Philosophy of Teaching Statement

When teaching Beginning Latin, there is one moment that is sure to provoke panic among

my students: the introduction of the ablative absolute. A grammatical construction with no clear

English equivalent, hard to translate yet omnipresent in ancient texts, it is one of the major hurdles

that must be overcome in order to comprehend Latin. Its level of difficulty risks discouraging

students, who often approach me about whether they should continue the course at all. What they

are articulating in such moments of doubt is not only a lack of confidence but a perceived failure of

accessibility. The ablative absolute and other challenging concepts lead them to question whether

Latin is a subject available to them as learners. I keep this problem at the forefront of my mind

when designing and teaching courses. By encouraging students to engage closely with ancient texts,

practice their interpretive skills in a variety of low-stakes assignments, and work with their peers in

cumulative projects, I emphasize the ability of every student to learn ancient languages.

My primary objective as a teacher is to make the study of classical antiquity accessible to

students from a wide range of cultural and academic backgrounds. To achieve this goal, I use a

variety of pedagogical strategies that foreground active engagement in the classroom. Students

participate in lightning-round drills to review material, visually diagram new concepts on the board,

complete story-writing projects, peer review each other’s work, and collaborate in translating graffiti

and inscriptions. Such activities create a classroom environment in which students learn from one

another as much as they do from me. I see my own role as that of a facilitator, guiding students in

the right direction but encouraging them to take ownership of their learning. In my Intermediate

Latin course, students use a digital commentary to read and interpret Nepos’ Life of Hannibal. They

work in small groups to decipher audio recordings of the text, chart Hannibal’s path on a map of the

Mediterranean, identify examples of contemporary coinage, and give presentations on Punic and

Roman culture. As they expand their cultural knowledge of the Ancient Mediterranean, they develop
a new appreciation for the Latin text at hand. When they begin to make connections across

platforms, like being able to read a passage to which they have already listened, or linking the image

on a coin to a narrative theme, I know that learning is taking place.

Accessibility is not only a matter of responding to students’ pedagogical needs but also

fostering their intellectual curiosity. I find that students often express skepticism regarding the study

of classical antiquity, asking how sources so temporally distant can be relevant to the present day. I

respond to such skepticism by building connections between course material and larger questions of

methodology and significance. When teaching The Fall of the Roman Republic, I ask students to use

Cicero’s Catilinarians to think about problems of popular sovereignty and political invective. We then

watch Senator Ted Cruz’s recitation—and reinterpretation—of the first Catilinarian on the senate

floor in 2014. Students go on to consider how contemporary political rhetoric draws on and deviates

from its ancient precedents. As they find Ciceronian language recurring in current political debates,

they begin to perceive that the study of Latin literature can speak to issues of contemporary

relevance. Cicero’s seemingly antiquated prose is put in a new light, rendering it accessible in a way

that close reading activities alone could not have.

I bring all of these methods and principles to bear whenever something like the dreaded

ablative absolute comes my students’ way. Though moments of discouragement are perhaps

inevitable, they are mitigated by diverse pedagogical strategies, supportive peer networks, and a

classroom culture of inclusiveness and collaboration. By creating an environment in which everyone

feels comfortable participating, I lay the groundwork that allows students to master difficult topics.

This leads to measurable gains in course performance, as well as lower attrition rates and greater

overall satisfaction with the Classics curriculum. Moreover, as students’ comprehension improves,

they begin to perceive classical antiquity as a subject to which they can lay claim as learners and

scholars. It is then that I know I have accomplished my work as a teacher.

 Syllabus
Constructing Femininity in Latin Literature
Course Description
In this course, we will confront one of the major problems we face in the study of classical antiquity:
how to recover the voices of Roman women, who were largely excluded from political and social
power under the Republic and Empire. Is it possible to find the authentic experiences of women in
Latin literature, which was written almost entirely by men and for a male readership? We will
approach this question by exploring the tropes, caricatures, and stereotypes of womanhood that
appear in literary sources written between 100 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. Using such diverse sources as
Latin love poetry, graffiti from the brothels of Pompeii, divine prayers, and imperial portraits, we
will examine the figures of the mistress, sex laborer, goddesses, and empress, among others. Where
we should draw the line between fact and fiction in Roman femininity is, in turn, a question that you
will take up in a series of reading responses culminating in a final essay. Engaging with a range of
source materials and scholarly arguments over the quarter, you will leave the class with your own
perspective on the possibilities and limitations of studying women in the ancient world.

Course Objectives
By the end of the course, students will be able to:
1. Identify the normative tropes of womanhood that recur in Latin literature.
2. Interpret and critique the deployment of those tropes in primary sources.
3. Use the close reading of primary sources and secondary scholarship to construct persuasive
written arguments.
4. Contribute to the scholarly conversation on gender in classical antiquity.
Assessment Plan
• Attendance and Participation: 20%
o This is a discussion-based course, which allows you to engage with your peers in the
process of discovering, critiquing, and applying scholarly ideas and concepts. It is
therefore essential to your success to attend every class and actively participate.
Come to class with questions, ideas, and problems that you would like to explore.
You will be invited to share your thoughts in open discussion, as well as in partner
projects, small group exercises, and short writing assignments.
• Reading Responses (4): 40%
o Reading responses serve two purposes: to encourage your deep engagement with
assigned texts and to help you develop the argumentative writing skills you will need
for the final paper. Each 2-page reading response has a specific focus that will help
you work towards these goals.
o Reading Response # 1: Close Reading of a Primary Source. Due in Week 2.
§ Choose one primary source that sparked your interest. You might explore a
question you had while reading, a problem that came up in class, or a
structuring concept, tension, or paradox. Whatever topic you choose, identify
a thesis in the first paragraph of your response and then support it with
specific passages from the text.
o Reading Response #2: Close Reading of a Secondary Source. Due in Week 4.
§ Choose one secondary source that intrigued (or infuriated!) you. Some
questions to consider: What argument did the author make? Did you find
 their argument persuasive? Why or why not? What evidence did they use to
support their claims? What was the methodological basis of their approach?
As in the first reading response, identify a thesis and then support it with
specific passages from the text.
o Reading Response #3: Integration of a Primary Source and Secondary Source. Due in
Week 6.
§ Choose one primary source and one secondary source that speak to similar
themes, questions, or problems. How did a close reading of the primary
source support, challenge, or complicate the argument made in the secondary
source? Did the secondary source help you better understand the primary
source? Why or why not? Did considering two modes of evidence in tandem
change your perspective on the methodological issues under discussion?
Identify a thesis and support it with specific passages drawn from the
primary and secondary sources.
o Reading Response #4: Mini-Paper. Due in Week 8.
§ You should conceptualize the final reading response as a mini-version of
your final paper. Think of the topic you plan to explore in the final paper and
then reduce it to something that can be argued in two pages. Support your
thesis with a combination of primary and secondary sources drawn from
multiple weeks of reading. What major course themes does your argument
address? What types of evidence support your claims? How might you
expand the scope of your argument for the purposes of the final paper?
• Final Paper: 40%. Due in Week 11.
o This 8-10 page argumentative essay will serve as the culmination of the course. Its
purpose is for you to synthesize what you have learned over the quarter and
contribute to the scholarly conversation on gender in classical antiquity. Rather than
respond to a pre-selected prompt, you will have the opportunity to craft your own
thesis that explores the problems and questions that interested you over the term.
While you may write on any topic you wish, your paper should engage with at least
five of the primary and secondary sources we read in class. Moreover, it should speak
to the central problematic of the course: recovering the voices of Roman women.
Remember: a strong thesis is argumentative (capable of being proven or disproven),
focused (able to be argued within the page limit), and persuasive (able to be
supported by the assigned readings). To ensure a successful final paper, you will be
expected to participate in two peer-review workshops and attend office hours at least
once to discuss your paper.
o Breakdown of final paper grade
§ 5%: Participation in peer-review workshop #1
• In the first peer-review workshop, held during 7th week, you will meet
with a small group of your classmates to constructively critique each
other’s theses. After the conclusion of the workshop, you will submit
your original and revised thesis to me.
§ 5%: Participation in peer-review workshop #2
• In the second peer-review workshop, held during 8th week, you will
meet with a small group of your classmates to constructively critique
outlines of each other’s papers. How you craft your outline is entirely
up to you, but it should include your revised thesis, the evidentiary
 bases of your argument, and the organization structure you plan to
use. After the conclusion of the workshop, you will submit your
original and revised outline to me.
§ 5%: Attendance of office hours to discuss paper
• You should plan to attend this meeting, held during 9th week, with
your revised thesis and outline in hand. Consider beforehand what
problems, questions, and concerns you’d like to discuss. The more
you prepare ahead of time, the more productive the meeting will be.
§ 25%: Final draft

 Sample Assessment: Final Paper
5 4 3 2 1
Thesis Clearly stated thesis Clearly stated thesis Thesis is present in Thesis is missing from Thesis statement is
in the introduction in the introduction the introduction, but the introduction, is absent from paper.
that is argumentative, that is argumentative lacks originality, focus, not argumentative,
focused, original, and and focused, yet lacks and/or argumentative and/or is vaguely
complex. some level of force (capability of defined.
originality or being
complexity. proven/disproven).
What Example: The Example: The Example: The Roman Example: The Roman Example: …
constitutes a Roman Republic fell Roman Republic fell Republic fell because Republic fell for
complex because the culture because greed led to of greed. several reasons.
thesis? of the nobiles the corruption of the
encouraged the nobiles.
acquisition of wealth
but resisted
regulating it through
civic institutions.
Evidence Thesis statement is Thesis statement is Thesis statement is Thesis is rarely Citations of
not only supported, supported by partially supported by supported by citations primary sources
but nuanced and contextualized and citations of primary of primary sources and secondary
enriched, by specific citations of sources and secondary and secondary scholarship are
contextualized and primary sources and scholarship. Citations scholarship, which are mostly or
specific citations of secondary are unfocused, unfocused, repetitive, completely absent
primary sources and scholarship. Citations simplistic, repetitive, and/or irrelevant. from paper.
secondary occasionally lack and/or summative.
scholarship. focus or complexity.
Organization Introduction lays out Introduction lays out Introduction lays out Introduction lacks Paper lacks
thesis and “roadmap” thesis and “roadmap” thesis and hints at a thesis and “roadmap.” evidence of
for the reader. for the reader. “roadmap” for the Arguments are not organization.
Arguments are Arguments are reader. Arguments are divided into Introduction and
divided between divided between not always divided paragraphs. conclusion are
paragraphs, are paragraphs, though between paragraphs. Paragraphs missing missing; arguments
internally structured, they occasionally lack Paragraphs lack structure and flow. are jumbled in
and logically flow internal structure or structure and flow. Conclusion is cursory, different sections;
from one to the next. flow. Conclusion Conclusion is disconnected from the no logical structure
Conclusion reminds summarizes the summative and leaves paper’s argument, or to the argument.
reader of the stakes argument and the stakes of the missing.
of the argument. gestures towards its argument
stakes. unaddressed.
Style Few to no Occasional Multiple grammatical Frequent grammatical Very frequent
grammatical and grammatical and and spelling errors. and spelling errors; grammatical and
spelling errors. Prose spelling errors. Prose Prose contains run-on prose contains run- spelling errors;
style is clear and style is clear. sentences, fragments, on-sentences, prose is difficult to
engaging. Topic/concluding and incorrect fragments, incorrectly understand. Topic/
Topic/concluding sentences connect punctuation. Topic/ used punctuation, etc. concluding
sentences connect paragraphs, but are concluding sentences Topic/concluding sentences are
paragraphs in occasionally choppy. don’t connect sentences are missing. absent. Formatting
thoughtful ways. Formatting is paragraphs. Formatting lacks is highly
Formatting is consistent. Formatting lacks consistency. inconsistent.
consistent. consistency.
Grade Breakdown
Thesis: 10 points
Evidence: 10 points
Organization: 10 points
Style: 10 points
Total: 40 points

Formatting Requirements
Papers should be in 12 pt. Times New Roman font, double-spaced, with one inch margins.

Citations
Your essay should use a combination of primary and secondary sources to support its thesis. Use
primary sources to establish the evidentiary foundation of your argument and secondary sources to
indicate the relationship of your argument to scholarly discourse. A successful essay will draw on a
variety of readings rather than just one. You do not need to consult outside sources for this
assignment.

• How to Cite Ancient Sources:

“Quotation,” (Author, Title, Section #).
“And so, joined with power, greed without moderation or measure invaded, polluted, and
devastated everything, considered nothing valuable or sacred, until it brought about its own
collapse,” (Sallust, The Jugurthine War, 42).
• How to Cite Assigned Secondary Sources
“Quotation,” (Last name + Page #)
“Another problem was the quite thin presence of Rome in the provinciae, which to a large
degree remained a series of military commands rather than carefully planned units with
defensible borders,” (Osgood 315).

 Micro-Teaching Session: Teaching Methods and Lesson Plan
Teaching Methods
1. Topic of micro-teaching: Virgilian graffiti in Pompeii.
2. Primary learning objective: for students to use archaeological evidence to reconstruct the
perspective of an ordinary Roman citizen.
3. Required materials: handout with visual depictions of graffiti; whiteboard to write learning
objective.
4. Motivating attention: presenting students with a problem that we go on to solve together.
5. Activities: minute paper + open discussion
6. Assessment: when students are able to articulate—in a minute paper and/or discussion—
their own interpretation of Virgilian graffiti, I will know learning is taking place.
Lesson Plan
1. Write learning objective on board: using archaeological evidence to reconstruct the
perspective of an ordinary Roman citizen.
2. Start with a problem: Almost all of our sources from classical antiquity are written by elite
male citizens. Is it possible to recover experiences beyond the elite? (1 min.)
a. Solution: One way we can do so is by looking beyond written texts and towards a
wider range of source material, including graffiti discovered in Pompeii.
3. Opening discussion: how does graffiti function in the contemporary world? (1 min.)
4. Introduction to the graffiti of Pompeii. (2 min.)
a. Over 50 examples of graffiti have been preserved in Pompeii that engage with
Virgil’s Aeneid, perhaps our most canonical Latin text.
i. Discussion: what perspectives are represented in Virgil’s text?
1. Elite, masculine, imperialistic
ii. Can we read the text in a different way?
iii. Re-interpretations of Virgilian poetry in Pompeii suggest yes
5. On the wall of a fullery (an ancient laundromat), a fuller named Fabius Ululitremulus wrote
his own version of the Aeneid’s opening line. (1 min.)
a. “I do not sing of arms and the man, but of fullers and their owl.”
6. Clues for interpretation (2 min.)
a. Fulleries = dirty, low-class jobs
b. The symbol of the fuller = an owl
c. Fabius Ululitremulus = “Fabius the Trembling Owl”
7. With these clues in mind, how might we interpret Fabius’ re-writing of the Aeneid?
a. Minute paper (2 min.)
8. Open discussion (5 min.)
9. Summary: By inserting fullers—and his own name—into the most canonical of poems,
Fabius asserts himself and his occupation as worthy of epic narration. In this way, graffiti
enables us to recover a marginalized voice in antiquity. (1 min.)
 Micro-Teaching Handout: Voices from the Margins of Pompeii

Arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris…

I sing of arms and the man, who first [came] from the shores of Troy…
--Virg. Aen. 1.1

FULLONES ULULAMQUE CANO NON ARMA VIRUMQUE

I do not sing of arms and the man, but of the fullers and their owl.

Fabius ULUL-I-TREMULUS
-- CIL IV, 9131
 Critical Reflection

Participating in the Chicago Center for Teaching’s Seminar on Course Design has changed

my approach to teaching in a number of ways. First and foremost, it has prompted me to think

more carefully about how to plan and spend time in the classroom. Rather than having a vague plan

to “discuss the readings,” I now think of a primary learning objective before each class. Upon

entering the classroom, I write this learning objective on the board with key questions to structure

discussion. I conceptualize the subsequent discussion as a sort of pyramid; I begin by asking a lot of

simple, low-stakes questions that gradually become more focused and difficult until we arrive at the

key questions. Designed to solicit high-order reasoning, these questions ask students to synthesize

multiple readings and apply them to interpretive or methodological problems. The students are then

prompted to connect these questions back to the previous day’s discussion, so that they begin to

perceive the course as a process of cumulative discovery.

To some extent, I was using this approach to discussion before enrolling in the Seminar on

Course Design. Yet what made the course valuable was that it gave me a language to talk about what

I was already doing in the classroom. It also encouraged me to think critically about what a student-

centered environment looks like. One of my biggest take-aways is that a discussion-based classroom

isn’t necessarily sufficient to produce active learning. I now incorporate a range of activities to break

up discussion into smaller chunks, including minute papers, “think, pair, share,” and small group

debates. I’ve found that these activities help me hear a wider range of voices, so that discussion

doesn’t become the responsibility of a small portion of the class. Moreover, by giving students time

to actually think about their ideas before sharing them, the activities improve the overall quality of

discussion. I plan to incorporate these and other discussion techniques into future classes.

The Seminar on Course Design also prompted me to consider more carefully the

assessments that I employ when teaching. My biggest lesson in this regard is the importance of low-
stakes assignments that prepare students for the high-stakes evaluation at the end of the course. I

have a better sense of the importance of using Chalk postings and reading responses in which

students can test out their ideas and practice argumentative reasoning. Low-stakes writing

assignments not only give students the opportunity to try and fail without damaging their grade, but

they give me the opportunity to give them a lot of feedback. I have already begun to see the positive

effects of this in the current class I’m teaching. Prior to submitting their final paper, each student

has already received four rounds of feedback from me on their reading responses. They have also

received a detailed rubric that specifies the building blocks of a strong piece of writing. Because they

have a strong sense of how I assess written work, they feel a sense of control over the final paper

and their attendant grade. As a result, there has been a notable reduction in the panic I usually

witness at the end of the quarter.

Another meaningful lesson I learned in the Seminar on Course Design is the importance of

explaining my teaching methodology to my students. Prior to taking the seminar, I rarely made

explicit the reasoning that went into each of the assignments I planned. Yet I now realize that what

seems obvious to me is not necessarily obvious to my students. By connecting classroom discussion,

reading responses, and final papers to course objectives, I help them see the purpose of assessments.

Once they make the connection between work and reward, they are more likely to take ownership of

their learning. In the end, just as I expect them to answer the “so what?” question in their writing, so

too should I be answering this question in my teaching. It is simply a matter of treating my students

as serious learners and equipping them with the information and tools they need to succeed. In a

variety of ways, the Seminar on Course Design helped me to articulate this philosophy and put it

into practice through concrete pedagogical strategies.