, IX, 3, S
and Arabic.In terms of technology access and use,the results were quite interesting. There is atrend in academia to believe that studentshave both access to technology and facilitywith using this technology. This is based onMarc Prensky’s work (2001) with what heterms
. All students in thiscourse had access to a computer and accessto the Internet. All students also had accessto either a smartphone, or a digital musicplayer. When it came to rating their owncompetence in using computers and theInternet, all of the students rated their skillsat least at the intermediate level of pro
-ciency. The status of the learner (freshman,sophomore, or junior) seemed to have a lotto do with how they rated their competencein using
. Students who had been on campuslonger tended to rate their experiencehigher than students who had been oncampus for a shorter time; this was to beexpected. The Web 2.0
behaviors of thestudents were also quite interesting. Moststudents knew of blogs and microblogs butdidn’t use them. They knew of Facebookand used it frequently; however, they didnot know of, and therefore did not use,dedicated social networks like
. They also did consultwiki pages, but they never contributedknowledge to a wiki. These
ndings wereclose to my initial hunch about the learners;I believed that they would have
technology, but unlike Prensky (2001) Ibelieved that this didn’t necessarily implythat students were comfortable using it.The student expectation responses, inthe free-form answer part of the survey,were actually quite interesting to analyze.In the responses there are a few responsesof the “the course will be successful if I getan A” sort, but in responses where studentswent beyond a letter grade you can see adifference between students who had beenapprenticed into the discourse of Classics,and those who had not. The former hadmost likely taken Latin and their rubric fora successful class is to be able to read theGreek and to translate it into English.Individuals who have not been appren-ticed into the discourse of Classics expect tobe able to speak Classical Greek withfriends and family, gain an understandingof English based on Greek roots andlemmas or learn about their background. Itis interesting that students who have beenapprenticed into the discourse expect to beable to memorize a lot, and use that forreading, while those who have
beenapprenticed into the discourse of Classicsexpect cultural background information,and to gain competence in speech as well asreading—something you tend to see in thediscourse of foreign language teaching, notin classical language teaching. What isinteresting to note is that about half of thestudents dropped the course during theuniversity’s add-drop period
, and most of the students who remained were Classicsmajors.
2. Current Teaching Methodology
Having observed a seasoned, andtalented, faculty member teach ClassicalGreek
for one semester, I can say with ahigh degree of con
dence that theapproach used to teach the course is the
Web 2.0 is a term that describes applica-tions on the World Wide Web that facilitate par-ticipatory information sharing andcollaboration amongst the users of those webapplications. The user-centered design of Web2.0 web applications encourages dialogue anduser-created content. It is commonly believedthat members of the “Digital Native” generation(born after 1980) are avid and expert users of Web 2.0 technologies.
According to the instructor it is normal tostart a class with a full set of students, and forabout half to drop it throughout the semester. Itwould be interesting, in a future study, to seehow this compares to other Classical and Mod-ern languages and to determine what makesstudents stay or drop the course.
century B.C.E. Attic Greek to be exact.