plik

��J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75 84 DOI 10.1007/s11457-008-9039-5 ORIGINAL PAPER Communities of Knowledge: Teaching and Learning in Maritime Archaeology Fraser Sturt Published online: 29 October 2008 � Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract This paper explores the points of contact and divergence between education, training and experience in maritime archaeology. In particular, it is proposed that whilst it is worth developing McGrail s (Studies in maritime archaeology. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, 1997) discussion of what should be included when we teach Maritime archaeology, more might be gained from moving beyond individual opinions of instructors. As such, this paper includes an exploration of both my own answers to the questions offered in the call for papers and those of past and present Southampton students. What emerges from this comparison is that by focusing too closely on the specifics of what is (or should be) taught, we miss out on what students actually gain from courses and more broadly what we gain as a community. Keywords Teaching Learning Maritime archaeology Pedagogy Communities of knowledge Introduction Thirty-five years ago David Clark (1973) argued that archaeology had lost its innocence. With an optimistic tone he suggested that there was no longer a need to fight for disci- plinary recognition, to agree upon core methodologies, or to stake out individual territories. For Clark (1973), archaeology had finally matured as an academic discipline, and could look forward to a more productive and innovative future. I argue here that Maritime Archaeology needs to demonstrate a similar confidence and commitment to the subject s academic growth. This requires us to not only reflect upon what and how we teach, but also why, to what end and by whom. In order to critically reflect in this manner we need to shift the focus away from teaching and onto learning and pedagogy. No matter how good the curriculum design, the delivery of the lecture, running of the practical or time spent in the field, an instructor s desires for a F. Sturt (&) Centre for Maritime Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK e-mail: F.Sturt@soton.ac.uk 123 76 J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75 84 course and a student s experience of it may differ substantially (Biggs 2003). As such, the sections below include extracts from a survey of 48 past and present students from the MA/ MSc course at Southampton. This is recognised to be a limited sample from a restricted population, however the answers they provide challenge assumptions currently being made about what and how we should teach. In particular this paper stresses the need to move away from a view of higher education as a provider of products, and towards one of education as process. As Hamilakis (2004) and Parker (2002, 2003) have argued, this is an important step that promotes flexibility and responsiveness in education, and resists the impacts of overt commodification. Central to this shift is the adoption of a more optimistic view of maritime archaeology and those involved in it. Instead of being seen as providers and consumers we need to move to a model where all participants are seen to be valued as community members and contributors. Establishing the Community; Who We are and What We Do In the call for papers for this issue of the journal, the key question asked was what do we mean and what are we seeking to do when we teach maritime archaeology? . Although apparently straightforward, this simple question hides a series of nested dilemmas. First, we need to define who we are. Outwardly this might seem like an easy task, but it is one that needs to be undertaken with care, for it affects all subsequent discussion and argument. As someone employed in higher education, it is tempting to answer that we must be people like myself; lecturers and professors within university departments. This would make answering the question much easier, as within the UK we have clear guidelines laid out by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education benchmarking statements (QAA 2007) as to what should be included in degree programmes. The problem with this definition is that it would deny the role of other educators involved in maritime archaeology; for example school teachers, the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS), and in the UK the Archaeology Training Forum (ATF). These groups have a clear education and training remit, and thus must be included. If we do not include them it is to suggest that they are unimportant and do not factor in how higher education functions. This would be a peculiar view of the community, as it would suggest that all those teaching or enrolling on degree and post-graduate degree programmes did not interact with other interested parties. However, with a bit more thought we can go even further, and include organisations such as commercial archaeological units, English Heritage, television companies, and regional archaeological societies. These groups all teach or instruct maritime archaeology to some degree. Recognition of these groups is particularly important when considering the role and content of post-graduate courses. Many of those that enrol on such a degree will have worked in commercial units, or taken an NAS course. We then are a diverse group from a variety of different backgrounds, with overlapping interests. Importantly, rather than being viewed as separate entities with different goals, we can all be seen to be contributing specifically to the wider community of maritime archaeology, and indeed archaeology more generally We reach different audiences and engage with the subject on a range of different levels, but all contribute to a sum that should be greater than its constituent parts. 123 J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75 84 77 Pedagogy, Commodification and Content Once we have been identified it is possible to consider the other terms used in the key question; teach and maritime archaeology . It is then possible to consider how these may relate differently to different members of the community. To teach is to inform and to instruct. This is clearly an important part of any archaeological education process. No one is born knowing how to dig a feature, how to plan a site, or what a mast step looks like. These are all skills that to varying degrees can be taught and learnt. Indeed the NAS and ATF specialise in this form of instruction, and higher education establishments recognise their importance through maintaining (and in many situations requiring) their place in curriculums. However, it is also important to recognise that learning how to do things and understanding why things are done do not always go hand-in-hand, and can take time to resolve. This is why we should look more broadly at pedagogies, for as Hamilakis (2004) and Giroux (1991) warn, if simply the process of teaching and learning (pedagogy) we fail to understand the full impact that decisions of what and how to teach have upon academic disciplines and society. Sadly, rather than committing to an educational process which is ongoing and values time, experience and understanding, archaeology (and with it maritime archaeology) appears increasingly drawn to a cut down, commodified perspective of education, wherein acquisition of quantifiable skills is paramount. It is important to note at this point that I believe field based skills and experience are an essential part of any archaeological edu- cation. Indeed, I would agree with those documented in Cobb s (2004) report on a recent Theoretical Archaeology Group session run by the Higher Education Academy, that more time spent in the field can only benefit students. However, a belief in the importance of field-based skills does not equate to placing primacy upon it within higher education establishments. As noted above, maritime archaeology is not unique for having concerns over what is taught, how it is delivered, and who this serves best. Over the past 20 years there has been considerable debate in archaeology more generally; with a particular focus on the whether the needs of the commercial sector are being met (or should be met) by academic insti- tutions (Aitchison 2004; Austin 1987; Bradley 1993; Cobb 2004; Colley 2004; Dowson 2005; Hamilakis 2004). Austin (1987) and Aitchison (2004) both raise concerns that the commercial sector needs to carry out additional training for graduates and post-graduates to enable them to operate effectively as employees. The difficulty here is that the call for more commercially au-fait graduates and post-graduates becomes the centre point around which later discussions of curriculum revision are based. This creates an unhelpful prac- tical/theoretical divide where one aspect of the discipline is seen to be valued more highly than other, rather than both being seen as essential components of an archaeological education. Furthermore, it also reflects a belief that it is the responsibility of one part of the archaeological community to fulfil the needs of another, rather than consider how both may work together to the benefit of all. The above can thus be seen as a call for caution, stemming from a concern over timing. University education is becoming increasingly commodified (Parker 2003), with greater stress being placed on quantifiable aspects of courses, and the commercial value of the products delivered. Whilst this is not without benefit in terms of the reintegration of academia with industry, it also has the potential to erode the progress that has been made in archaeology since Clark (1973) looked to the future in such an optimistic manner. As a community we need to value more highly the educational work done by groups such as the NAS, ATF and commercial units as complimentary to that occurring higher education 123 78 J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75 84 establishments, rather than seek to locate all training within degree and post-graduate degree programmes. Clark (1973, p. 6) observed that archaeology had followed a discernable trajectory. It starts with the formation of a disciplinary consciousness, moves through self-consciousness and then emerges into a new phase of critical self-consciousness. Within the period of consciousness the discipline had had to fight for recognition, establishing its credibility through proving theory and method. Following this a time of self-consciousness emerged where teaching attempted to condense experience within general principles and explicit rules . In this phase Clark (1973, p. 6) saw the emergence of rival academies and personal differences. This divided the discipline and prevented meaningful growth and innovation. It can be argued that we are in danger of moving backwards towards this stage in maritime archaeology, unless we carefully evaluate the impact of educational commodification on the discipline. In the final stage of critical self-consciousness Clark (1973) believed the community paused to realise how little it really knew, and the need for a continued commitment to question core methods, theories and the direction of archaeology itself. For Clark (1973, p. 7) university environments were essential to this stage as they were the spaces within which these conversations could begin. In the commercial sector pressures exist which do not allow so much room for this form of contemplation. As such, it is crucial that higher education establishments continue to value academic discourse, as well as skills provision, to maintain the health of the discipline. Hamilakis (2004, p. 289) has discussed this problem of a skills focused view of edu- cation at length. He states that in the current climate education is seen purely as an instrumentalist procedure, that is, something that delivers knowledge, information and skills which have a distinctive, easily definable, measurable and quantifiable character, which can be assessed in a direct way, and more importantly, have a specific market value Given Clark s (1973) argument, this is clearly problematic. Calls by commercial units and industry analysts (Aitchison 2004) for students to emerge with more ticks in boxes for easily definable skills plays into this view of education. This in turn now places a pressure on universities to provide it. As Parker (2003) documents, the fact that students can now pay considerable amounts of money to enrol in universities leads us to see them as consumers. Given this, it would seem sensible that they would want to emerge with a greater market value than when they entered a programme. It is here that universities begin to suffer from pressures operating in two directions. Firstly, there is the direct call by commercial operators to produce a product that more readily meets their needs. Second, all universities are keen to attract as many students as possible to increase revenue. As such, a simple and effective marketing tool is to comply to the demands of business and project this as a positive feature. Technically, if we view students as consumers, this should please them as well, as it increases their employability. However, as Parker (2003) discusses, this potentially de-values and patronises the student, and belittles the discipline. It presumes that what they want most is not to contribute to the wider community, but to in-turn become a product which can be consumed. This is not to play down the importance of employability, but to question the need for educational goals and attitudes to be dictated by the prevalent employment model. There is a further problem with the view of education as a purely instrumentalist procedure; that it focuses our effort on more easily definable and potentially deliverable 123 J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75 84 79 skills based instruction. If curriculums are re-designed to focus too heavily on the practical, they risk becoming instructional rather than educational. Assessing skills based performance can be carried out with check-lists and tick boxes; individual x has proven that they can draw this section underwater, operate an airlift, set-up a grid etc., etc. While these are essential skills and justifiably belong in NAS courses and undergraduate degree programmes, as a community we require more from our members with post-graduate qualifications. As Clark (1973, p. 7) suggests, education needs to be about providing students with a range of skills and abilities, but most important is the ability to understand what has occurred and question it, a distinctly less quantifiable and more difficult to develop trait. Thus people emerging with masters level degree need to understand the practice of archaeology, but also have the intellectual skills to question those practices. It is then the responsibility of individuals and employers to develop their practical and theoretical skills through continuing professional development. There is yet another, more complicated problem with the skills provision model for education in maritime archaeology at university. Although the name maritime archae- ology sounds well defined, it is in fact a component of the discipline that includes a variety of interests, deploying a range of skills. Thinking back to the breadth of the maritime archaeological community, some of these subject areas and skills are relatively easy to cover, people can in effect be instructed in them, and the entire community may share their provision. However, when considering what may constitute a post-graduate involvement with the subject the needs broaden and the requirements are more difficult to fulfil from within the general population. As McGrail (1997) noted when attempting to lay out what any post-graduate programme in Maritime Archaeology should include, the breadth of the subject is such that we should not allow ourselves to be limited to focusing on technical skills (be it diving or surveying), but on improved understanding of a range of maritime issues, from navigation and ship construction, through to sea-level and climate change. It is interesting to note that awareness of these broader aspects are not often noted on job descriptions. Nor do they feature in instrumentalist views of education, as they are hard to delineate. Ironically however, they are (or should be) of critical importance to anyone working within the commercial sector. The most frequent work carried out by maritime archaeologists in the commercial sector is that of desk based and environmental impact assessment. To adequately complete this task individuals need a developed understanding of the archaeology of different periods, the key research questions relating to any material present, and then construct an argument as to its significance. Such a task demands more than the skills that comprise the tasks of data acquisition and display. This form of work requires individuals who have an in-depth knowledge of maritime archaeology, its research priorities and concerns. More importantly, they also need to be able to evaluate these research priorities and question them. As such, I would argue that the instrumentalist, commodified approach to higher edu- cation in the discipline serves no one if adhered to too strongly. By focusing too closely on the needs of employers, and potentially the stereotypes of the discipline (i.e. that it is all about diving) in order to sell programmes, we chip away at the edges of disciplinary progress. Thus, upon reflection, I would argue that as a community we should expect people like me (educators at masters and PhD level) to both offer a degree of practical instruction in a range of tasks to ensure competency, but also to enthuse students about the subject and demand that they pick it up and move it forward themselves. 123 80 J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75 84 Opinions of Others Mine is obviously a biased and privileged view as I am permanently employed in researching and teaching maritime archaeology. As such, it seemed prudent to seek the opinions of others, who do not occupy this role. To this end, the questions that comprised the call for papers on this subject were circulated to past and present students of Maritime Archaeology at the University of Southampton. The range of responses received are interesting for what they show us about community interest and self awareness. Question 1: What do we mean and what are we seeking to do when we teach maritime archaeology ? We are primarily seeking to enthuse students about the subject, prepare them for a job in archaeology, whether as a digger, researcher or a commercial marine archaeologist, and give them a broad understanding of marine archaeology as well as an idea of where their own interests and strengths lie. Respondent W1 ex-student currently employed in the commercial sector When we teach maritime archaeology & we are seeking to pass along the tools and background needed to properly understand the issues surrounding the field of maritime archaeology to a group of, hopefully, passionate students. The programs ought not to teach what to think, but rather how to think about the issues of preservation, management, research, dispersal of information, and ensure that their graduates are properly prepared with the skills to not only think about the issues but also do something about them in a future career involved in maritime archaeology. Respondent G1 ex-student Responses to this question invariably included reference to awareness of the broader subject and research skills. However, as respondent G1 exemplifies, there was also a clear call for provision of practical skills. Thus, in line with the argument above, there appears to be an appreciation from community members that higher education should be offering a balance of practical training and critical subject knowledge development. There is thus room for instrumentalist instruction within a broader educational programme. However, the stress needs to be placed upon providing an introduction to skills, along with critical reflection. Question 2: Do, and indeed should, graduate courses in maritime archaeology equip students for jobs in contract maritime archaeology? Should courses serve the students, maritime archaeological research or the profession? My personal response to this question is that is unnecessarily divisive. Of course graduate courses in maritime archaeology should equip students for jobs in contract maritime archaeology. After all, they are graduating with a high level degree and thus should be able to make an important contribution to the discipline. However, contracting units also have to make a commitment to continuing professional development and agree to place a value on the higher education skills of subject knowledge and critical ability, not just the quantity of instrumental skills ticked off. If we accept the above, the final part of the question is irrelevant as research and the profession all serve the wider community. 123 J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75 84 81 It was gratifying but perhaps not entirely surprising (given that all respondents were either current or past post-graduate students) to find responses to the questionnaire agreeing with the views expressed above. This indicated that even those currently involved in the programme did not see directly fulfilling the needs of contract archaeology as the primary goal of masters education, there was a clear commitment to the discipline on a less selfish level. Graduate programs in liberal arts should focus on preparing students for further research. Unfortunately there are very few undergraduate programs which prepare students for contract jobs in maritime archaeology, thus the logical place to look for such training is in further study at the graduate level. Although ideally programs like the MA/MSc at Southampton should be focused on research, practically they often need to take the place of undergraduate professional education. Respondent G2 current student My opinion is that courses should primarily serve the students, but by encouraging them to pursue their strengths and develop their research skills, are we not serving research and the profession in the long term by teaching them how to develop their ideas? Respondent W2 If possible, all of your categories. My preference should be the student first. If the student is extended and taught how to think then those attributes can be used positively in maritime research and the profession. Not all post-graduates want an academic future, many will want field-based work, but the ability to think from a solid theoretical and practical background has to be the best preparation for a career that may evolve from fieldworker to unit manager, owner or a curatorial role. If the focus is entirely on the profession it may mean that as the profession evolves and adapts the students may not have the mental or philosophical resil- ience to challenge the direction if they don t like it, or understand why they do like it. Respondent A1 current student Answers G2 and A1 (above) confirm Parker s (2003) assessment of the student as more than simple consumer. People entering masters level educational programmes are well aware of the nature of the higher education market. They can see that they are sold courses and are directly targeted through marketing literature. This was also clearly demonstrated in responses to the question of what pressures shape courses. Here every single respondent clearly identified finance, student expectations, research and the com- mercial sector as key. Questions 3: Should the acquisition of skills alone be the ultimate objective? The difficulty with this question lay in interpretation of skills . Some, such as respondent J1 believed that this was the ultimate goal of masters level education. However, they did not elaborate on what they saw those skills as being. Interestingly respondent J1 believed the goal of teaching maritime archaeology at post-graduate level to one of developing research skills as well as practical skills. More typical of the responses gained were those represented by W2, M1 and J2. Again past and current students demonstrated a clear awareness of the need for a balance between 123 82 J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75 84 practical skills acquisition and higher-level critical analysis and subject specific knowledge. Yes, then once equipped with the skills individuals are free to make their own decisions. Respondent J1 current student No you need the theory behind the skills and also knowledge of the wider archaeological issues if you are to effectively use those skills (e.g. what is needed in particular circumstances, can particular skill sets be adapted, whether certain skills/ techniques are actually useful given the research questions being looked at) Respondent W2 ex-student If the acquisition of skills alone is the objective then a post-graduate course will be pretty arid, and can be taught at a much lower level. Students need to be able to evolve a philosophy: their thoughts about what archaeology is, what is important, is what post-graduate study is about. Respondent M1 current student Of course not! The university is not a technical college. Students should acquire more than skills. Grad courses should make students think about the discipline, but also about the place of it in the academic sphere, and more generally in the modern political, popular world etc. Respondent J2 ex-student The above responses are only presented here to give a glimpse of what others think. Such qualitative responses are always difficult to present, as they appear almost anecdotal. I would be the first to admit that this survey would benefit from being able to publish all the responses, or the inclusion of some quantitative data, but this is sadly not possible. Indeed it is hoped to carry out such further research to develop some of these points in a more considered and better-supported manner. However, none of the answers given above are any less valid than any other opinion expressed within this issue. Importantly they dem- onstrate that those entering higher education are already informed, committed community members who want more from their courses than instrumentalist knowledge alone, but demand a higher-level engagement with the discipline. It is this high level knowledge that needs to be valued by us as a community more readily than it is now. Process Based Rather than Outcome Based Education Clark (1973) was first and foremost an archaeologist, whose work encompassed both research and education. His optimism for the growth of the subject stemmed a belief that archaeology had come of age and was now capable of moving beyond unhelpful disci- plinary infighting. Maritime archaeology can only move forward in this fashion if we acknowledge the different roles that can be played by different members of the wider community. To this end I would argue that universities have to accept that practical training in the specific skills of maritime archaeology are their concern. Fortunately, I cannot think of any practicing university maritime archaeologist who would disagree with this, or any programme that fails to provide some skills based learning. 123 J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75 84 83 However, commercial units must also acknowledge that the role of higher education is also to develop critical skills and more esoteric subject knowledge, to ensure the vibrancy and academic credibility of the discipline. The role of the university at any level is not simply to provide a trained excavator, and nor do I think this is what commercial units or students really want. Time at university is limited and we have to ensure that a range of educational needs are met, needs which the responses above indicate students highly value. Instead we should make sure that the training and experience gained through time in the commercial sector has a real and equal value to the wider community. While universities can introduce students to practical skills they must focus on doing it in the most time efficient manner. To put it simply: years of practical experience can never be distilled and replaced by a one- or two-year course. At post-graduate level a further point is worth considering. At the beginning of this paper I stated that we should move away from a discussion of teaching, and towards one of learning. However, the process of learning is not limited to those enrolled on courses, but equally applies to those that teach. This is particularly true at masters level. No 2 years intake has ever proven to be the same, and each year develops its own interests and quirks. This ensures that the content that is delivered, discussed and dissected is never the same. Similarly people s practical experience varies greatly, from those who we teach almost from scratch, to others who have years of on-site experience. As such, it is impossible to generalise about what we should teach, as it does vary from student to student and intake to intake. What we can insist upon is a series of standards and academic expectations; that everyone involved understands the process of archaeology (practical and theoretical) and that all are able to question and further it. Communities of Knowledge: A Conclusion Maritime archaeology is a vibrant and healthy discipline. This health is reflected in the existence of this journal, and in particular this volume. Concerns over what and how we teach reflect the critical self-awareness that Clark (1973) saw as so vital to the success of archaeology. However, it is also clear that there are a number of pressures operating upon higher education establishments that threaten this. In order to prevent a developmental slip backwards into instrumentalist teaching and factionalism we need to reaffirm our com- mitment to the academic community. Crucial to this is the adoption of a view of education as ongoing process, where skills and interests are developed through time at a variety of different levels, rather than seeking to provide all educational needs within a single product . The maritime community does not stand and end at the universities gates, nor to should the commitment to teaching and learning. References Aitchison K (2004) Supply, demand and a failure of understanding: addressing the culture clash between archaeologists expectations for training and employment in academia versus practice . World Archaeol 36(2):203 219 Austin D (1987) The future of archaeology in British universities. Antiquity 61:227 238 Biggs J (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press, Maidenhead Bradley R (1993) Archaeology: the loss of nerve. In: Yoffee N, Sherratt A (eds) Archaeolgoical theory. Who sets the agenda? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 131 134 Clark D (1973) Archaeology: the loss of innocence. Antiquity XLVII:6 18 123 84 J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75 84 Cobb H (ed) (2004) Creating tomorrow s archaeologists: who sets the agenda? Higher Education Academy, Liverpool, pp 1 34 Colley S (2004) University-based archaeology teachign and learning and professionalism in Australia. World Archaeol 36(2):189 202 Dowson T (2005) Guides for teaching and learning in archaeology number 3: teamwork and archaeology: a guide to developing teambuilding skills in archaeology students. Higher Education Academy, Liverpool Giroux HA (1991) Postmodernism, feminism, and cultural politics: redrawing educational boundaries. State University of New York Press, New York Hamilakis Y (2004) Archaeology and the politics of pedagogy. World Archaeol 36(2):203 319 McGrail S (1997) Studies in maritime archaeology. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford Parker J (2002) A new disciplinarity: communities of knowledge, learning and practice. Teach Higher Educ 7(4):373 386 Parker J (2003) Reconceptualising the curriculum: from commodification to transformation. Teach Higher Educ 8(4):529 543 QAA (2007) Archaeology benchmark statement. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Educationn, Mansfield 123

Wyszukiwarka