TARDIS* Teaching Archaeological Research Discipline In Simulation*

Jay Hall, Sue O'Connor, Jon Prangnell & James Smith The Department of Sociology Anthropology & Archaeology Faculty of Social & Behavioural Sciences The University of Queensland

Abstract

In the 1980s Dr. Jay Hall introduced the first Australian field-based undergraduate course in archaeological research discipline. For 10 years it served the needs of the 10-12 third-year students who enrolled each year, producing some internationally recognized field archaeologists. However, the course required attention at several levels, suffering from pedagogical, ethical, pragmatic, logistical and equity issues. In response, Dr Hall successfully sought funding for the development of his concept of a simulated archaeological site and enlisted the assistance of a team of specialists who designed and operationalized the TARDIS* in 1995. In 2000 the Field Archaeology course has over 40 students enrolled in two separate cohorts and, far from reaching its anticipated conclusion, the site continues as a rich learning environment. This paper outlines the three relevant phases: TARDIS production, excavation, and evaluation. While field archaeology has always required learning in context, the TARDIS demonstrates a successful solution to the complex barriers to delivery of this kind of experiential learning to undergraduates (beyond the classroom). It also facilitates greater equity in assessment. Another positive outcome was collaboration between staff and students across sub-disciplines.

PHASE 1. CONTEXT, CONCEPTION & CONSTRUCTION

Teaching field research discipline in archaeology is a very difficult and complex matter. It cannot satisfactorily be taught solely in the classroom and is best accomplished under professional guidance in the field as a directed interactive and group-based problem-solving exercise. The difficulty lies in developing a comprehensive teaching-learning environment that not only incorporates a wide variety of techniques, skill and practices, but combines these with a standardized and logically structured note-taking system, a systematic set of procedures for artefact analysis and the rudiments of how to prepare an excavation report. This fact has long been recognized in the USA and many universities mount summer 'Field Schools' through which students may formally gain intensive training on a real archaeological site under direction from a professional archaeologist. Unlike the USA, Australia has paid little attention to the formal field training of archaeology students. Our students tend to learn informally through volunteer participation on various 'digs' directed by others. Unfortunately these others are often postgraduate students who themselves learned the same way and thus tend to pass on poor practice with good. Furthermore the learning experience tends to be unstructured and haphazard. This new millenium sees many demands being placed on archaeology as a discipline that call for greater appreciation of the archaeological record and greater care in educating the public as well as budding professionals (e.g. Bender and Smith 2000; Clark 1998; Hawkins 1998).

In the 1980s one of the authors (JH) sought to redress this situation and initiated a formal field based undergraduate course in archaeology, the first of its kind in Australia. It was named simply, Field Archaeology (AY225), and each year during one semester it centred on a real piece of local archaeology. Students learned to design a small field research project within the context of a larger regional research plan initiated and directed by the lecturer. They put this design into operation via a small field excavation, carried out laboratory research on their discoveries and wrote a 'publishable' site excavation report. This comprehensive and labor-intensive approach worked very well for small 3rd-year pre-Honours classes and for a decade it produced students who went on to become outstanding field archaeologists. However, AY225 had always suffered from built-in pedagogical flaws which, when coupled to growing ethical and other serious concerns, led to a serious reevaluation of the practice of teaching undergraduates on real sites in this manner. These concerns are outlined below:

1. Indigenous Heritage Issues
Archaeological fieldwork in Australia requires not only government permits but explicit written consent from traditional indigenous landowners. For several reasons, Aboriginal communities became less willing to give such consent, especially for student training. Many were sensitive about raw students being trained on their cultural heritage sites and some considered the practice offensive. There were also strong feelings about the accidental excavation of human remains.

2. Professional Ethics
The archaeological record is a sensitive and non-renewable cultural resource. Because the field course experience showed up numerous and irrecoverable student errors in excavation and record-keeping (as one might expect), it seemed prudent to keep students away from direct contact with that resource until they had attained both a higher level of skill and a higher appreciation of its values.

3. Narrow Scope of Field Training
While the Field Archaeology subject provided a piece of directed research this was largely restricted to local Aboriginal sites, and usually one type of site at that (eg. shell midden or cave). Thus, it didn't provide the diversity of archaeological field experience that students would hope or expect to gain. This fact was not only unsatisfactory to students of Australian archaeology but also inadequate to the needs of students with interests beyond our shores (e.g. Maya, Greek or Roman civilisation).

4. Difficulty in Providing Objective Assessment
Assessment particularly, and teaching/learning generally, were constrained by the fact that the teachers themselves were learning about the site along with the students. Because the result was not known beforehand they were neither able to provide accurately based advice as to how to best tackle a field problem when it arose nor to provide objective assessment of the student result.

5. Logistics
Because fieldwork involved travel to a distant locality, it could not be undertaken during formal class hours and was scheduled during weekends and/or holidays. This aspect disadvantaged students in that some were unable to enrol due to work commitments, others had to sacrifice wages and some had to make alternative arrangements for exams in other subjects.

6. Cost
In the 1980s it was relatively inexpensive to feed and house students in the field and university departments were financially better placed to foot the bill. Today, fieldwork costs are significantly higher and neither university departments nor students are as able to afford them.

The Tardis Solution

In order to collectively overcome these problems and still produce good field archaeologists, Dr Hall opted for the construction of a controlled and simulated teaching/learning environment. The aim was to construct a small but full-scale archaeological site on campus through which skills in excavation, note-taking/recording, etc. could be taught and objectively assessed while offering students as wide a range of cultural situations as possible. He called this site concept the TARDIS after the Dr. WHO TV series for three reasons. First, he thought it might capture the imagination of students and provide a fictional world within which to role-play and thereby learn a complex set of concepts and methods in a relatively stress-free environment. Secondly, it was a handy acronym for "Teaching Archaeological Research Discipline in Simulation" and finally, it really was a sort of time machine!

As this solution required about $20,000, further development of the concept had to wait for the granting of a UQ Teaching/Learning grant to JH in 1995. Apart from paying construction costs, these funds permitted the engagement of three postgraduate research assistants (SO, JP & JS), each being selected for their particular interest and expertise in important aspects of the design concept. First, it was considered pedagogically useful to embed, in different levels of the site, a number of ancient cultural scenarios that generally mirrored major segments of cultural change in the human past. The objective was to create archaeological patterning which students who had taken 1st and 2nd year/level Archaeology subjects would recognize and relate to in the field and laboratory. Jon Prangnell thus developed five 'generic lifeways' or scenarios. Secondly, it was important to manufacture artefacts specifically relating to these scenarios which could be embedded within appropriate layers of the site. Sue O'Connor, as Teaching Assistant in the 1996 Material Culture subject (AY202), undertook the dual task of instructing students in the material culture of these lifeways and overseeing its manufacture. Thirdly, to accurately record the position of the main cultural features of these scenarios as well as their artefacts in the TARDIS site, Jim Smith was employed to build up five layers using GIS software (Mapinfo).

Tardis Scenarios

The Tardis comprises representations of five lifeway scenarios (see Table 1) inspired by famous archaeological sites from around the world. Following stratigraphic principles, these are laid out with the oldest (2.5 million years BP) at the base and the most recent (4000 BP) at the top. This configuration has two major advantages in that:

1. Students learn to excavate, describe and interpret a range of international sites
2. At no time is it implied that one lifeway evolved from another, so students do not develop a false impression of cultural evolution (for criticisms of cultural evolution see for example Johnson 1999, Shanks and Tilley 1987, Trigger 1997).

TARDIS construction involved building a 5 x 5m box frame (1.5m high) out of heavy wooden sleepers, into which were placed a layered series of soils of differing colours and textures. The habitation features and associated artefacts of each lifeway were 'seeded' in each of the layers. Thus, the Lower Palaeolithic occupation floor and its artefacts were carefully laid out at the site's base prior to burial with a soil layer. After the five layers had been so constructed the surface was covered with a layer of turf and left to settle and "mature" before being subjected to excavation by the students.

PHASE 2. MODES OF DELIVERY

The introduction of key skills in archaeological field practice to the students was the focus of the Field Archaeology course design. The course delivery method draws on principles of experiential and problem-based learning. Learning teams are formed, and the course comprises three progressive learning modules situated in the classroom, field site, and laboratory. The course draws on progressive criteria-based assessment and caters to the diverse needs of adult learners. The mode of delivery and learning context draw on theories of adult learning emergent over the last twenty-five years (eg. Bennet et al. 1999; Gibbs et al. 1994; Brown et al. 1989; Biggs 1987; Marton et al. 1984; Cross 1981; Argyris and Schon 1974).

In 1994, Gibbs et al. proposed the following model for learners to attain transferable skills:

1. An experiential learning cycle which includes experiencing the skills
2. Reflection on performance
3. Formalising the gained knowledge, and
4. Planning and preparing activities.

The following course description aims to demonstrate that the course caters to development of transferable skills, and specific skills relevant to field archaeology, by drawing on these four proposed processes (Gibbs et al. 1994).

Learning Module 1: Concurrent Fixed Resource Sessions, Orientation & Research Design

The first module comprises two parallel orientation streams regarding the practice of field archaeology and the Tardis, the site of student field practice.

Module 1A comprises a series of fixed resource sessions in the form of text-based lectures during which the methodologies and methods internationally recognized as best practice in field archaeology are specified and clarified. Students are encouraged to read, listen and ask questions with their own future field performance in mind. This kind of purposeful engagement with the material encourages students to take responsibility for their own learning and encourages engagement with the specific skills relevant to field archaeology.

Module 1B comprises Tardis orientation and team formation facilitated by the Course Tutor. The orientation process includes an overview of the Tardis site history. Students form learning teams based on characters and groups from the Whovian universe (Timelords, Daleks, Jagaroth and Cybermen) in which they familiarise themselves with the structure and cultural content of the site by examining the Tardis resource library. This includes field notes and photographs taken, and the artefacts unearthed during Tardis digs over the previous five years. Once students have familiarized themselves, the team members then negotiate individual and team learning goals, and negotiate team research designs.

A short answer examination at the conclusion of Module 1 provides an opportunity for individual students to:

1. Reflect on learning in Module 1
2. Clarify key properties of the new information they have encountered
3. Revisit information the examination demonstrated they lacked familiarity, and
4. Reflect on the value of this information to practicing field archaeologists.

On completion of Module 1 students have planned and prepared research activities (Gibbs et al. 1994), and move on to the field or practice components of the course during which they experience the skills (Gibbs et al. 1994) discussed in Module 1.

Learning Module 2: The Tardis The Field Scenario

During Module 2, students practice the application of the abstract methodological information previously reviewed. Learning teams undertake fieldwork in two separate cohorts, each with four teams. Teams observe and describe the details of lifeway scenarios they unearth which encourages critical engagement with the key skills of field archaeology including sampling, survey & excavation methods, data recording & collection, site grids, and stratigraphy. Participation is collaborative so individuals practice adapting to team needs and adopting roles (eg. leaders, information recorders, etc) as they follow their team's research design. During this time, students practice maintenance of peer respect and support during their negotiations, proposals, justifications and critiques of ideas and plans of action.

Criteria-based assessment of individual participation in the learning team reinforces the importance of the transferable skills associated with productivity in cooperative contexts. Criteria-based assessment of team field notes establishes a shared goal and incentive for cooperative work because team members share their mark. Simultaneously, field notes (a comprehensive and chronological record of practice) assessment provides students with an opportunity to critically reflect on the effectiveness of their individual and team fieldwork. This assessment provides students with an opportunity to experience skills, reflect on the quality of their performance, and formalise knowledge gained, in line with Gibbs et al. (1994) before progressing to Module 3.

Learning Module 3: Concurrent Fixed Resource Sessions, Laboratory Analysis & Field Site Reporting

Module 3 also comprises two parallel streams designed to orient students to best field archaeology practices in the integration of data, interpretation of data, and presentation of detailed evidence in support of interpretation.

Module 3A comprises further fixed resource sessions on best practice and rationale for site reporting including: format, content, presentation and style.

Module 3B comprises laboratory-based sessions during which learning teams are mentored in their data analysis. Drawing on the parallel fixed resource sessions, teams undertake the complex task of integrating their team's field notes, photographs and sketches, and the artefacts they have excavated with the information available from previous Tardis excavations relevant to their own research problem. The data analysis and interpretation is augmented through presentation and reporting of findings. The learning teams present their findings to their cohort to a conference standard providing opportunities for reflection, comparison, and critique across the learning teams. Finally, individuals design and author site excavation reports to a publishable standard based on their team's work.

Modules 3A and B, combined with criteria-based assessment, offer students further opportunities to experience skills, formalize understandings and critically reflect on performance (Gibbs et al. 1994). The site excavation report also allows individuals to express their intellectual creativity in reporting archaeological findings.

PHASE 3. REFLECTIONS

The literature associated with competency standards in higher education demonstrates difficulties in conceptualisation and prioritisation of desirable transferable and specific skills, competencies and problem-solving abilities (eg. Bennet et al. 1999; Havard et al. 1998; Dearing Report 1997; Gibbs et al. 1994; The New Zealand Curriculum Framework 1993; Mayer 1992; Ramsden 1992; Finn 1991; Biggs 1987). In 1999 Bennet, Dunne and Carre designed a model of learner development of transferable key skill areas that manages to incorporate the basic key competencies proposed in the literature over the past fifteen years. Bennet et al. (1999) propose that the learner experience involves the development of various management skills, of self, others, information and task. They further identify key areas of practice within each management area (see Table 2 below) that may frame the learning experience across any discipline, course or workplace (Bennet et al. 1999:77).

Learning In Context

While some authors (eg. Oliver and McLoughlin 1999) have adopted the Bennet et al. (1999) model in Web-based PBL; it is relevant to the adoption of any learner-centred mode of delivery. The Tardis, for example, provides the appropriate learning context beyond the classroom for students to practice and develop skills in each of the management areas proposed by Bennet et al. (1999).

To attain professional status, archaeologists must have field experience in observation and description, analysis and interpretation, and team skills. Learning in context is critical because of the practical experience required in order to attain these specialised skills. However, the ethical, pedagogical and logistical issues associated with the teaching of field archaeology had threatened the traditional field-based delivery mode under threat at this institution. The Tardis represents an effective, innovative solution through which students integrate classroom-delivered information with experience-based knowledge gained through the field scenario. The safe learning environment of the Tardis site and PBL method allow undergraduate students as novices to practice transferable management skills as well as the specific skills of field archaeology.

Teaching Beyond the Classroom - Education Outcomes of the Tardis

In addition to providing learning in context, the Tardis represents an effective solution to ethical, pedagogical and logistical issues particular to field archaeology teaching beyond the classroom:

1. Indigenous Heritage Issues & Professional Ethics

The heritage integrity of Australian archaeological sites is protected yet novices such as undergraduate students still experience the application of necessary knowledge and skills for professional practice in the field scenario context. Students are learning in a 'safe' ethical environment where cross-cultural interactions do not impact on their capacity to complete the course. Students can negotiate the timing of fieldwork, as timing is not dependent on outside agencies or individuals enhancing the flexibility of course delivery.[SO1]

2. Pedagogy, Scope of Training & Objective Assessment

The archaeological scenarios used are diverse and international in flavour, ranging over different continents and different pre/historic periods. Unlike many Australian archaeological sites, the Tardis provides the scope to better prepare students for international professional practice. Simultaneously, criteria-based progressive assessment of student performance is more equitable and objective based on known quantity and quality of the archaeological record.

3. Logistics & Cost

Numerous logistical problems were previously faced including large numbers of students, student insurance, financial, travel, and temporal constraints, and a lack of diversity in, and unpredictable nature of, excavation content. These difficulties are resolved without using classroom tabletop simulations in which appropriate standards of expertise are not attained because students cannot experience management of environmental, physical, social, intellectual, technical and material features of excavation. OH&S is also enhanced, as all the University facilities are available as opposed to isolated fieldwork situations.

Students pursuing careers as field archaeologists receive further experience in the field as postgraduates when they are able to draw on the foundation knowledge gained through their Tardis-based experiences during which they managed themselves, other field team members, the tasks, and the information, associated with field archaeology.

The Future of the Tardis

Stage 2 of the Tardis is currently planned including improved on-site facilities to deal with the increased enrolments that have occurred since its inception.

PHASE 4. CONCLUSIONS - 5 YEARS ON

Drawing on the PBL method of fixed resource sessions combined with scenario-based problem solving, the Tardis facilitates more flexible, equitable and efficient student learning without compromise of ethical or academic standards. Over the last five years student enrolments in AY225 Field Archaeology have increased by more than 500%. Simultaneously, postgraduate archaeology student enrolments have increased and these students are more confident and competent in the best international practice of field archaeology indicating that the Tardis represents an innovative solution to a complex range of teaching and learning problems ,..beyond the classroom.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. and D. Schon, 1974 Theory of Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bender, S.J. and G. S. Smith (Eds.), 2000 Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century. Washington D.C: Society for American Archaeology.

Bennet, N., E. Dunne & C. Carre, 1999 Patterns of core and generic skill provision in higher education. Higher Education, 37(1), 71-93.

Biggs, J., 1987 Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Brown, J., A. Collins & P. Duguid, 1989 Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.

Clark, J. G., 1998 Some guidance from the PEC - should kids dig? Society for American Archaeology Bulletin 16(5): 9-11.

Cross, K.P., 1981 Adults as Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dearing Report, 1997 Higher Education in the Learning Society. London: HMSO.

de Lumley, H., 1969 A Paleolithic Camp near Nice. Scientific American, 87:23-32.

Finn, B., 1991 Young People's Participation in Post Compulsory Education and Training. Report of The Australian Education Council Review Committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Gibbs, G., C. Rust, A. Jenkins & D. Jaques, 1994 Developing Students' Transferable Skills. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Havard, M., M. Hughes & J. Clarke, 1998 The introduction and evaluation of key skills in undergraduate courses. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 22(1), 681-688.

Hawkins, N., 1998 To Dig or Not to Dig? Archaeology and Public Education 8(3): 10-11.

Johnson, M., 1998 Archaeological Theory: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Marton, F., D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle, 1984 The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Mayer, E., 1992 Key Competencies. Report to the Committee to advise the ACE and MOVET on Employment Related Key Competencies for Post Compulsory Education and Training. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Oliver, R. & C. McLoughlin, 1999 Using web and problem-based learning environments to support the development of key skills In J. Winn (Ed.) Ascilite '99 Responding to Diversity Conference Proceedings, Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology, pp: 249-257.

Ramsden, P., 1992 Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., 1987 Social Theory and Archaeology. Oxford: Polity Press.

The New Zealand Curriculum Framework, 1993 Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Trigger, B., 1997 Sociocultural Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.