TEACHING STATEMENT
Approach, Rationale, and Overview
Archaeological Methods, Theory, and Practice (AMTP) is designed as a course
for students who intend to pursue a career in archaeology. In reality, many
will not become archaeologists but they have a strong interest in the field
(and will form part of an informed citizenry).
On the first day of class, students are presented with the following questions:
• What is the value of archaeology? What is its relevance to the problems
faced by people today?
• Who benefits from archaeology besides archaeologists, and how
are those benefits achieved?
• How do archaeologists know what they’re talking about? Are they
just making up stories?
• Why are there conflicts over archaeological remains? What lies behind
stories in the news (e.g., Kennewick Man) about repatriation?
By the end of this course students should be able to:
• Persuasively argue the relevance of archaeological research to key
topics concerning human welfare (environmental degradation and sustainability,
food production, social and economic inequality, gender relations, warfare).
• Evaluate an archaeological study in terms of its research design, theoretical
approach, and logic.
• Propose a project for future research at a site or region based on an
archaeological report of their choosing.
• Evaluate the ethical (and to some extent legal) issues surrounding
the documentation, preservation, interpretation, and “ownership”
of archaeological remains.
• Communicate all of the above to public and professional audiences in
oral and written form and learn why archaeologists should consider (the sometimes
dissenting) perspectives of different stakeholders.
• Identify different career paths in archaeology and the preparation they
require.
AMTP is taught in a discussion format, with enrollment capped at 20 students. We meet twice a week, and each class is 75 minutes long. Critical thinking is encouraged through a combination of formal and exploratory writing and presentation assignments, small-group work, and discussions. To encourage participation and interaction, the classroom atmosphere is structured but relaxed. At the beginning of the term, a short questionnaire (covering each student’s background, interests, and goals) and meetings allow me to get a better grasp of what each student brings to the class and what they hope to get out of it. I use this information to integrate students into discussions (e.g., by asking them to relate their research or field experiences to something we have read) and to engage them with the course material (e.g., by directing them to research topics related to their interests or goals). Frequent writing assignments (including ungraded drafts of formal papers) and office meetings allow me to assess student progress, strengths, and weaknesses, and to provide better feedback.
A set of assigned readings form the basis for each days discussion (reinforced by a reading journal, other informal [ungraded, in-class] writing assignments, and small-group projects). Readings include overviews of archaeological theory, essays on the practice of archaeology (including discussions of heritage management, working with local and descendant communities, and conflicts over interpretation of the past) and case studies where students evaluate the links between research questions, theory (and underlying assumptions), methods, results, and interpretations. There are no segments devoted solely to archaeological methods. Instead, the emphasis in this class is on understanding the role of methods in research design. (Note that other classes devoted primarily to methods—lab analysis of different materials, osteology, field techniques—are offered in the department as well.)
Beyond the readings and the related assignments, students analyze an archaeological report of their choosing that forms the basis for three formal papers and two presentations. The first paper describes and critiques the research design of the project and the interpretations and identifies directions for future research. The second paper is a rewrite of the report and its results as an article for Archaeology magazine (i.e., a format aimed at a public audience). Following this paper, students are expected to give a presentation geared toward the public based on some aspect of the report’s findings. The third paper is a grant proposal for additional research based on questions raised by the report. The accompanying presentation on the proposed work is aimed toward a professional audience or a descendant or local group (student’s choice).
The course has been heavily modified from its previous incarnations (see discussion below under “Course Development”) and will be taught for the first time in Spring 2003. Only some of the readings and assignments overlap, though previous versions also had a reading list of theoretical overviews combined with essays and case studies. Additionally, students were required to write papers (though not with the public in mind) and a proposal on an archaeological report. I also assigned small-group projects and a reading journal. In its previous format, students became well-versed in archaeological research design and generated innovative research projects in their proposals. The lively discussions over ethics (particularly over archaeology’s relationship with the public and with local and descendant communities) also demonstrated student concern with and comprehension of these complex topics.
I anticipate that the course content and assignments will suit some institutions and individuals but not others. Archaeological methods, theory, and practice include a broad range of topics, many heavily debated. No single class can cover all significant topics and all perspectives. The readings and topics of this class reflect the MATRIX Principles but also the design of Penn State’s archaeology curriculum and the needs of our students, as well as my personal interests and background. Other instructors will doubtless have other goals and interests.
MATRIX Principles
All seven MATRIX Principles (Stewardship, Diverse Interests, Ethics
and Values, Social Relevance, Communication, Basic Archaeological Skills,
and Real-World Problem Solving) are integrated into the course. Stewardship
is addressed in the sections on cultural and natural resource management
and on history and heritage. In the modules on human remains, history
and heritage, and public archaeology, we consider potential conflicts
over stewardship and how these have been resolved. These same three
modules thus relate to Diverse Interests. Diverse Interests are also
discussed in the cultural/natural resource management reading by Wang
on tribal access to areas of National Forest; in the warfare module
in the reading by Zimmerman on the impact on descendant groups of studying
violent acts in the past; and in the gender module on gender biases
in interpretations and on gender (and ethnic) equity in the discipline.
All of the above, with their emphases on stewardship and on the relationship
of archaeology to local and descendant groups and to the public, are
thus also relevant to Ethics and Values. The readings on cultural resource
laws from Neumann and Sanford also apply to Ethics and Values. Social
Relevance is heavily emphasized throughout the course, and topics were
specifically selected (environmental degradation and sustainability,
food production, inequality, gender, warfare) because of their relevance
to modern crises, conflicts, or inequities.
Communication is stressed through class discussions and through informal and formal writing and presentation assignments, which include preparing works for a public as well as a professional audience. Small-group assignments also teach students to work together and to respectfully consider opinions they might not agree with. The Basic Archaeological Skill emphasized in the course is an understanding of archaeological research design and the links between theory, questions, methods, results, and interpretations. Real-World Problem Solving is addressed through scenarios where students take the perspective of various participants or stakeholders, argue their position, and propose a resolution or plan of action. Real-World Problem Solving is also considered in the discussions of cultural resource laws and in the segment on careers in archaeology where students look for field schools or internships and gather information on professional jobs and the preparation they require.
Institutional Context
Penn State’s University Park campus has over 40,000 students,
primarily from the state of Pennsylvania and throughout the Northeast.
There are currently 92 anthropology majors and 22 minors. We offer a
B.A. in Anthropology and have recently created the option of a B.S.
in Archaeological Sciences (with more required archaeology courses).
Methods and Theory is not required for the B.A. (though it can be taken
as one of the required 400-level courses), but it is required for the
B.S. Prerequisites are the Introduction to Archaeology course and at
least two additional archaeology classes. We offer approximately 20
different undergraduate archaeology or archaeology-related courses,
including classes in North American, Mesoamerican, and Andean archaeology
and ethnohistory; Old World Prehistory; cultural ecology; museum studies;
osteology; forensics; field and laboratory methods; and the history
of archaeology. Typically, 30-50 percent of students in the course have
had some fieldwork experience. While the majority of students are archaeology
concentrators, there are always students from the other subfields. Enrollment
has ranged from 8–17 students (it is capped at 20 in order to
retain the seminar and discussion format). My rough guess is that a
quarter to a third of the students intend to pursue a career in archaeology.
The remaining students have a moderate to strong interest in the field,
with a very small percentage simply taking the course because they need
another 400-level course to graduate.
Course Development
I began teaching this class in 1999 as I had been taught methods and
theory, with an emphasis on theory and on research design. My background
is in academic archaeology, and most of my field experience has been
overseas (Peru). When I began the course, I assigned Preucel and Hodder’s
(1996) Contemporary Archaeology in Theory and supplementary
articles. I added Johnson’s (1999) Archaeological Theory:
An Introduction in 2002 (during its test run as a MATRIX course),
as well as additional articles on public outreach and the social context
of archaeology. I've heavily revised the course content in 2003 for
several reasons. First, it finally sunk in that the majority of students
were not going to pursue careers in academic archaeology. The course
needed to better serve these students while exposing those who do go
on to research and teaching careers to issues that are not commonly
emphasized within the academy (like public education). Second, I purposely
chose topics for their relevance to persistent problems of human welfare
because of their broader significance and greater accessibility to undergraduates.
Third, I wanted to integrate more course material on cultural resource
management and compliance archaeology, which represent the overwhelming
majority of archaeological work carried out in the U.S. (and employ
the majority of archaeologists). The 2003 reading list (that includes
Johnson but not Preucel and Hodder, as well as many new supplementary
articles) reflects these concerns.
Assignments have also undergone changes. In 2002, students worked on an archaeological report of their choosing, writing two descriptive papers and generating a proposal for future research. The proposal assignment successfully reinforced student understanding of archaeological research design (it is one thing to analyze someone else’s design, and another to generate your own). They generated interesting questions, did a lot of background research, and met with me as well as other faculty members to get advice and feedback. For 2003, I have refined the archaeological report assignment. They now write one descriptive paper and the proposal, but must also generate a paper with a public audience in mind. In 2002, I also added the reading journal and gave students specific discussion topics to consider for the readings. These changes have helped students engage with the readings and greatly improved class discussions. I will continue these practices in 2003.
In this class and others I have been increasing the number of ungraded assignments. These include short in-class writing assignments that let students gather and develop their thoughts prior to discussion. (I collect some but not all of these and read them to see how individual students are doing, but do not grade them.) While these assignments take some class time, the reward is more thoughtful discussions with greater student participation (particularly by those students who are bright but shy or need a bit more time to compose their thoughts). I also encourage students to turn in drafts of required papers, where I assign a provisional grade. Drafts are also assigned due dates. (In my experience, if you just say “I encourage you to turn in a draft”, very few students will respond.) With a due date, and knowing that they will get a provisional grade and feedback, I've found that the majority of students will turn in a draft. It does require more grading and one-on-one discussion time, but the students get much more out of the project (and I get to read more interesting papers in the end).
The class has received high evaluations for the three times that it
has been taught. On a scale of 1-7, the average rating for overall quality
of the course is 6.25. In 2003, with the new syllabus, the overall rating
of the course was 6.43.