has been associated with numerous

benefits for students, including increasing student motivation and engagement in

school” (Brewster & Fager, 2000, p. 22). In the learning of Citizenship, parents – full

citizens in a way their children are not – may have a peculiarly important role to play.

Overall, as some of the content of Citizenship might appear somewhat ‘dry’ to

students, suggestions for how to generate intrinsic motivation within pupils is

certainly apposite.


7

Brewster and Fager’s recommendation that the curiosity of students needs to

be aroused can be linked to another area of recent research – the potential role of

storytelling to promote effective learning. Bage (1999, p. 1) has argued that “stories

and histories are practical methods to teach through.” For those seeking to enthuse

students, his observation that “reading or hearing history stories can be more

authentic and accurate than working through textbooks” (Bage, 1999, p. 23) is

pertinent. Such research has illuminated why narratives are so good to teach with.

Bage (1999, p. 24) cites the comment of Perera that “the facts conveyed incidentally

in stories are often more memorable than those deliberately set out in textbooks”,

whilst he himself notes (citing Fines) “that storytelling brings motivational suspense

to teaching by treating ‘history as a forward moving development...rather than a

backward-looking analysis or explanation’” (1999, p. 26). Back in 1993, the National

Curriculum Council advocated the use of story at Key Stage 1 as it “appeals to

children’s curiosity, emotions and imagination. It is an effective way of extending

vocabulary, introducing new knowledge and addressing moral issues” (NCC, 1993,

p. 33). Couched in those terms, it can readily be seen how the use of a story

narrative might be able to contribute both to the teaching of citizenship and the

engenderment of intrinsic motivation amongst students.

Here, again, Classicists – who have recently been made aware of the benefits

of storytelling for stimulating pupil interest and promoting long-term retention of

information through the successful use of the audio-story “War with Troy” in primary

schools (Lister, 2007) – may be especially well-placed to contribute to Citizenship

education. The CLC – the Latin textbook used in the majority of those schools which

teach Latin today – is story-based, and the potential benefits of its narrative

approach for the teaching of Citizenship (as well as for Classics) should now be

recognised. Although CSCP, when identifying the way in which the CLC could be

used to teach Citizenship, did not emphasise the potential of using its story format,

the research of Bage (1999), together with that of Brewster and Fager (2000), should

make us realise still further what a valuable resource for teaching Citizenship most

Classics teachers already possess.

Ironically, though, the story contained within Stage 11 of the CLC – the stage

which is the focus of my research, and one of those identified by CSCP as highly


8

relevant for citizenship education – tends to be criticised or abridged. Whether

because of its subject matter (local elections) or because two of the stories do not

feature any of Book 1’s main characters, Stage 11 has a reputation amongst

Classics teachers for being ‘dull’. Furthermore, CSCP itself gives the impression that

one of the stories, “Lucius Spurius Pomponianus”, is unimportant; the teacher’s

guide remarks that “If time is short, [it] can be omitted or postponed until a Friday

afternoon...” (CSCP, 1999, p. 81).

Reading through Stage 11, however, it becomes clear that the stories in the

stage have been carefully constructed to introduce much of the material that

subsequently receives treatment in the ‘background information’ section at the end of

the Stage. In the ‘model sentences’, we are introduced to the way in which

candidates for local office in Pompeii were supported by particular factions of the

community; in “Marcus et Quartus”, we read several different reasons why a

candidate might gain support and find out about the electoral slogans that were

daubed onto the walls of Pompeii’s houses – a concept further developed in “Sulla”.

Then, in “Lucius Spurius Pomponianus”, we find that this election involved bribery

and violence, see campaigning in action, and discover who was, and who was not,

allowed to vote in Pompeii. Given the value assigned to storytelling above, the

realisation that much of the ‘civilisation’ content of Stage 11 can actually be raised

just by reading the Latin stories suggests that the omitting of “Lucius Spurius

Pomponianus” may be unwise, and was another motivating factor behind my

research.

Methodology and Method

My research therefore had two principal aims. First, I wanted to investigate

students’ response to learning about Roman civilisation without using the

‘background information’ section of the textbook (or, for that matter, the “Political

Life” video available on the CLC e-Learning Resource (CSCP, 2005)), but rather by

allowing the issues to arise ‘naturally’ through reading the stories of CLC Stage 11.

Second, I wanted to see the extent to which such a reading of Stage 11 could then

be used as a springboard to developing students’ understanding of modern politics.

On the one hand, therefore, my research contributes to ongoing work on how


9

Classics can best contribute to the teaching of Citizenship; on the other hand, my

research also investigates the pedagogy of Classics itself.

In many respects, my research took the form of a case study, in that my aim

was partly “to portray, analyse and interpret the uniqueness of real individuals and

situations” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, p. 85) by investigating how my class of

thirty students responded to our work on politics. Case studies constitute a key

method of conducting a “naturalistic enquiry”, that is “an investigation into a specific

instance or phenomenon in its real-life context” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, p.

170).

In other respects, however, my research differed from the standard model of a

case study. As I had decided deliberately to teach Stage 11 without consulting the

‘background section’ of the textbook, I was altering the way in which students usually

encounter the material. That what I was doing differed from the ‘normal practice’ of

the school is shown by the experience of the other Year 9 Latin class, which

continued to be taught by my mentor, and whose students approached Roman and

modern politics through Stage 11 by combining their reading of the Latin stories with

study of the ‘background section’ and watching the “Political Life” video from the e-

Learning Resource. Since my aim was partly “to plan, implement, review and

evaluate an intervention designed to improve practice” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison,

2007, p. 85), I was conducting a piece of action research alongside the case study.

Due to the interventionist nature of (part of) my research, I needed a way to

gauge whether my lessons based around Stage 11 had any effect on the students. I

therefore decided to issue a questionnaire to all students at the beginning of my

research, and then to issue a second questionnaire to them after the lessons had

been completed. In Questionnaire 1 (Appendix 1), I was keen to assess the students’

awareness of modern politics but also their experience of studying Latin and

Citizenship prior to my research period. For the former, I presented a series of

questions about modern politics, which in some ways resembled a factual test; the

content of the questions I based on the material that those seeking British citizenship

(or to settle in the UK) must know for the “Life in the UK Test” administered by the

Home Office (HMSO, 2003). For the latter, I chiefly asked students to complete


10

rating scales as a means of expressing their views on different aspects of Latin and

sources of information used in Latin lessons. For Questionnaire 2 (Appendix 2), I

again tested students’ knowledge of modern politics through a series of factual

questions, and now added some questions about politics in Pompeii too. I also asked

students to complete rating scales to express their views on the different stories in

Stage 11 and the sources of information they had used during my research period. In

Questionnaire 2 I also gave students the opportunity to write comments in response

to certain questions. Once the class had finished the whole of CLC Book 1, I also

gave the students a questionnaire drawn up by the CSCP (Appendix 3), which

invites comments on which characters and stories in Book 1 students have enjoyed;

this questionnaire I hoped would provide additional data relevant to my study.

I decided to use questionnaires as they are a convenient method of collecting

data from a whole class; by ensuring the students named their questionnaires (after I

had explained to them that their names would not appear in my research), I would

also be able to track the development of individuals through analysis of the data

collected. Furthermore, by giving a questionnaire to the whole class, I was able to

gather data about the ‘whole population’ of my case study, rather than just a sample.

Given the small size of that ‘whole population’ (thirty students), I felt that the more

data that could be collected, the more reliable my findings would be. Although my

research makes no claims to be a comprehensive survey, and did not therefore aim

at the “gathering [of] large-scale data in order to make generalizations” (Cohen,

Manion & Morrison, 2007, p. 84), collecting data about thirty student nonetheless

also gave scope for some very limited statistics to be compiled. I note the

observation that “a sample size of thirty is held by many to be the minimum number

of cases if researchers plan to use some form of statistical analysis on their data”

(Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, p. 101) as justification for this.

To improve the sense of the “perceptions and views of participants” (Cohen,

Manion & Morrison, 2007, p. 84) gained from the questionnaires, I also made notes

of observations made during the lessons. Observation is recognised as being one of

“the main methods for data collection in naturalistic inquiry” (Cohen, Manion &

Morrison, 2007, p. 170), and by speaking to students during my lessons, and also

just by observing their work and listening to their remarks, I was able to add some


11

flesh to the skeleton provided by the questionnaires. Further flesh was added by

conducting careful scrutiny of the students’ exercise books after they had completed

their work on Stage 11. Such work constitutes a piece of documentary analysis, a

strategy I included in my research as a means of further assessing how students

responded to our work on Stage 11 and to investigate whether students had gained

an improved understanding of ancient and/or modern politics, even if such an

impression had not been shown by their questionnaire answers.

As my research includes an element of action research, I offer an outline of

the way in which I taught the lessons on which my research is based. Three one-

hour lessons, and one homework slot (after the first lesson), all of which took place

within the space of seven days, were available to me (as part of the departmental

scheme of learning) to teach Stage 11. In the first lesson, I explained to the students

that I was conducting some research and asked them to complete Questionnaire 1.

We then looked at the ‘model sentences’ (CSCP, 2002, pp. 146-147) to establish the

local election context of Stage 11, and then read the story “Marcus et Quartus”

(CSCP, 2002, p. 148), after which we discussed possible reasons why citizens in

Pompeii would have supported particular candidates and the concept of (ancient)

election slogans. For homework after this lesson, I asked students to look back over

the ‘model sentences’ and “Marcus et Quartus” and to make notes in their exercise

books on the information those stories contained about elections, and then to

compare that information with details of modern elections, which I advised them to

find out by talking to an adult (for example, a parent) at home. I was interested to see

the outcome of this last stage of the homework given the comments noted above by

Brewster and Fager (2000) on the potential for parents to play a role in developing

intrinsic motivation for students.

In the second lesson, I began by summarising the content of the story “Sulla”

(CSCP, 2002, p. 149), which we did not have time to read as a class. I was content

not to read this story fully, as it raises no new concepts about elections, and also

because it is not essential to have read this story to follow the storyline of the whole

stage. Students then spent a few moments creating their own Pompeii-style electoral

slogan in Latin, based on a formula and some suggested Roman names displayed

on a PowerPoint slide – an activity designed, in part, to reinforce the idea of verbs


12

that take the dative case, the main grammar point of Stage 11. We then discussed

the differences between ancient and modern political advertisements (using

PowerPoint slides with pictures of several modern examples), and students added to

the notes produced for homework. We then began reading “Lucius Spurius

Pomponianus”, focusing on the sections “in villa” and “prope amphitheatrum” (CSCP,

2002, pp. 151-152), and discussing issues as they arose. (The PowerPoint

presentation used in this lesson is shown in Appendix 7).

At the start of the third lesson, students made a note about the use of verbs

with the dative case. We finished reading “Lucius Spurius Pomponianus”, looking at

the “in foro” and “in culina” sections of the story (CSCP, 2002, pp. 152-153) and the

issues they raise about the elections. We also discussed more details of politics in

Pompeii, using pictures from the textbook as our starting point. As there are some

details about politics in Pompeii that are not raised by reading the stories – for

example, the titles and duties of Duoviri and Aediles – I wanted to discuss those and,

since I did not want to use the text of the ‘background section’, I copied pictures from

p. 153 and p. 159 of the textbook (which include abbreviations of the words “Duovir”

and “Aedilis”) on to a PowerPoint as a way into a discussion. Although I had to

explain details to the students, I felt that approaching it in this way still allowed the

“background” information to arise from reading Latin. We then discussed the role of

the local council in Pompeii, and compared it to local government in Hertfordshire

(where there is a three-tier system of County, District and Town/Parish councils); the

students then shared their existing knowledge of the services provided by local

councils today to complete a worksheet, based on the “Local Government Activity

Sheet” available on the CLC e-Learning Resource (CSCP, 2005). (Resources used

in this lesson are collected in Appendix 8). At the end of this third lesson I collected

in the students’ exercise books for marking and analysis.

Two-and-a-half weeks after the third lesson, I asked the class to complete

Questionnaire 2; I had delayed issuing this second questionnaire to judge the extent

to which material from our lessons on Stage 11 had been remembered. A week later,

by which point the class had finished Stage 12 and thus the whole of CLC Book 1,

the students completed the third, CSCP-produced questionnaire.


13

Findings and analysis

Before turning to a presentation of my findings and an analysis of them, I

present an overview of real and potential problems with my research, which ensure

than any conclusions drawn from my findings must be considered provisional. As my

research was based on one class in one school, the extent to which my findings

apply more generally, beyond the specific context I investigated, may be questioned.

Despite this, as a detailed study of one class, I hope that my findings will at least be

of interest to those in other situations who may be faced with similar problems.

Indeed, as Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007, p. 148) note, even if “the premises of

naturalistic studies include the uniqueness and idiosyncrasy of situations, such that

the study cannot be replicated... that is their strength rather than their weakness.”

I am aware of three particular issues that may have affected my research.

First, I cannot be sure that students did not read the ‘background information’ section

of Stage 11 in their own time. Although at no stage did I ask the class to read the text

of this section, at least one student did (Pupil E, who revealed in Questionnaire 2

that she had read it). Furthermore all students were invited to look at pictures in the

section, and they may have looked at the text at the same time. Although I did my

best to minimise the students’ contact with the ‘background section’, as some of the

students may anyway have read its contents, their knowledge of Roman politics may

not in fact have arisen solely from our reading of the Latin stories. Second, student

absences ensured that not all students were present for all parts of this research;

indeed, for only 21 students was I able to see their exercise book as well as answers

to both my questionnaires. In some ways, therefore, the picture of the class drawn by

this research is based upon incomplete evidence. Third, my research did not

establish as clearly as it could have done what students knew before my lessons

began. This is a particular example of a general problem with (particularly, short-

term) naturalistic research: “the researcher, in exploring the present, may be

unaware of important antecedent events” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, p. 158).

Also potentially problematic for my conclusions is the nature of the evidence

on which they are based. I had no opportunity to pilot my questionnaires; this was to

be regretted, as I noted during analysis that the wording of some questions might


14

have caused confusion. It must also be acknowledged that “whether respondents

who complete questionnaires do so accurately, honestly and correctly” (Cohen,

Manion & Morrison, 2007, p. 157) is a problem that affects my research – especially

as all my questionnaires were self-administered. That situation, together with

students putting their name on their questionnaire, may have ‘modified’ certain

responses, possibly from a wish to please their teacher. More generally, my

presence in the class as researcher and teacher – and a teacher still learning how to

teach! – may have meant that I was simultaneously too close to the students and too

occupied with other issues (for example, classroom management) to be a fully

objective and comprehensive observer. Additionally, looking at the students’ exercise

books is not an unproblematic activity; as with all documentary analysis, we must be

aware that the documents “may be highly biased and selective, as they were not

intended to be regarded as research data but were written for a different purpose,

audience and context” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007, p. 201). Nevertheless, I do

feel that the data I collected is a representative reflection of the class’s work over

three lessons and a homework, and even if the conclusions cannot be regarded as

definite, they are at least highly suggestive.

More to my regret is that I had only three lessons in which to carry out my

research. A fourth lesson would have given scope for some more participatory

activities (I had planned to ask students to prepare a campaign speech imagining

Caecilius as a candidate, an activity for which there was insufficient time), as I

remain aware that Citizenship involves participation as much as it does the learning

of facts. Additional time would also have given scope for the stories to be read fully –

although we followed the storyline of the stories discussed here, parts of them were

studied at haste. Additional time spent on Stage 11 would also have given me a

longer time to observe the class at work, which might have improved my findings and

thus conclusions.

All such issues must be borne in mind as I turn now to an overview of my

findings. A summary, with additional detail of all results from Questionnaires 1 and 2,

may be found in Appendix 4.


15

Questionnaire 1 (26 responses) demonstrated that the class, as a whole, had

only a limited awareness at the outset of the research project of the present political

circumstances in the UK. An overview of answers to the factual questions about

politics is shown in this graph:

Furthermore, in responding to the question of how interested they were in politics, 17

students claimed to be “not very” or “not at all interested”, with only five answering

“very” or “slightly interested.”

Ten students claimed an existing knowledge of Roman politics before my

lessons, from television and film, fiction books, the internet, visiting Pompeii, and an

older brother, as well as from Latin lessons and the CLC textbook. The questionnaire

did not, however, give them the opportunity to demonstrate what such knowledge

might be.

Questionnaire 1 also informed me about the students’ experience of Latin to

date. Asked how interesting they found different aspects of Latin, the students (as a

whole) found learning about Roman life and culture to be more interesting than other

parts of the subject:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Correct Answer

Incorrect Answer

No answer


16

Very

interesting

Interesting Not interesting Very

uninteresting

Learning the

language

2 12 11 1

Reading the

stories

3 15 8 0

Learning about

Roman life and

culture

7 14 5 0

Comparing

Roman times

with modern

times

3 13 9 1

In terms of finding out about Roman culture, 23 students already thought that the

Latin stories in the CLC were a “very helpful” or “slightly helpful” source, a

comparable number to the 24 who rated the “background section” of the textbook at

the same levels of helpfulness. Interestingly, however, only three students described

the stories as “very helpful” as a source, considerably fewer than those who thought

the “background section”, a video, or their teacher to be “very helpful” (14, 12, and

14 respectively). Strikingly, those in the class who favoured the use of worksheets

were balanced almost exactly by those who thought them unhelpful (14 against 12).

The information from Questionnaire 1, overall, provided a useful guide to the class’s

attitudes and knowledge prior to my research.

The effects of my lessons on the class are to be judged from the results of

Questionnaire 2, the CSCP-produced third questionnaire, as well as my observations

and analysis of the students’ exercise books. What follows is my own account of the

findings and my own comments upon them.

All of the students who completed Questionnaire 2 (28 responses) felt that

they knew more about Roman politics then than they had done before my lessons.

Their claims were to a considerable extent supported by their answers to the factual


17

questions on the same questionnaire: all students gave correct answers to questions

about who could vote in Pompeii and about possible reasons for supporting a

candidate in a Roman local election. These details about Roman politics had

emerged naturally from our reading of the stories in Stage 11, unlike the names of

the political offices in Pompeii (Duovir and Aedile), about which I had talked to the

class, using pictures as a starting point. It is therefore notable that none of the

students was able to name the Duovir or the Aedile when asked on Questionnaire 2

to name the “political jobs” in Pompeii. Although it is possible that there was some

confusion over what this question actually meant, this may also constitute evidence

that it was material learned from reading the stories which proved the most

memorable in this class’s study of Stage 11. This is also suggested by all students

being able to indicate differences between ancient and modern political slogans –

another topic which had arisen naturally from our reading of the stories, and of which

students had gained some ownership by creating their own ancient slogans. These

examples suggest that students do indeed learn more successfully by ‘doing’

something, rather than by just being told something.

Only 12 students claimed that their knowledge of modern politics was better

than it had been before our lessons; answers to the factual questions posed on

Questionnaire 2 give a mixed impression of whether this was a fair judgement. Only

five students could name their District Council (a sixth student did, but then crossed

it out and gave a different answer!), with ten giving the name of their County Council

instead, even though we had discussed the three-tier structure in our third lesson.

Even so, three more students could name their District Council after the lessons than

before and, potentially more interestingly, ten were able to give an answer to a

question naming the sorts of services provided by a District Council – a topic we had

discussed with the worksheet. It is possible, however, that students had known this

information before our lessons anyway. Seven students claimed to be “slightly

interested” in politics after the lessons, but 21 were “not very” or “not at all

interested”. Despite these figures, ten students, pleasingly, claimed to be more

interested in politics as a result of their work on Stage 11, even if two stated they

were less interested; the remaining 16 indicated that their level of interest was

unchanged.


18

The availability of data from ‘before’ (Questionnaire 1), ‘during’ (observation of

class in lessons, documentary analysis of exercise books) and ‘after’ (Questionnaire

2) my research makes it possible to track the experiences of individual students as

well as the class as a whole, and this in turn adds colour to the bare statistics. Pupil

S, a girl with mid-class levels of attainment in Latin but with a low level of interest in

the subject, showed very little existing knowledge of modern politics in Questionnaire

1, knowing only about what makes someone eligible to vote. In Questionnaire 2,

however, she felt that her knowledge of modern politics had improved, and although

this was not borne out by her answers on the questionnaire (even if she was now

able to name her County Council), it was shown by her homework (Appendix 6). In

that piece of work she had found out the name of her MP, the names of major

political parties, and also noted some details about elections and parliamentary

procedure. She had also identified a number of features of Roman politics by looking

back at the ‘model sentences’ and at “Marcus et Quartus”. Pupil S’s work therefore

demonstrates that her understanding of ancient and modern politics had improved

during my research period.

Similarly, Pupil N, a boy listed on the school SEN register (as noted above),

and who has a low level of interest in Latin, developed his knowledge of ancient and

modern politics during the lessons and homework on Stage 11. He made some good

notes for homework on the difference between elections in Pompeii and today, and

in Questionnaire 2 showed his improved knowledge of ancient and modern politics

by answering correctly the questions on who was eligible to vote in Pompeii, why

support was given to candidates in Pompeii, and the differences between ancient

and modern slogans; he was also able to list several council-run services. He himself

recognised that he knew more about politics, both ancient and modern, after the

lessons.

Pupil Y, a girl with mid-class levels of attainment in Latin, also thought that her

knowledge of both ancient and modern politics had improved. Before the lessons,

she had limited knowledge of modern politics (being unable, for example, to name

the current governing party at Westminster), whereas after them she knew the name

of her District Council. She produced a detailed comparison of Pompeiian and

modern elections for homework, and had learned from the stories in Stage 11 who


19

could vote in Pompeii and who might support Roman election candidates. Pupil L,

however, claimed that his knowledge of modern politics had not improved due to our

lessons, but this is not reflected by analysis of his questionnaire answers: in

Questionnaire 1, he had some, partly-confused or mistaken knowledge of modern

politics (believing, for example, that Alastair Campbell was his MP), but by the time

he completed Questionnaire 2, he could name his District Council, and his

knowledge of elections in Pompeii had improved too. By contrast Pupil B, a girl with

very high levels of interest and attainment in Latin, recognised her own improved

knowledge. Although she already knew a little about modern politics, and claimed to

know a little about Roman politics, she carried out a detailed comparison of ancient

and modern politics for homework, based in part on the stories we had read; not only

did she claim to be more interested in politics as a result, her curiosity to find out

more about Roman politics had been aroused too.

The cases of these individual students suggest that the understanding of

ancient and modern politics by members of the class was generally improved during

my research period, even if they did not recognise such progress for themselves.

This suggests that it is possible to develop students’ understanding of modern

politics through a study of Roman politics. In terms of learning about Roman politics,

however, it is worth re-emphasising that the knowledge which stayed with the

students was that which emerged naturally from our reading of the stories. 23 of

those who responded to Questionnaire 2 recognised that the Latin stories were

“very” or “slightly helpful” as a source (the same number as had stated the same on

Questionnaire 1, which suggests that this class did not need to be shown the value

of Latin stories as a source, as they had already become aware of this). I observed

that the stories certainly aroused student’s interest: during our reading of “Lucius

Spurius Pomponianus”, students asked, unprompted, whether Grumio (as a slave)

was allowed to vote, and why he had been given a club – questions which allowed

discussion of enfranchisement and election violence in Pompeii to follow ‘naturally’,

and which encouraged the students to carry on reading, to investigate the issues for

themselves. My research therefore supports the view of Bage (1999) that narrative

stories can be an effective teaching and learning strategy and can increase student

intrinsic motivation. My research also, however, demonstrates that Bage was right to

draw attention to possible dangers of using stories: in the ‘model sentences’, a thief


20

is presented as an election candidate who is supported but not trusted – a joke on

the part of the writers of the CLC, and used to show how verbs which take the dative

(here “credo” and “faveo”) are used in Latin. Several students, however, did not

recognise the ‘joke’, and wrote down as ‘fact’ the notion that thieves might stand for

election. The dangers of a story “presenting fiction as fact” and “swamp[ing] children

so that they reproduce rather than criticize” (Bage, 1999, p. 93, p. 25) was thus

shown; this emphasises how carefully narratives must be used in teaching and

learning.

Furthermore, my research suggests that omitting a reading of “Lucius Spurius

Pomponianus” from a study of Stage 11 may be unwise. Quite apart from its

storyline being a useful (and memorable) way of approaching enfranchisement and

‘campaigning’ in Roman times, it is clearly also a story enjoyed by students. At the

end of the story, students were heard to exclaim “Poor Grumio!” as Clemens leaves

to meet Poppaea. Furthermore, responses to Questionnaire 2 show that it was the

most popular of the stories we read in Stage 11:

Very

interesting

Interesting Not very

interesting

Not at all

interesting

Model

sentences

0 12 15 3

Marcus et

Quartus

1 13 13 1

Lucius Spurius

Pomponianus

5 18 5 0

Additionally, results (for which see Appendix 9) from the third, CSCP-produced

questionnaire suggest that “Lucius Spurius Pomponianus” in particular, and Stage 11

as a whole, had been particularly memorable for the class:

I liked Grumio least because he wasn't very faithful, and he tried to be

someone else to get money, he went against his master (Pupil R).


21

I liked the one where Grumio pretended to be a citizen and went to vote to

gain money and nearly got hurt. This was interesting as it showed his life and

that he was willing to take risks to have fun (Pupil O).

I can think of the stories about what happened at the baths, the stories for the

politics, what happened at the dinner party and more. I liked these because I

understood them and they have stayed in my mind (Pupil W).

I liked the one where Grumio pretended to be a citizen and the ghost one

because they were interesting and I got the feeling that I wanted to keep

reading it (Pupil Y).

Stage 11 might have been more memorable as it had been studied only shortly

before the questionnaire was completed (I note also that Stage 12 was very

popular), but its appearance in the quotations above alongside other, earlier Stages

is striking. I would suggest therefore that if Stage 11 is considered dull, it may be

because “Lucius Spurius Pomponianus” is often omitted; if parts of the CLC must be

passed over due to lack of time, my research recommends it should not be this story.

My research also revealed some further points of interest. I am struck by the

extent to which students rated “speaking to someone at home” as an unhelpful

source of information (17 thought it “not very” or “not at all” helpful – five others gave

no answer, in some cases indicating they did not understand the question): this

suggests that teachers cannot necessarily expect students to gain something from

speaking to a parent (or similar) as part of their homework, which makes problematic

the suggestion of Brewster and Fager (2000) that parents can have a role to play in

increasing student motivation. Also striking were students’ attitudes to the

‘background information’ section of the textbook and to videos from the CLC e-

Learning Resource (Appendix 5). A significant majority of my class (18 to seven)

would not have preferred to look at the ‘background section’ (despite their

recognition, in Questionnaire 1, of the usefulness of this section as a ‘source’), but

more surprising to me was that only a slim majority (15 to 11) would have preferred

to watch one of the videos. Such observations need more thorough investigation


22

elsewhere, but suggest that not all students find these ‘routine’ aspects of Latin

lessons very appealing.

Conclusions

From my research with this class, several conclusions may be drawn:

(i) It is possible to develop students’ understanding of Roman politics by

reading the stories of Stage 11 of the CLC, and allowing issues to emerge naturally.

By implication, other aspects of Roman culture may also prove to be sensibly

approached by allowing them to arise from reading Latin texts. Despite this, not all of

the aspects of culture one might wish to talk about (as with the Duoviri and Aediles

here) might emerge from the stories in a textbook, and so it may be necessary to

augment the stories with well-conceived additional activities not restricted to reading

the ‘background information’ section of the textbook or watching a video. I note in

passing that the e-Learning Resource video for “Political Life” is now somewhat

‘outdated’, as it includes footage of Tony Blair, William Hague and Paddy Ashdown –

who have not been leaders of a UK political party since 2006, 2001 and 1999

respectively – and so may not be a particularly helpful support for study of Stage 11.

(ii) It is possible to develop students’ understanding of modern politics by

comparing what they are finding out about Roman politics with what happens today.

As such, my research supports the suggestion of the CSCP (date unknown) that

Stage 11 is well-placed to address issues pertaining to the Citizenship programme of

study. More generally, my research is a case study of how Classics can indeed

make a contribution to the teaching of Citizenship in UK schools.

(iii) My research supports the work of those who suggest that “stories provide

a major route to understanding” (Wells, 1986, p. 206). The narrative of CLC Stage 11

prompted students to find out ‘what happened next’ and gave students access to

cultural content in a way which proved to be memorable and, it seems, enjoyable. As

noted above, however, my research also revealed that stories are so powerful and

memorable that care must be taken to ensure that elements of fiction are not

remembered as fact.


23

(iv) Contrary to what one might expect, some students are interested in

politics, ancient and modern, and that their interest (rather than their understanding)

in it may also be enhanced by study. In particular, I note that seven of my students

noted on Questionnaire 2 that they had questions about either ancient or modern

politics that had been prompted by the material covered in our lessons (Appendix 4).

I came to realise, however, that there are many challenges that face a teacher trying

to explain politics to students: in my class, for example, students lived in several

different parliamentary constituencies and districts, which made it hard to talk about

local political structure in a way that was equally meaningful to all members of the

class.

(v) It is worth including the story “Lucius Spurius Pomponianus” in a study of

CLC Stage 11, despite the suggestion of CSCP (1999) to omit it if time is short.

As such, my research should interest those who teach Latin (and indeed other

Classical subjects), especially those who teach with the CLC; my conclusions also,

however, constitute important suggestions also for those charged with considering

the best way to deliver the Citizenship curriculum in schools, and for all those

teachers who may be able be able to use stories as a motivating tool for learning.

In summary, this research shows the considerable potential of Latin in

general, and Stage 11 of the CLC in particular, for developing students’

understanding not only of ancient culture but also of modern culture. If that

conclusion remains to be tested by others – who may also like to investigate the

issues relating to the e-Learning Resource videos, role of parents, and use of

‘background information’ sections of the textbook flagged up here – it is at least a

conclusion which should give Classics teachers grounds for optimism, and a reason

to look forward to, rather than to dread, CLC Stage 11, “candidati”.

8,467 words


24

References

Association for Education in Citizenship (AEC). (1935). Education for citizenship in

secondary schools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bage, G. (1999). Narrative Matters: Teaching and Learning History through Story.

London: Falmer Press.

Beck, J. (2003). Citizenship and Citizenship Education in England. In J. Beck & M.

Earl (Eds.), Key issues in secondary education (2nd ed.) (pp. 158-171). London and

New York: Continuum.

Brandom, A-M. (2007). Citizenship and citizenship education. In J. Dillon & M.

Maguire (Eds.), Becoming a Teacher: Issues in Secondary Teaching (3rd ed.) (pp.

267-279). Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.

Brewster, C. & Fager, J. (2000). Increasing student engagement and motivation:

from time-on-task to homework. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational

Laboratory.

Cambridge School Classics Project (CSCP). (1999). Cambridge Latin Course. Book

1. Teacher’s Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


1 (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


1 e-Learning Resource (Version 1.22) [computer software]. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Cambridge School Classics Project (CSCP). (Date unknown). The Cambridge Latin

Course and Citizenship at Key Stage 3. Unpublished working paper.


25

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th

ed). London & New York: Routledge.

Copson, A. (2006). ‘Civis sum!’ Teaching Citizenship in Classics. Journal of Classical

Teaching 8, 4.

Department of Education and Science (DES). (1988). Classics from 5 to 16

(Curriculum Matters 12). London: HMSO.

Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). (2003). Life in the UK Test website.

Retrieved April 24, 2010 from www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk.

Lister, B. (2007). Changing Classics in Schools. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

National Curriculum Council (NCC). (1993). Teaching History at KS1. York: National

Curriculum Council.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2007). Citizenship: Programme of

study for key stage 3 and attainment target. Programme of study for key stage 4.

Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk.

Sharwood Smith, J.E. (1977). On teaching classics. London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul.

Wells, G. (1986). The Meaning Makers. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

http://www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk/

http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/


26

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire 1


Appendix 3: CSCP-produced questionnaire

Appendix 4: Summary of findings from Questionnaires 1 and 2

Appendix 5: Students’ comments about using the background information section of

the textbook and watching videos from the e-Learning Resource (Questionnaire 2,

questions (e) and (f))

Appendix 6: Example of homework by a member of the class (Student S)

Appendix 7: PowerPoint slides for the second lesson

Appendix 8: Resources for the third lesson

Appendix 9: Summary of findings from the CSCP-produced questionnaire


27

Appendix 1: Questionnaire 1 In addition to teaching at your school this year, I am conducting some research with the Faculty of Education in Cambridge. Part of that research will be based on the work we do in some of our Latin lessons, as I am interested in how we can use Latin to learn about ancient and modern cultures. To help me with my research, I would be very grateful if you could fill in this questionnaire. Although I ask you to give your name, that information will remain confidential: all data collected in the questionnaire (and in the research overall) will be kept anonymous, and it will not be possible for anyone looking at my research to identify you individually. As we work through Stage 11 of the textbook, I will be considering how we are studying different topics, but our lessons will be carrying on as usual. I will ask you all to complete a second questionnaire later this term, and will ask a few of you whether you would be willing to spend about 30 minutes, as part of a small group, talking about some aspects of learning Latin. Apart from these tasks, however, you should hardly be aware that my research is going on at all! Thank you for your help with this, and if you have any questions or concerns, please do ask!

Questionnaire 1

SECTION 1: Personal Information [your name will not appear in any of my research]

Name: _______________________________________________ Gender: Female / Male [delete as appropriate] Age: ____ years How long have you been studying Latin? ______ months/years [delete as appropriate] SECTION 2: Your experience of Latin so far

(a) How interesting do you find the following aspects of Latin? [circle one choice per question]

(i) Learning the language

Very interesting Interesting Not interesting Very uninteresting

(ii) Reading the stories


(iii) Learning about Roman life and culture


(iv) Comparing Roman times with modern times


(b) Do you have any knowledge of Roman politics and government?: Yes / No [delete]

(c) If you answered Yes to (b), from what sources did you gain that knowledge? [circle

any answers that apply to you] Television/film Reference Books Reading ahead in Latin textbook Internet Fiction books Latin lessons Other lessons Other: ____________


28

(d) In Latin lessons (and homework), how helpful are the following sources of information for finding out about Roman culture? [circle one choice per question]

(i) Stories (in Latin) in the

textbook

Very helpful Slightly helpful Not very helpful Not at all helpful

(ii) Cultural background sections (in English) in the textbook


(iii) Videos watched in class


(iv) PowerPoint presentations


(v) Your teacher(s) Very helpful Slightly helpful Not very helpful Not at all helpful

(vi) Worksheets Very helpful Slightly helpful Not very helpful Not at all helpful

SECTION 3: Citizenship at School How have you learned about “citizenship” so far during your time at this school? [circle any answers that apply to you] On PSHCRE days In lessons (if so, which ones? ________________________ ) In assemblies At other times [if so, which ones] Not at all I do not know what counts as “citizenship”

SECTION 4: Modern government and politics (do not worry if you don’t know an answer: just write “I do not know” in the space provided)

(a) How interested would you say you are in “politics”? [circle one answer]

Very interested Slightly interested Not very interested Not at all interested

(b) When will the next General Election take place in the UK? _____________________

(c) When did the last General Election take place in the UK? ______________________

(d) At what age will you be allowed to vote in an election? ________________________

(e) Who is not allowed to vote in an election? __________________________________

(f) What is the name of your Member of Parliament (MP)? _______________________

(g) Who is allowed to become an MP? _______________________________________

(h) Which political party forms the government at the moment? ___________________

(i) What other political parties can you name? ________________________________

(j) What is the name of your District Council? _________________________________

(k) What is the name of your District Councillor? _______________________________


29


Names: _________________________ [remember, your name will not appear in any of my research] A few weeks ago, we had a series of lessons, based on Stage 11 of the text book, which

were about elections and local politics in Pompeii and in the modern day. Please answer the

following questions without looking at your exercise book or text book. This is not a test, so it

doesn’t matter if you give a “wrong” answer!

(a) Do you feel that you know more about Roman politics than you did before those

lessons?

YES / NO

(b) Do you feel that you know more about modern politics than you did before those

lessons?

YES/NO

(c) How interesting did you find the stories we read in Stage 11? [please tick one box per

question]

Very

interesting

Interesting Not very

interesting

Not at all

interesting

(i) Model sentences

[groups of supporters in the

forum]

(ii) Marcus et Quartus

[two brothers support

different candidates]

(iii) Lucius Spurius Pomponianus

[Grumio pretends to be a

citizen so he can vote...]

(d) How helpful did you find the following sources for finding out about Roman and

modern politics? [please tick one box per question]

Very helpful Slightly

helpful

Not very

helpful

Not at all

helpful

(i) Stories in Latin

(ii) Pictures (in textbook

and on Powerpoint)

(iii) Your teacher

(iv) Speaking to someone

at home


30

(e) Would you have preferred to find out about Roman politics by reading the written

information section in your textbook?

YES/NO

Briefly explain your answer: _____________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

(f) Would you have preferred to find out about Roman politics by watching a video from

the e-Learning Resource?

YES/NO

Briefly explain your answer: _____________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

(g) Who was allowed to vote in elections in Pompeii? ____________________________

(h) Why would someone support a particular candidate in an election in Pompeii? _____

___________________________________________________________________

(i) What political jobs were there in Pompeii? ______________ and ________________

(j) How were political slogans in Pompeii different from modern election

advertisements? ______________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

(k) What is the name of your District Council? _________________________________

(l) What services does your District Council provide? ___________________________

___________________________________________________________________

(m) How interested would you say you are in “politics”? [circle one answer]

Very interested Slightly interested Not very interested Not at all interested

(n) Has your interest in politics changed because of our study of Roman politics? [circle

one]

Yes, I am now more

interested

Yes, I am now less

interested

No, I have the same level of

interest

(o) Is there anything else you would like to know about politics in Pompeii, or politics

nowadays? __________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your help with my research!


31

Appendix 3: CSCP-produced questionnaire


32

Appendix 4: Summary of findings from Questionnaires 1 and 2

a) Questionnaire 1

Completed by 26 students.

2 (a) How interesting do you find the following aspects of Lain?


(i) Learning the

language

2 12 11 1

(ii) Reading the

stories

3 15 8 0

(iii) Learning

about Roman life

and culture

7 14 5 0

(iv) Comparing

Roman times with

modern times

3 13 9 1

2 (b) Do you have any knowledge of Roman politics and government?

Yes: 10 No: 16

2 (c) If you answered Yes to (b), from what sources did you gain that knowledge?

Television/film 5

Reference books 0

Reading ahead in Latin textbook 2

Internet 1

Fiction books 2

Latin lessons 9

Other lessons 1

Other 1: visit to Pompeii and other sites

1: older brother


33

2 (d) In Latin lessons (and homework), how helpful are the following sources of

information?


(i) Stories (in

Latin) in the

textbook

3 20 2 1

(ii) Cultural

background

sections (in

English) in the

textbook

14 10 2 0

(iii) Videos

watched in class

12 11 3 0

(iv) PowerPoint

presentations

6 17 3 0

(v) Your

teacher(s)

14 11 1 0

(vi) Worksheets 3 11 10 2

3 How have you learned about “citizenship” so far during your time at this school?

On PSHCRE days 20

In assemblies 12

In lessons 0

At other times 1

Not at all 2

I do not know what counts as

“citizenship”

4

4 (a) How interested would you say you are in “politics”?

Very interested Slightly interested Not very

interested

Not at all

interested

No answer

1 4 12 5 4


34

4 (b) – (k) [questions about modern politics]

Correct answer Incorrect answer Don’t know

(b) When will the next

General Election take

place in the UK?

13 2 11

(c) When did the last

General Election take

place in the UK?

0 15 11

(d) At what age will you

be allowed to vote in

an election?

26 0 0

(e) Who is not allowed

to vote in an election?

23 3 0

(f) What is the name of

your MP?

1 8 17

(g) Who is allowed to

become an MP?

2 7 17

(h) Which political party

forms the government

at the moment?

17 3 6

(i) What other political

parties can you name?

20 0 6

(j) What is the name of

your District Council?

2 9 15

(k) What is the name of

your District

Councillor?

0 0 26


35

b) Questionnaire 2

Completed by 28 students

(a) (b) Do you feel that you know more about politics than you did before those

lessons?

Yes No

Roman politics 28 0

Modern politics 12 16

(c) How interesting did you find the stories we read in Stage 11?

Very interesting Interesting Not very

interesting

Not at all

interesting

(i) Model

sentences

0 12 15 1

(ii) Marcus et

Quartus

1 13 13 1

(iii) Lucius

Spurius

Pomponianus

5 18 5 0

(d) How helpful did you find the following sources for finding out about Roman and

modern politics?

Very helpful Slightly

helpful

Not very

helpful

Not at all

helpful

No answer

(i) Stories in

Latin

8 15 4 1 0

(ii) Pictures (in

textbook and on

PowerPoint)

8 17 3 0 0

(iii) Your teacher 15 13 0 0 0

(iv) Speaking to

someone at

home

1 5 13 4 5


36

(e) (f) Would you have preferred to find out about Roman politics by...

Yes No No preference No answer

(e) reading the

written

information

section in your

textbook?

7 18 2 1

(f) watching a

video from the e-

Learning

Resource?

15 11 1 1

[For the explanations given by students in response to these questions, please see

Appendix 5]

(g) – (l)

Correct answer Incorrect answer No answer

(g) Who was allowed to

vote in elections in

Pompeii?

28 0 0

(h) Why would

someone support a

particular candidate in

an election in Pompeii?

28 0 0

(i) What political jobs

were there in Pompeii?

0 12 16

(j) How were political

slogans in Pompeii

different from modern

election

advertisements?

28 0 0

(k) What is the name of

your District Council?

5 12 11

(l) What services does

your District Council

provide?

10 0 18


37

(m) How interested would you say you are in “politics”?

Very interested Slightly interested Not very

interested

Not at all

interested

No answer

0 7 17 4 0

(n) Has your interest in politics changed because of our study of Roman politics?

Yes, I am now more interested Yes, I am now less interested No, I have the same level of

interest

10 2 16

(o) Is there anything else you would like to know about politics in Pompeii, or politics

nowadays?

Yes: 7 No: 21

Those who answered Yes gave the following answers:

“Would the people being elected have to go through the same things as

nowadays, or just because they’re rich they’d be put up for election?”

“I’m still a little confused about modern day politics, but I understand the

politics in Pompeii.”

“I would like to know that in Pompeii how women felt that they couldn’t vote

and could they protest?”

“More about their responsibilities as a politician.”

“What they did, when they were elected, for their community.”

“I would like to study the emperors.”

“How are people chosen to be a candidate in the different parties?”


38

Appendix 5: Students’ comments about using the background information

section of the textbook and watching videos from the e-Learning Resource

(Questionnaire 2, questions (e) and (f))

(e) Would you have preferred to find out about Roman politics by reading the written information in your textbook?

YES NO

Because it is very clear in front of you, and you can refer back to it

It will be true and compare it to modern day politics

Because I think that it gives more information

Because it would get to the point more quickly, and is without the hassel of translating

I probably would have remembered some more information

Because I tend to take in more information whilst reading

There’s more easy to understand info

I prefer to talk about it

Because we probably wouldn’t remember it

It makes it easier to learn if someone is telling you something

I never take things in when I read things

I enjoyed the lesson how it was. We read the stories and then at home I read the information

Would be boring and wouldn’t learn as much

Because I like activities where you can get involved, and that isn’t very interesting

I feel that I learn more effectively from a varied mixture of sources

Because it is more boring

Maybe more information on a powerpoint with pictures

Because it easy to remember when you are told it

Because stories and pictures are more interesting

Because I would have found it less interesting

It’s less interesting than powerpoints etc.

I understood more when the teacher explained it to me

I thought the powerpoints and discussions we had were better

I think it would get a bit boring just reading it

I don’t really like reading so I don’t really take anything in

7 18


39

(f) Would you have preferred to find out about Roman politics by watching a video from the e-Learning resource?

YES NO

Videos are much more interesting

I find it easier to pick up info from videos

It makes it easier to remember

Videos help me a lot and they explain everything in detail

More interesting and would be remembered better

I find I learn more from videos because they interest me

It is informative and more interesting

Because I take information in better that way

Because videos are easier to understand

Because it would be more enjoyable and probably have more information

It’s good to vary sources of information

I would like to see what it was like and people’s reactions

I would probably pay more attention

They are informative

They give slightly easier to understand answers

I liked the lessons how they were

I don’t find the videos on the e-Learning resource very helpful, and interesting

Because it’s harder to remember things if you only see it once, with a book you can refer back to it

They are hard to follow

Too much information is said too quickly and you can’t make a note of it quick enough

Because I find it harder to remember things when I watch a video

Because I wouldn’t concentrate properly

We watched videos from the Cambridge Latin Course

I would not remember much

I think talking about it, with a powerpoint was the best, and most interesting way

Because a lot of the videos were a repeat of what was in the text book

15 11


40

Appendix 6: Example of homework by a member of the class (Student S)

(Some details have been removed to protect the identity of the school and student).


41

Appendix 7: PowerPoint slides for the second lesson


42

Appendix 8: Resources for the third lesson

(a) PowerPoint slides

(Some details have been removed to protect the identity of the school.)


43

(b) Worksheet


44

Appendix 9: Summary of findings from CSCP-produced questionnaire

27 responses

Question 1:

Favourite Character Least-favourite Character

Caecilius 5 Caecilius 0

Metella 0 Metella 6

Quintus 6 Quintus 0

Grumio 6 Grumio 4

Melissa 1 Melissa 3

Clemens 8 Clemens 1

Felix 1 Felix 13

Question 2:

“I liked the lion story because it was very interesting. I also liked the werewolf

story because it was scary. Finally I liked the gladiator story because

gladiators are cool.”

“The ones in Stage 12 about Mt Vesuvius’ eruption.”

“I liked the stages when we learnt about the sorts of food they ate and I also

liked learning about how our education is taught differently from Roman

education. I also liked learning about the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and how

it covered the town for centuries.”

“The one about Hercules and the lion, because it was full of action and had an

unexpected ending. I also liked to learn about the other impossible tasks.”

“I particularly liked the story of where Clemens went to Caecilius and told him

about Mt Vesuvius and how Caecilius went with Clemens to save his family.”

“I liked the story of the werewolf and the Roman legion soldier because it

seemed more modern.”

“I liked the last few stories about Mt. Vesuvius “ad urbem and finis”. I

particularly liked these because they were about something I knew partly

about and found interesting.”


45

“I liked the story about the werewolf, because it was scary and different. You

also learnt about dinner parties in Roman times and what things they would

have done at Roman dinner parties.”

“The centurion one because it had lots of suspense with the werewolf and it

was quite an interesting story.”

“The one with the ghost story because it was quite exciting and a very

different kind of story.”

“I liked the story about Caecilius and the ‘merchant’ who tried to steal money.”

“The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius because it is interesting to see how they coped

with disasters and fatality in ancient times.”

“The eruption of Vesuvius – it’s real and interesting history. Also the wolf story

– more fun – interesting.”

“I liked the final story, ‘finis’, because as well as having the most sophisticated

Latin so far, was an engaging, and tragic story, which helped me understand

about Vesuvius, and finished the book in a strong way.”

“I liked the scary story about the werewolf because it was different and more

exciting.”

“‘The end’ because it was very exciting.”

“The one about the gladiators and the ghost because it was better than other

stories because something weird happened and was more interesting.”

“The ghost story. I wasn’t really expecting a story like that and it was quite fun

to read!”

“I liked the one where Grumio pretended to be a citizen and went to vote to

gain money and nearly got hurt. This was interesting as it showed his life and

that he was willing to take risks to have fun.”

“I think out of all of them the best has been the one about the eruption of

Mount Vesuvius because it’s the most interesting and quite a fun topic to learn

about.”

“I can think of the stories about what happened at the baths, the stories for the

politics, what happened at the dinner party and more. I liked these because I

understyood them and they have stayed in my mind. Also the one with the

snake and the one about Canis.”


46

“The final one: there was lots of drama and you could sense all the emotions

that they could be feeling and decisions they had to make.”

“I liked the story when the man that was supposed to be having dinner with

Caecilius but he ended up dead. I liked it because it was interesting and the

outcome was unexpected.”

“I liked the story of the ghost of a gladiator because it was exciting. A bit like a

scary story.”

“Volcano because it actually happened rather than the others might not be

real.”

“Mount Vesuvius, because it was the most interesting and you learnt some

background about the life. But I would want to know who lived/died.”

“The one where Grumio pretended to be a citizen and the ghost one because

they were interesting and I got the feeling that I wanted to keep reading it.”

Documents

reading a Latin narrative: a case study of a Year 9 class in a mixed … · 2012. 7. 3. · students – are required to study Latin during their first year, after which Latin becomes