Society for American Archaeology 2012 77th Annual Meeting, Memphis, TN Session: Lessons from the Trenches: The

Pedagogy of Archaeology and Heritage

Assessing Student Learning: What does it Mean for Students to Understand Archaeological Ethics? by Alicia Ebbit McGill Indiana University Skill-development, cultural competence1, accountability, assessment, and authentic learning experiences relevant to the real world have become key components of higher education in many Western collegiate institutions. These skills and perspectives are considered by many scholars to be integral to student development as part of a global citizenry. Recent critiques of higher education address the relationship between these pedagogical approaches and neoliberal practices and capitalist values (e.g. Aronowitz 2000, Hamilakis 2004; Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Stromquist 2002). For example, Hamilakis argues that Western higher education has been colonized by the mentality and the logic of corporate business, and is dominated by an instrumentalist pedagogy and banking model of education. This structure focuses on the transfer and acquisition of knowledge and training students to develop and utilize marketable skills that are applicable to the real world and can be easily defined, measured, and assessed. This is a view of education as training in utilitarian technical competences, a view that ruptures the link between knowledge and the self, denigrating the ability to make ethical judgments and develop a wider vision about the world. It is a definition of knowledge as a commodity to be sold and exchanged, rather than as a life-transforming, experiential process; it is the final product now, rather than the process itself that is being valorized (Hamilakis 2004:289; following Bernstein 1996; Beck 1999). The concern, then, is that capitalism and capitalist values will impact the role of social critique and critical reflection in education (e.g. Baram 2011; Hamilakis 2004; Wurst and Novinger 2011). Archaeologists can confront these issues by examining the politics of archaeology pedagogy, implementing learning practices focused on learning processes (not just outcomes), and incorporating critical reflection into classes.

Cross et al, 1989 define cultural competence as: a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system, agency or among professionals and enable that system, agency or those professions to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. The term was first utilized in the healthcare industry to refer to skills needed by individuals and institutions to integrate diversity but has been used in education and business as well.

Examining the politics of pedagogy enables archaeologists to become more aware of the role archaeologists play in reinforcing social structures and capitalist ideology in education and research, through such practices as: commodifying the past (through tourism, CRM work, and public archaeology), failing to challenge stereotypes and inequalities, reinforcing boundaries between archaeological scholars and the public, and emphasizing the development of skills students can use in a market economy (Baram 2011; Hamilakis 2004; Wurst and Novinger 2011). In this paper, I engage in a critical discussion of archaeology pedagogy and demonstrate the ways ethics education in archaeology courses can enable reflection and complex thinking processes and integrate with a higher education system focused on skill-development, assessment, and real world applicability. I identify and discuss three components to this process: 1) Maximizing the Potential for Introductory Courses; 2) Utilizing Ethics Education to Emphasize Skill-Development, Real World Applicability, and Critical Reflection; and 3) Incorporating Meaningful Assessments.

Working with Introductory Courses and Non-majors Introductory undergraduate courses have great teaching and learning potential because they provide a window of opportunity to spark interest in the field of archaeology, raise awareness about the modern relevance of our discipline, and engage students in critical thinking about global human issues in the past and the present. Although we are not solely training the future generation of archaeologists, (in fact most of our students will not pursue careers in archaeology) introductory courses do allow us to teach diverse groups of students to think like anthropologists and I think we should challenge these students with complex issues early on. Non-majors take our courses for a variety of reasons, many of which are impacted by Western higher education agendas and capitalist values, including expectations that in the classroom they will acquire skills that have market value and applicability to their careers. From my own teaching experiences, I have learned that students in nursing, education, journalism, and social-work are often required to take an anthropology course to help increase their cultural competence. Business and communication students enroll in anthropology courses to develop skills applicable to a job in the global economy, like cross-cultural interaction and communication skills and a familiarity with diverse cultural practices. Other students take anthropology courses to satisfy general education requirements.
2

Certainly anthropological perspectives including an appreciation for cultural diversity, cultural relativism and sensitivity, and recognition of diverse impacts of and multiple interests in anthropological research can be valuable for a variety of careers in a globalized world, but these perspectives also enable students to make informed decisions about the world around them. Through ethics education specifically, we can introduce students to complex issues in archaeology in introductory courses, and engage them in discussions and activities about decision-making and argument-analysis that can satisfy student and university expectations for skill-based learning outcomes and real world applicability of knowledge. Ethics education in anthropology courses also exposes non-majors to political and social perspectives they might not receive in other classes and integrate critical thinking and reflexivity into the learning process. Ethics Education: Signature Pedagogy, Skill-Development, and the Real world Although not unique to anthropology, ethics education, specifically the use of casestudies and role-playing in the classroom is becoming part of the signature pedagogy 2 (Calder 2006; Gurung et. al. 2009; Shulman 2005) in collegiate archaeology education for disciplinary, pedagogical, and philosophical reasons. Theoretical perspectives, methodologies, and interpretations within the discipline of archaeology have significantly changed over the last thirty years as the field has become more diverse in its practitioners and research questions. Growth in cultural resource management, globalization, and collaborative and community-based archaeology projects have expanded the ways archaeologists engage with multiple publics. Finally, critical and reflexive scholarship in archaeology, as well as Indigenous archaeologies, are addressing the needs and interests of multiple heritage stakeholders, and the politics, impacts and implications of archaeological research. These changes to the field have inspired dialogue, scholarship, and events related to public archaeology and education and theoretical, practical and pedagogical concerns in anthropological ethics (e.g. Bender and Smith 2000; Caplan 2003; Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al. 2008; Fluehr-Lobban 2003; Franklin et al. 2008; MATRIX; Scarre and Scarre 2006; Smardz and Smith 2000; Stone and Mackenzie 1990; Zimmerman et al. 2003; and the Society for American Archaeology Annual Ethics Bowl).
2

Shulman (2005:52) defines signature pedagogies as the types of teaching that organize the fundamental ways in which future practitioners are educated for their new professions. I would add to this definition, that signature pedagogies enable practitioners to develop the set of knowledge, values, skills, and dispositions that practitioners use to practice disciplinary ways of thinking and doing (Calder 2006).

These changes to the discipline have made ethics education increasingly popular in archaeology as it introduces students to diverse impacts and implications of archaeological research and complex ethical issues that exist in archaeology. Encouraging student discussion about ethical issues in archaeology also contributes to the creation of a community of learners, where students feel comfortable discussing their own opinions and backgrounds, and engaging in dialogue with their classmates and instructor. Critical thinking (specifically evaluating and critiquing diverse perspectives and resources) is essential to ethics education, thus through this pedagogical approach, educators are able to link skill development and reflection. Through dialogue and debate about ethical issues in archaeology, students can play active roles in their education and develop skills and knowledge applicable to multiple careers including critique, evaluation, communication, argumentation, decision-making, and appreciation of diversity. In addition to building skills with broad applicability, since ethics education is a method of discovery (Card 2002:20) it can also foster the kind of critical reflection, processes of thinking, and experiential learning advocated by Bernstein (1996), Card (2002), and Hamilakis (2004). Through ethical scenarios, readings from different scholars, and discussion with their classmates, students are exposed to multiple viewpoints about the uses, values, cultural heritage and archaeological practice. This increases students appreciation of diversity and helps them to better understand the ideas and practices of people who are different from them, an important skill in any career. Reflecting on diverse perspectives also helps students recognize that multiple stakes exist in every ethical dilemma (Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al. 2008). In ethics education, students learn about strategies and approaches to addressing ethical dilemmas including the application of laws, history, professional principles, cultural values, and moral philosophies. Working through case studies helps students critique the decisions made by others and evaluate the impacts and implications. Practicing these approaches helps to cultivate decision-making skills as students assess problem solving strategies, critique decisions, and identify and discuss alternative solutions. In addition to learning about the ways people approach ethical issues, students can examine the utility and implications of these particular strategies within the field of archaeology. Through this process students can also explore their own values and intuitions. Students learn that ethical dilemmas are not black and white situations with explicitly right and wrong answers, but through critical reflection, they learn that there are sometimes better answers. Dialogue about ethical issues requires students to
4

communicate effectively with each other, articulate and support their own opinions and ideas and the positions of others, and explain the meanings of different ethical principles. Utilizing skills in dialogue and debate and participating in critical reflection through case studies and role-playing provides authentic learning experiences, since students will be faced with difficult decisions in personal and professional contexts throughout their lives. These hypothetical scenarios also broaden students understanding of the real world and the relevance of archaeological practice as suggested by a comment from one of my students: Before this class I thought archaeology was just about dead people and digging things up. I was unaware of the broader impacts of archaeology and the ways it related to modern issues.

Incorporating Meaningful Assessments While there are many recognized benefits of ethics education (Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al. 2008; Connolly et al. 2009; Schrag 2008), there is debate about the most effective pedagogical tools for teaching about ethical issues in archaeology and evaluating learning through these activities. Assessment is essential to education and the improvement of instruction and student performance. Assessment tools enable educators to evaluate student learning and determine whether our students are reaching the learning objectives we identify for our classes. Traditional assessments include tests, quizzes, reading assignments, and papers. However, much of the learning that goes on in a class happens through hands-on, in-class activities. Wiggins (1998) advocates for a learner-centered and educative assessment system that is integrated with instruction and incorporates authentic tasks through which students are asked to apply knowledge and skills in ways that emulate how professionals utilize this knowledge in the field. A key component to authentic learning is identifying what we want students to know and be able to do after learning about certain topics and completing course activities. The concept of assessment can make instructors apprehensive in an age of accountability, efficiency, standardization in education. However, meaningful assessments, integrated with course objectives, can foster knowledge and skill-development as well as evaluate student achievement by testing their abilities to apply the knowledge they have developed in the classroom. These kinds of assessment can satisfy student, department, and university needs by providing data on student performance while also giving insight into student knowledge retention and processing.
5

Collecting manageable and meaningful data about student learning can be difficult, especially when teaching about sensitive issues that involve myriad opinions, epistemologies, and values, such as those involved in discussions about archaeological ethics. Additionally, it is hard to assess student learning that is not about finding the right answers or acquiring a body of knowledge but instead involves the development of a process of thinking (see Card 2002:20) Evaluating students abilities to critique arguments and think critically is also problematic when instructors do not define what they mean by critical thinking or offer student vague advice and directions on how to complete tasks (Fitzgerald and Baird 2001:624). For all of these reasons it is important to design purposeful activities to foster and apply critical thinking, assess the effectiveness of these activities, and finally to share the results (Weimer 2011) Card (2002:20) suggests that ethics is a critically reflexive morality aimed at identifying, examining, and addressing practical problems. To foster student skills and knowledge processing, which would help them to identify, examine, and address practical problems and ethical issues in archaeology, I developed Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) (Angelo and Cross 1993) involving case-studies and role-playing. I modified previously used in-class activities that were related to course content and objectives to best integrate the assessment with instruction. In order to evaluate student learning through these activities in concrete and identifiable ways, I clarified what it meant for me for students to understand ethics. Influenced by adaptations of Blooms Taxonomy of learning objectives and learning processes in Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), I identified knowledge-processing dimensions related to different parts of the activities and tasks indicated by specific verbs more detailed than understand, which represented what I expected students to be able to do with their knowledge during and after the activities. In the following sections I discuss the context of these activities, the format and goals for the assessments I developed, and some aspects of the activities. There is not time to describe all of the results in detail but I discuss a few interesting points about each activity. Assessment of Student Learning The assessment techniques I developed were conducted for a project I completed while I was a Graduate Fellow in the Teagle Collegium on Inquiry and Action at Indiana University (Teagle). The Teagle Collegium is a multi-disciplinary research project exploring the ways

junior scholars learn to teach. Teagle brought together cohorts of upper-level graduate students who were teaching in biology, communication and culture, and anthropology to reflect upon their own teaching practices and learn from diverse groups of senior and junior colleagues. Throughout the year, Teagle fellows engaged in projects designed to revise their teaching practices based on evidence of student learning and methodological, as well as theoretical foci in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. While I was a Teagle Graduate Fellow, I taught three sections of A103: Humans Origins and Prehistory (A103) at Indiana University, Purdue University, Indianapolis (two sections in Fall 2010 and one section in Spring 2011)3. A103 has no pre-requisites, is required for anthropology majors, and is open to majors and non-majors. A total of 102 students were enrolled in my three sections (12 were majors). A103 centers on human evolution and development and students learn about genetics, the mechanisms of evolution, methodology in archaeology and paleoanthropology, and general characteristics and behaviors of primates, including modern human variation. Course instruction includes hands-on labs, videos, Interactive Powerpoint lectures, reading discussions, group activities, and debates. Ethical Case-Study Activity Towards the end of the semester in A103, we discuss archaeological ethics and examine some of the broad applications of anthropological research and its impacts on a variety of stakeholders. I introduce students to many ethical issues in archaeology including: debates about ownership and control of cultural resources, preservation issues, the impact of development and tourism on archaeological sites, and representations of archaeology and past cultures in the media. Students also learn about the guidelines, principles, and codes used by archaeologists to address and respond to ethical issues in their research. To give students an opportunity to apply what they learn about archaeological ethics and evaluate various opinions (including their own) and decisions about archaeological issues, they spend an entire class working through an archaeological case-study. Students enjoy discussing hypothetical situations and many have said this opens their eyes to the applications and implications of archaeological research outside of the discipline.

The data discussed in this paper was collected for Indiana University Bloomington study #08-13645 which was reviewed and approved by the IU Institutional Review Board.

For the Ethical Case Study Activity (See Figure 1), students are presented with a description of an archaeological situation involving multiple viewpoints and stakeholders impacted by archaeological research, and then asked to answer some questions about the case study and discuss their responses. I turned this activity into a CAT #10: Pro and Con Grid (Angelo and Cross 1993: 168-171) in which the students had to evaluate the decision(s) made by an archaeologist in a real world situation. The case is about Rebecca, a project director for a CRM firm in an area with a history of tension between landowners, government agencies, and archaeologists. While conducting a survey on federal land, Rebecca and her crew have to take a road through private land to access the project area. Rebecca is instructed not to examine private lands for cultural resources. While driving through the private property, however, Rebecca discovered a large ancient site and she and her crew decide to record this site at their own time and expense. At the end of the project, Rebecca contacts the landowner to ask him some questions, and he becomes very upset. Rebecca has to decide what to do with the information she has collected and decides to destroy her notes. (Summary of Case 16 in Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al. 2008:92) The students are asked to complete the following tasks: identify potential stakeholders and SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics related to the case, create a list of advantages and disadvantages of the archaeologists decision, and identify potential alternatives solution to the case. These tasks are related to learning objectives that I connected with specific knowledgeprocessing dimensions and verbs (following Anderson and Krathwohl 2001) to make learning assessment easier. Learning objectives included: 1) For students to recall, recognize, and identify, stakeholders who are impacted by and interested in cultural heritage and archaeological research. Students should be able to differentiate the needs and interests of different stakeholders. 2) For students to recall SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics, and recognize the meanings of these. Students should be able to apply these principles to different scenarios. 3) For students to recognize that many ethical issues do not have right or wrong answers, but there are often better answers. Students will do this by critiquing the archaeologists decision and assessing the consequences of her decision. The first two involve processing factual and conceptual knowledge and the last involves processing procedural and metacogntive knowledge. I assessed student learning and skill-development based on the number of SAA Principles, the diversity of stakeholders, the types of advantages and disadvantages they listed and how
8

balanced these were, and finally the depth of the alternatives in their responses. I discuss the results from some of these below. The case-study itself introduces students to a variety of opinions and perspectives about cultural heritage and archaeology. This combined with student efforts to recall, recognize, and identify multiple stakeholders ideally increases student knowledge and appreciation of cultural diversity. The task was relatively easy for students to complete and in both semesters, the range of stakeholders listed by students was quite broad, demonstrating student understanding of cultural diversity. There were even several stakeholders students mentioned who did not even explicitly come up in the case-study, including: local community members, local schools, other archaeologists and scientists, and Indigenous peoples and descendant communities. Additionally, students exhibited their ability to differentiate and acknowledge diverse interests within groups. Students identified subgroups of people (political actors, local educators, other landowners) within the community and subgroups of scholars (museums, genealogists, the archaeologists team) recognizing that communities and scholars are not necessarily homogenous.

Table 1: Most common stakeholders identified with number and percentage of students who listed them.
Semester # of Students Fall 2010 (26 Total) Spr 2011 (37 Total) Rebecca 18 69% 16 43% The Landowner 17 65% 31 84% The Government 20 77% 26 71% The CRM Firm 14 54% 21 57% Other Landowners or Farmers 13 50% 10 27% Descendants/ Indigenous People 7 27% 20 54% Local Community 12 46% 13 35% Other Archaeologists 10 38% 15 41%

The activity fosters and utilizes decision-making skills and helps students understand some of the ways archaeologists work through ethical situations in the task in which students are asked to recall SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics, recognize the meanings of these and apply them to the scenario. Overall, the students seemed to have a good grasp of the names of the Principles of Archaeological Ethics. The fact that all of the Principles were mentioned at least once demonstrates that students understand the complexity of the situation in the case-study. Records and preservation and Stewardship were two of the most commonly listed principles indicating that students realize the strong stewardship and preservation ethic in archaeology and that this plays an important role in how archaeologists think through ethical situations and make decisions. I think the prevalence of these principles listed for this particular case suggests that
9

students acknowledge that preservation and stewardships ethics includes not only to the protection of archaeological sites and objects but extends to the information we gather as well. The diversity of stakeholders listed, as well as the prevalence of students who listed Accountability as a relevant principle, demonstrates student recognition of the broad range of responsibilities that archaeologists have. Table 2: Principles identified by students with number and percentage of students who listed them.
Semester # of Students Fall 2010 (26 Total) Spr 2011 (37 Total) Stewardship 18 69% 24 65% Accountability 21 81% 31 84% Commercialization 8 31% 10 27% Public Education 8 31% 17 46% Intellectual Property 9 35% 23 62% Public Reporting 14 54% 21 57% Records and Preservation 23 88% 36 97% Training 10 38% 5 14%

Student efforts to critique the archaeologists decision and assess the consequences of her decision involved the development and application of several different skills and perspectives including: critique and evaluation skills, decision-making skills, and critical reflection. Listing the principles and advantages and disadvantages also helps students understand the questions and issues relevant to a particular situation, helps them determine ways to work through complex problems, and may help identify which solutions are better than others. Angelo and Cross (1993:168-171) suggest that relatively balanced answers and lists of advantages and disadvantages in student responses demonstrates a grasp of the range of implications of the situation and decisions made. In both semesters, students provided many disadvantages and advantages, representing breadth and depth in their knowledge processing. Students recognized many people were impacted by the scenario and there were a variety of complex issues and conflicting interests relevant to understanding the impact of the archaeologists decision. In the fall, students listed 27 different disadvantages and in the spring students listed 44. Some of the most common disadvantages identified included: loss of information and knowledge; concerns about the site not being preserved; the decision could cause limitations on future work; the archaeologist wasted time and resources; the archaeologist could get in trouble; there was a missed opportunity for the archaeologist to work with and teach the landowner. The fall students listed 25 different advantages to the archaeologists decision and the spring students listed 30. Common advantages were: the individual rights of the land owner were protected and

10

respected; future problems were prevented; conflicts were avoided; the archaeologist didnt get in trouble; the site and/or the artifacts were protected; the archaeologist didnt waste time and money. Overall, there were almost as many different kinds of disadvantages listed as advantages. This was particularly interesting because most students agreed that the archaeologist made a poor decision to destroy her notes and could have addressed the situation differently. I think this demonstrates that the students understand that these issues are not black and white and are not easy to solve. The fact that they identified advantages and disadvantages that impacted a variety of stakeholders shows critical reflection and student efforts to weigh multiple pros and cons which will be an important skill in making future decisions. Discussion. After analyzing the results of this activity and reading literature on ethics education and archaeology pedagogy I have some concerns about its format and student responses. First, because I did not ask students to define the principles they listed or explain how they related to the case, I do not have a complete understanding of whether students understood the meanings of each of the principles and their applications. Interestingly, when I asked students to list and define SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics on the final exam, many of them had difficulty doing this. I am worried that listing the principles for the activity and asking for recall of the principles in the final exam emphasized the names of the principles and rote memorization skills and did not focus enough on skills related to grasping the meanings and applications of the principles in multiple contexts. Additionally, I did not give students an opportunity to interpret the principles or assess or challenge their utility, or address the limitations of these principles. I do not want students to consider ethical principles merely as an established set of rules to be passively accepted, memorized, and followed to solve ethical problems in archaeology (Smith and Burke 2003:191). It is also important for students to engage with and evaluate ethical principles. In a discussion about the pedagogical utility of case studies in student understanding of philosophical ethics, Card (2002:27) suggests that case-studies are a great way for students to raise important philosophical questions about how to interpret and test ethical principles themselves. Reflection on the utility and underlying ideologies of archaeological codes of ethics has been suggested by many scholars (Lynott 1997; Lynott and Wylie 1995; Smith and Burke 2003) and it is important for archaeologists to consider the ways archaeological principles of ethics might bias

11

interpretations or privilege certain perspectives and forms of knowledge. In future ethics activities, I might have students evaluate values and implications tied to the SAA Principles. Additionally, in the activity, I will ask students to explain why they chose certain principles in order to assess whether students understand the meanings and applications of the SAA Principles, and to aid in critical reflection about ethical issues in archaeological practice and differences between personal, cultural, and archaeological values. Finally, many students referenced economic concerns and the sanctity of private property in their responses to the ethics activity. They were very concerned about the potential waste of time and money and some students suggested that the situation could have been assuaged if the archaeologist offered to compensate the landowner for working on his land. These student responses demonstrate capitalist values and ideas about the monetary value of private property and archaeology. This information is significant to archaeologists for a variety of reasons. It is important for us to think about how these preconceptions might impact students interactions with archaeological practice. Additionally, in educational contexts we should think about how our discussions about archaeological practice might reinforce these values and consider ways we might be able to challenge them. This could include discussions about problems with commodifying the past and debates about how defining the value of archaeological knowledge occurs.

Kennewick Man Role-Playing Activity We discuss archaeological ethics and the impacts of archaeological research in my class shortly after students learn about human migration and debates about the earliest arrivals of humans in the Americas. A discussion about the discovery and eventual handling of Kennewick Man, who is also referred to as The Ancient One (Burke et al. 2008; Benedict 2003; Hurst Thomas 2000), is a stimulating activity that links different foci and learning objectives in my class. I want my students to be able to engage in complex, critical thinking and dialogue about Kennewick Man, but due to limited extant student knowledge and the ways Kennewick Man has been represented in popular and academic discourse, this can be difficult to accomplish. Many discussions about Kennewick Man present dichotomies, conflict and controversy, and address the situation as though there are only two sides or options. In order to try and encourage a dialogue that would represent multiple interests, ideas, and concerns, I created a classroom

12

assessment technique influenced by two different CATs, #17: Invented Dialogues (Angelo and Cross 1993: 203-207) and #31: Everyday Ethical Dilemmas (Angelo and Cross 1993: 271-274). In preparation for the Role-playing Activity (See Figure 2), students read articles about Kennewick Man and studying human remains, written from a variety of perspectives. This activity involves a scenario for a town-hall meeting in Kennewick, Washington that takes place shortly after Kennewick Man is found. Students are assigned the role of stakeholders who might have had an opinion about the situation and they must identify what their stakeholder might say if they were present at the town- meeting. Each student crafts a response involving information from the readings and then groups engages in a conversation. Students also write about their own personal ideas and opinions about Kennewick Man and discuss possible alternative solutions regarding what could have happened with Kennewick Man. These tasks are related to specific learning objectives, including: 1) For students to recall the readings and remember the details of and potential stakeholders in the Kennewick Man situation. 2) For students to differentiate the possible opinions and positions of different stakeholders involved in this situation. 3) For students to produce a position statement from their stakeholder and generate a conversation with their fellow classmates. 4) For students to interpret the situation based on their own knowledge and perspectives, critique the decisions made, and produce a statement about their own ideas and opinions. The first one involves processing factual knowledge, the second involves conceptual knowledge and the last two involve processing procedural and metacogntive knowledge. I assessed student learning based on their ability to incorporate information from the readings into their responses, the breadth of the arguments and position statements they constructed for their stakeholders, and the breadth and depth in the alternative solutions they identified. The activity itself introduced students to diverse stakeholders and opinions within the discipline of anthropology and outside. Student efforts to recall and remember key figures involved in or impacted by the Kennewick Man situation and their abilities to differentiate the possible opinions of different stakeholders helped students develop an appreciation for diversity. Additionally, I had hoped that the incorporation of diverse perspectives from scholars would help students recognize heterogeneity amongst academics and avoid dichotomies like science vs. religion or tradition vs. modernity, but this was not the case as I will discuss below. Through the production of position statements and generation of a conversation between stakeholders, students practiced argumentation and communication skills. Interpreting the
13

situation and critiquing the decisions of different stakeholders fostered skills in evaluation and decision-making. The process of students discussing their own ideas and opinions about Kennewick Man also helped create a link between personal-experiential and academic knowledge which Hamilakis suggests is key to critical reflection (2004:298). Students did well remembering different people from their readings and recalling details. However, students had a difficult time producing a position statement for individuals not explicitly mentioned in their readings. Although students were introduced to diverse opinions and perspectives from scholars, members of the public, and Indigenous peoples, they tended to homogenize the opinions of different groups and reinforced dualistic perspectives and dichotomies in the position statements they crafted. The strongest dichotomy present in student responses was one between science and religion. Many student responses implied that they interpreted the Kennewick Man situation as an issue of scientific knowledge against religious ideas and beliefs. Additionally, in the fall semester, students did not have a particularly extensive range of ideas for alternative solutions for the treatment of Kennewick Man. I thought that if students had more information about the historical background of the treatment of Native Americans in anthropological science, they might better understand the complexities of the situation and the social and political contexts. In the spring semester, I added a chapter from Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity (Hurst Thomas: 2000) to their reading list. Students in the spring listed a more extensive range of alternative solutions and opinions (See Table 3 for a comparison.) In addition to those listed in the chart, students also suggested the following alternative solutions to the treatment of Kennewick Man: allowing Native Americans to make the final decision, getting permission from Native American groups to study him, dividing him up amongst many groups, leaving him alone for a while and then studying him, 3D imaging him, developing a policy limiting the number of years people can claim ancestry, and allowing landowners to control Kennewick Mans remains. Table 3: Alternative solutions for Kennewick Man, and number and percentage of students who listed these.
# of Students Who Did the Activity Fall 2010a (30) Fall 2010b (24) Repatriate Kennewick Man 5 (17%) 1 (4%) Study Kennewick Man 13 (43%) 12 (50%) Compromise 9 (30%) 3 (12.5%) Original Decision Good 0 1 (4%) Study then Repatriate or Rebury 0 Some Consultation with Native Americans 0 0 Out of the Public Eye 0 0 No Response 2 (7%) 1 (4%)

14

Spr 2011 (38)

2 (5%)

14 (37%)

6 (16%)

6 (16%)

4 (10.5%)

3 (8%)

1 (3%)

Discussion. The results of the activity led me to question the learning objectives and effectiveness of role-playing. While students did develop skills in relating to the experiences of others, students were also limited to basing their ideas on the readings, which may have resulted in generalizing and essentializing peoples opinions in the activities. I also question to what extent the activity helped students develop empathy. Although students are asked to argue positions they think other people would feel strongly about, I am not sure this is possible if they are unable to identify with epistemologies and value systems different from their own. I was surprised and disappointed that students did not seem to engage with the town-hall discussion as much as I thought they would. I had many students in these classes who were usually very animated and opinionated and I expected their discussions to be more heated than they were. I found that the position statements they wrote were quite fact-driven and the town hall discussion was rather contrived and more focused on regurgitating facts than dialogue and debate. I had hoped that this activity would be powerful and potentially transformative for students, but I think because it was being graded, students were concerned about demonstrating the knowledge they had. This helped me to recognize that I need to be more aware of the way power dynamics impact student learning. Although students listed more diversity of solutions for the treatment of Kennewick Man in the spring, they still discussed the situation as a dichotomous issue of Native Americans versus scientists and religion versus science. Over 35% of the students in every class felt that Kennewick Man should be studied and suggested that the knowledge that could be gained from studying Kennewick Man outweighed the claims of Native American groups. I think these responses may have been influenced by the fact that the activity was conducted in an archaeology-based science class. This activity helped me to understand some of the expectations and preconceptions students bring to class about the authority and nature of science and the value of scientific knowledge and archaeological interpretations. I recognize that dialogue and reflection in the class might be limited by student epistemologies and value systems and can use this knowledge to develop future activities through which I demystify science and engage students in conversations about diverse definitions and implications of science as well as biases and limitations in science.

15

The results of the activity were quite revealing. When I read the questions students asked about the readings in their notes, I realized I needed to look in multiple places to assess student learning processes. Evidence of complex knowledge, critical thinking and reflection may not always be explicit in the answers that students provide, but may exist in the questions they ask. Students posed questions that showed recognition of the complexity of the Kennewick Man situation and demonstrated their struggles to understand and evaluate multiple perspectives. These questions represent the personal, engaged, reflexive, and transformative learning processes (processes of thinking (Card 2002:20)) students were involved in. Examples of particularly provocative student questions include: Where does this entitlement of academic freedom come from? In what ways will collaborating efforts contribute to a greater understanding of human history? Do archaeologists make real efforts of reconciliation with Indigenous people to overcome the heavy past of mistrust? To build trust between archaeologists and Native Americans are the laws and courts enough? Why is it so difficult for some scientists to come to some kind of compromise with the repatriation movement? How does the government decide which groups beliefs will be respected? At what point can scientists say ancestry is not relevant in a particular study? Are bones tucked away in museum drawers and cabinets really of scientific value?

Concluding Thoughts

Engaging in discussions about pedagogy and evaluating teaching techniques helps us as archaeology educators to better understand the ways our students learn, develop effective teaching methods, and address the politics and ideologies embedded in archaeology education. Although Western higher education systems centered on accountability, knowledge transfer, and skill development may limit transformative learning opportunities, ethics education may provide opportunities to foster skill-development applicable to careers in a global economy, while at the same time enabling critical reflection. Classroom Assessment Techniques like the ones I described offer a means for collecting data to assess student learning processes in ethics education. Critical reflection and transformative learning experiences may enable students to develop a wider vision about the world (Hamilakis 2004: 289), which ideally will positively impact their decisions about the world around them.
16

17

References Cited Anderson, Lorin W. and David R. Krathwohl (editors) 2001 A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Abridged edition. Longman, New York. Angelo, Thomas and K. Patricia Cross. 1993 Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers. Second Edition. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Aronowitz, Stanley 2000 The Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the Corporate University and Creating Higher Learning. Beacon Press, Boston. Baram, Uzi 2011 Archaeology in the Public Interest: Tourist Effects and Other Paradoxes That Come with Heritage Tourism. In Ideologies in Archaeologies, edited by Reinhard Berbeck and Randall H. McGuire, pp. 107-129. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Beck, John 1999 Makeover or Takeover: The Strange Death of Educational Autonomy in Neo-liberal England. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(1):223-38. Bender, Susan and George Smith (editors) 2000 Teaching Archaeology in the Twenty-First Century. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C. Benedict, Jeff 2003 No Bone Unturned: The Adventures of a Top Smithsonian Forensic Scientist and the Legal Battle for America's Oldest Skeletons. Harper, New York. Bernstein, Basil 1996 Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research and Critique. Taylor & Francis, London. Burke, Heather, Claire Smith, Dorothy Lippert, Joe Watkins, and Larry Zimmerman (editors) 2008 Kennewick Man: Perspectives on the Ancient One. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek. Calder, Lendol 2006 Uncoverage: Toward a Signature Pedagogy for the History Survey. Journal of American History 92(4):1358-1370. Caplan, Patricia 2003 The Ethics of Anthropology: Debates and Dilemmas. Routledge, London. Card, Robert F.

18

2002 Using Case Studies to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Ethics Courses. Teaching Ethics Fall 2002: 19-27. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, Julie Hollowell and Dru McGill 2008 Ethics in Action: Case Studies in Archaeological Dilemmas. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington D.C. Connolly, Peggy 2009 Ethics in Action: A Case-Based Approach. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden. Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., and Isaacs, M. 1989 Towards A Culturally Competent System of Care, Volume I. Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center, Washington, DC. Fitzgerald, Jennifer and Baird, Vanessa A. 2011 Taking a step back: Teaching critical thinking by distinguishing appropriate type of evidence. PS: Political Science and Politics 44(3):619-624. Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn (editor) 2003 Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology: Dialogue for Ethically Conscious Practice. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Franklin, M. Elaine, A. Gwynne Henderson, and Jeanne M. Moe. 2008 If You Can See the Past in the Present, Thank an Archaeologist: Getting Serious about Archaeological Literacy. The SAA Archaeological Record 8(1):36-39. Gurung, Regan A. R., Nancy L. Chick, and Aeron Haynie (editors) 2009 Exploring Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of the Mind. Stylus Publishing, LLC., Sterling. Hamilakis, Yannis 2004 Archaeology and the Politics of Pedagogy. World Archaeology 36(2):287-309. Hurst Thomas, David 2000 Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity. Basic Books, New York. Lynott, Mark J. 1997 Ethical Principles and Archaeological Practice: Development of an Ethics Policy. American Antiquity 62(4):589-599. Lynott, Mark J. and Alison Wylie 1995 Foreword. In Ethics in American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s, edited by Mark J. Lynott and Alison Wylie, pp. 7-9. Society for American Archaeology Special Report, Washington, D.C. MATRIX
19

Making Archaeology Teaching Relevant in the Twenty-First Century, http://www.indiana.edu/~arch/saa/matrix/homepage.html (Accessed March 24, 2012) Scarre, Chris and Geoffrey F. Scarre (editors) 2006 The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Schrag, Brian 2008 Teaching Research Ethics: Changing the Culture of Science. Teaching Ethics Spring 2008:79-110. Shulman, Lee S. 2005 Signature Pedagogies in the Professions. Daedalus 134(3):52-59. Slaughter, Sheila and Larry Leslie 1997 Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Smardz, Karolyn and Shelley J. Smith (editors) 2000 The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Smith, Claire and Heather Burke 2003 In the Spirit of the Code. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer, pp. 177-200. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. Stone, Peter and MacKenzie, Robert (editors) 1990 The Excluded Past: Archaeology in Education. Routledge, London. Stromquist, Nelly P. 2002 Education in a Globalized world: The Connectivity of Economic Power, Technology, and Knowledge. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham. Weimer, Maryellen 2011 Teaching Critical Thinking: Are We Clear? Faculty Focus: Focused on Todays Higher Education Professional. http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teachingprofessor-blog/teaching-critical-thinking-are-we-clear/ (Accessed March 19, 2012) Wiggins, Grant 1998 Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance. Jossey-Bass Inc, San Francisco. Wurst, Louann and Sue Novinger

20

2011

Hidden Boundaries: Archaeology, Education, and Ideology in the United States. In Ideologies in Archaeologies, edited by Reinhard Bernbeck and Randall H. McGuire, pp. 254-269. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Zimmerman, Larry J., Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer (editors) 2003 Ethical Issues in Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.

21

Figure 1. Archaeological Ethics ActivityWorking with an Ethical Case INSTRUCTIONS: The writing can be done on the back of this sheet. You do not need to write complete sentences except for part 5) related to coming up with an alternative solution. 1) Read the case. 2) List the potential stakeholders involved or groups of people who might be impacted by or interested in the situation. You are encouraged to include stakeholders who are not mentioned in the case. 3) List the SAA Ethical Principles that are related to the case. 4) Create a list with as many advantages and disadvantages of the archaeologist(s) decision as you can (try to come up with at least 5 each). Try to relate these advantages or disadvantages to the SAA Ethical Principles. 5) Identify an alternative solution to the case. What else could the archaeologist(s) in this situation do? 6) We will discuss your responses as a class. This will be collected but not graded. ETHICAL SITUATION4: Rebecca is a project director for a small Cultural Resource Management firm, which does work in the Midwest, largely as a result of energy exploration and other similar activities on federal lands. Many of the jobs her firm performs are limited to lands under federal administration. Most ranchers and other private landowners in this region have never quite accepted the federal governments ownership and administration of vast amounts of land. Their distrust and sometimes animosity is on occasion directed at the archaeological consultant working on federal projects. Several years ago Rebecca was conducting a survey, and at one point her crew had to take a road through private land to reach the project area. Rebecca had been instructed not to examine private lands for the presence of cultural resources, and she knew that she would not be compensated for any time or expense for work done outside of federal lands. While driving through the private property to get to the project area, however, Rebecca discovered a large ancient site. Rebecca and her crew were curious and decided to record this off project site at their own time and expense. Upon completion of the project, Rebecca contacted the private landowner, to ask about some recent structures observed near the site, so that the site forms would be as complete as possible. The landowner became extremely uncooperative, demanding that #$!%^!&*^#! government agencies had no business knowing what sites were on his land! He was concerned that the government knowing of the site represented a threat to the future development and exploration of resources on his land. Rebecca was faced with a dilemma about what to do with the informationfield notes, maps, etc.she had already collected. Rebecca decides to destroy her notes about the site she observed on private land.

Case 16. The Private Landowner and the #$!%^!&*^#! Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al. 2008:92

22

Figure 2. A103: Reading Discussion #3Kennewick Man & Studying Human Remains For this reading discussion you will be involved in a role-playing activity. You will be assigned a stakeholders role to play in a town hall meeting in the community of Kennewick, Washington. SCENARIO: It is the fall of 1996, several months after the Kennewick Man skeleton (also known has the Ancient One) was found on the banks of the Columbia River near the town of Kennewick. The situation with Kennewick Man has received international attention and has been the topic of debate and conflict in the community of Kennewick as well as throughout the world. In an effort to raise awareness and understanding about the situation, as well as involve many different stakeholders in making a decision about what should happen to Kennewick Mans remains, the Army Corps of Engineers decides to organize a town hall meeting. They invite a variety of different stakeholders including scientists, community members, indigenous people, and government officials to discuss the situation. Some scientists from outside of the community who are directly involved in the situation are invited to give their expert opinions about what should happen to Kennewick Man. Many members of the general community also attend to the meeting to learn more about the situation and have their opinions heard. INSTRUCTIONS: 1) Write a position statement identifying your stakeholders position in the Kennewick Man situation. Your position statement should include several sentences that represent what your stakeholder might say at the community hall meeting about the Kennewick Man find and identify what you think should happen to Kennewick Man and why. Be sure to mention things you have learned about in this class that are relevant. Make sure to incorporate things from the readings in your position statement. 2) Write down several sentences discussing your own opinions about Kennewick Man. What do you think of the final decisions? What could or should have been done differently, if anything? How does the Kennewick Man situation make you feel? If you feel differently after engaging in a conversation with your classmates, be sure to add a sentence or two about this. 3) As a group you will have a conversation acting out the town hall meeting about the Kennewick Man situation. Use the comments you wrote for #1). Feel free to improvise and respond to the comments of your other group members. After your conversation in a group, feel free to add to your responses for #2). 4) We will discuss the Kennewick Man situation as a class and then you will turn in what you wrote for the reading discussion for a grade. Local Liaison: Army Corps of Engineers Larry Zimmerman Member of the Umatilla Indian Tribe Member of the Tlingit Tribe in Alaska Kennewick Community Member President of Historical Society Geneticist Studies Early Human Migration David Hurst-Thomas, Author of Skull Wars Director of Burke Museum (U of Washington) Clement Meighan Jim Chatters or Douglas Owsley NAGPRA Officer for the Federal Government Cultural Anthropologist who works with local Native American Tribes Descendant of Cheyenne Indians from Colorado Franz Boas

23