Context

CLH111 – Classical Athens is a 20 credit module with lectures, seminars and a number of online activities delivered through the VLE. The aim of the module is to study classical Athens as and to offer an introduction to Greek culture and history. Students have a chance to investigate specific aspects of Athenian life through a range of different sources, be they inscriptions, vases, drama, buildings, historiography or the landscape of Attica. They have the opportunity to study specific source material in depth, for example Athenian tragedy.

 

The Approach

Students had to write the questions for the exam The examination for this module is 2 hours long. Students will answer two questions in that time. There are six exam questions, ideally questions that allow Students to show that they understand basic themes of Classical Athenian life and literature.

The exam paper was made the subject of the debate in order to give the students a vested interest in the decisions made by the assembly. If the topic of debate did not matter, fewer would get involved (some still don’t bother to turn up!). By giving them real control over something that really matters to them – they all have to take the exam, and the questions on it are decided at this meeting – our re-enactment comes as close as we can make it to the original, where citizens of Athens decided on real matters of direct interest to themselves. The whole point of this from my perspective was not to write the exam paper, but for the students to understand what radical democracy is like, and get an insight into its strengths and weaknesses that they could never get from reading about it. Consequently some students experience the tension of wanting to participate but being nervous about public speaking, just as would have some Athenians; some get a reputation for good or ill amongst their peers, just as would have some Athenians; some emerge as leaders, just as would ... etc. In order to drive the exercise and to focus the discussion, I set a six question limit (if there was no limit, there would be no discussion).

 

In order to propose and choose the questions the students had to use the rules of Athenian Ekklesia.

 

The Pnyx – Hadrianic

 

The Ekklēsia in Athens met, on average, about once every 10 days through the year and all adult males were entitled to attend. Ho boulomenos (anyone who wished) could propose a motion, comment on motions, and vote. There were strictly observed rules on procedure, for example there was only one chance to speak on any one issue, in order to make people think before speaking.

 

The Ekklēsia agenda was prepared by the Boulē (made up of 500 members -- 50 from each of the 10 tribes -- who were chosen by lot and served for the period of one year), with the meetings convened and chaired by the Prytaneis (Presidents). Decisions of the Ekklēsia were implemented by the magistrates. This process led to a well-informed, involved populace, in comparison to modern apathy and low participation rates.

 

‘The Pnyx’ – Swansea style

 

In the two weeks prior to this session there had been lectures on Democracy and Radical Democracy, as well as seminars on Kleisthenes and the invention of democracy and Modern Democracy. They were also given the following promise:

 

“The decisions you make will be recorded on the board and put to the vote. The six that attract the most votes will be published on Blackboard (our equivalent of an inscription in the agora), and will appear as the only questions on the examination paper in January. “ All people enrolled in CLH111 were deemed full citizens for this purpose.

 

On the day Presidents were chosen at random. The Presidents then had to conduct the meeting. Speakers could only speak from the front of the room and wearing the sacred wreath, as in the ancient assembly. Clickers were provided for voting on the questions but when they were used was left to the students. The Academic staff present did not intervene or answer any questions apart from assisting with how to use the Clickers software.

 

Outcomes

The Ekklesia started with presidents deciding amongst themselves to write questions and then put them to the floor. After five minutes grumbling from the floor, because they knew this was not how decisions were made in the ancient Ekklesia and should not be being made here, students began to voice concern and ask for questions to come from the floor not from the presidents. After some further debate the process then changed after a vote - democracy in action. This was very much a case of learning by doing and exploring how the Ekklesia works by running one. As the opportunity to shape the exam was important to the students, all of the students in the lecture were motivated and involved with what was going on.

 

As well as the objective of writing the exam, the session worked as a revision session with students exploring the meaning of terms and subjects and how they related to what they had learnt during the course. This meant that students were thinking about what they had done during the module and how they could best express themselves in the exam. For example, there was a debate about the difference between religion and mythology with various points being expressed. However, when it came to the vote it was clear that the Students thought that religion was seen as a more appropriate term. Throughout the session there was lots of discussion from the front but also amongst the ‘crowd’. They managed to vote on the six questions in time – just. As mentioned before, it was a real case of democracy in action.

After the session the following was posted on the module Blackboard site:

 

To Good Fortune.

Richard Davies was Vice Chancellor of Swansea. John Spurr was Head of the College of Arts And Humanities. Martin Johnes was Head of the Department of History & Classics. In the third year of the twelve hundredth and sixthy-second Olympiad, on the twenty-seventh day after the second full moon after the autumn equinox. Alan Daventry presided. The Assembly of the students of CLH 111 have decided that the exam for this module shall contain the following six questions:

 

1. What events led to the failure of the Athenian expedition in Sicily?
2. To what extent was Athenian supremacy only possible due to its navy?
3. Athenian theatre was more than a means of expression. Discuss.
4. What was the role of women in Athens and how did it change over the years?
5. How important was the Acropolis to Athenian life?
6. To what extent did religion govern Athenian life?

 

Did it work?

Learning by doing – discussing a subject that was important to them rather than an abstract debate meant that the students were really engaged throughout.

It was also a really interesting way of running a revision session that had all of the students present involved and thinking about the subject.

 

The view from the academic staff?

The initial assumption of power by the presidents was unexpected, but the people were quite quick to reassert their sovereignty, so everyone understood from early in the session that their destiny was in their own hands, which was one of the key lessons of the exercise. Some even realized that issues of process, as well as content, were legitimate matters for debate, which is important when one is trying to understand how a democracy votes itself out of existence in favour of an oligarchy, as happened twice in Athenian history. Other lessons were there for the observant, e.g. how some sat back once they’d got at least two questions they liked onto the list; how the ignorant may participate as much and as (or more) loudly as the well-informed; how some students seem to gain confidence from public speaking (it was probably one of the largest audiences most of them has had in life yet), and more were ready to have a go after they had witnessed others doing it and even enjoying it - or in desperation to get their preferred topic on the agenda when no-one else had raised it and time was running out.

 

Some student views

Only 26 students filled in some or all of the module questionnaire. To the question ‘how would you evaluate the democratic assembly, 5 rated it excellent, 10 rated it good, 5 rated it satisfactory, and 6 didn’t answer that question (didn’t complete the survey). One elaborated that they had one criticism of it: ‘there was a lack of coordination or control; we drifted off topic with an attempted removal of the students controlling the assembly. I know that we were trying to keep the debate realistic, and this certainly spiced up the assembly, but we lost time and everyone was distracted from the actual task at hand. So perhaps a guiding hand would be advisable for the next time.’