On February 11, Ms. Barnett’s two psychology classes (Psychology & Literature and Advanced Psychology), worked together on their “Medea” unit. Each class read the book separately, but they came together for the final project: a trial, deciding Medea’s punishment for her crimes.
If you aren’t familiar with “Medea,” it’s an ancient Greek tragedy about a woman, named Medea, and her husband, Jason, who leaves her to marry a young woman in a royal family. In retaliation, Medea kills her two children, whom Jason cherished. She did it out of revenge, because she hated Jason more than she loved her children.
The job of the two psychology classes was to put Medea on trial, complete with a judge, attorneys, witnesses, and a jury. Of course, in the real text, Medea’s crime seems very straight-forward, so to justify the trial and tie it into psychology, the defense team had to come up with a mental illness that would have allowed Medea to avoid the death penalty. They then had to come up with evidence to prove this illness while the prosecution had to find ways to prove that Medea’s crime was not a result of the illness.
This project was in no way a conventional final project and had a very different impact than an essay or test. The concept of two different classes collaborating on a final project, not to mention putting a fictional character from ancient Greek literature on trial, with a jury made up entirely of volunteers, seems ambitious.
However, many of the participants, myself included, found the experience to be very rewarding. The teams had to do lots of research into not only the inner workings of a trial, but also into the psychology of mothers who have killed their children and into dissociative identity disorder, the illness picked by the defense team. They also had to read and understand the text of “Medea” very well, which could be a challenge at times, considering the time period it was written in.
Putting anyone on trial requires deep knowledge of both that individual case and the background information. Putting a character from a book on trial forces students to actively engage in the process and truly understand the material. This type of project, versus a test or an essay, not only engages students but allows them to retain the information learned.
As a member of the Psych & Lit class, I enjoyed this project much more than something conventional. The connections I had to make between the material to prove our case helped me remember and understand the unit much better. It isn’t something I will quickly forget as we move onto the next unit.
The trial itself was very interesting and rewarding. To see the jury genuinely interested in the project, as well as my fellow classmates, was really great. I felt as if I connected with my classmates much better over the course of the unit; we truly worked as a team, which can be hard to achieve in group projects.
At the beginning of the project, it seemed a little chaotic. Trying to coordinate with the two classes, relaying edits about our witness statements and case summaries could be difficult at times. However, in the end, it was a truly rewarding experience that I will not soon forget. I highly recommend that teachers try to conduct a unique project every once in a while. You may be pleasantly surprised by the outcome.
Written by Avery O'Brien