Beyond Indiana Jones and Night at the Museum: Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and Museums in the Liberal Studies

Program at DePaul University. Morag M. Kersel, DePaul University “Lessons from the Trenches: The Pedagogy of Archaeology and Heritage” Electronic symposium for SAA Annual Meeting, April 18-22, 2012, Memphis, TN Co-organizers: Susan Bender and Phyllis Messenger

In the winter of 2010 I won the lottery. In a very tough job market I was offered tenure-track employment in the Anthropology Department at DePaul University. For the first time in 8 years I was going to live in the same city as my spouse and we would both be “gainfully” employed as anthropological archaeologists. Prior to starting at DePaul I held postdoctoral fellowships at Brown University and the University of Toronto – departments with both undergraduate and graduate students – at most I taught a course or two per year, predominantly comprised of majors in anthropology. At DePaul I would be teaching 6 courses per year, most of which would fulfill general education requirements in the Liberal Studies Program. During my first year at DePaul in Introduction to Archaeology and The Science of Archaeology I faced 40-45 non-majors many of whom were seniors fulfilling their last general education courses. In my second year I taught in the innovative freshman program Discover Chicago. My position at DePaul has been rewarding and enjoyable but I would be disingenuous if I did not admit to some tears of frustration. Making archaeology and museums relevant, educational, and engaging for students of business, marketing, economics, philosophy, and a host of other non-majors is often a challenge, but at the same time gratifying in ways I never envisioned. Early on I realized that, in classes for non-majors, my main competition came in the form of Ben Stiller as the night guard in Night at the Museum and Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. In the following paper I want to highlight my pedagogical highs and lows from the trenches, looking beyond the prevailing role models presented by Hollywood towards a more enlightened and educational model of what museums and archaeology are and what archaeologists really do. In envisioning my new teaching challenges I was reminded of Hamilakis’ (2004: 296) paper on “Archaeology and the Politics of Pedagogy” in which he suggests “A cornerstone of a critical and emancipator pedagogy in archaeology should aim at unsettling common-sense preconceptions and demolish stories that have produced pasts to suit present-day practices and identities”. Hamilakis raised this notion with respect to challenging racist concepts in interpreting prehistory, but I wanted to co-opt his ideas for making archaeology relevant by confronting accepted mainstream archaeological 1

stereotypes and theories and by asking students to think critically about what they read in the pages of mainstream news sources and popular magazines (e.g. USA Today, Wall Street Journal, People and Vanity Fair). DePaul University and Anthropology With over 25,000 students, DePaul University is the largest Catholic undergraduate institution in the United States. With a fairly diverse ethnic makeup (61% Caucasian and 39% minority – Asian, Hispanic/Latino, African-American, Native American and Pacific Islanders), DePaul has a significant transfer, senior and first generation student population (over half) ( “DePaul, in common with all universities, is dedicated to teaching, research, and public service. However, in pursuing its own distinctive purposes, among these three fundamental responsibilities this university places highest priority on programs of instruction and learning” ( The website proclaims “You come here to learn, your professors come here to teach”, DePaul first and foremost is a teaching institution, with major emphasis placed on undergraduate instruction. The Anthropology Department, part of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (LAS), has 7 full time faculty and about the same number of contingent (adjunct and visiting) instructors who teach a wide range of anthropology courses, with a focus on applied practice and service learning (a core element of the DePaul Mission). We do not follow a traditional four-field approach to anthropology, choosing to focus instead on applied practice in our course offerings. We require all of our majors (100+) to participate in an archaeological field school and to take courses in ethics and professionalism, ethnographic research methods and applied-practice. DePaul University is committed to service-learning and many of our courses involve hands-on projects at local museums, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions. As members of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences students majoring in anthropology are also required to take courses in Liberal Studies Program (LSP ) as part of their core curriculum. Faculty members in the anthropology department teach core courses in LSP, and it is this element of my teaching and undergraduate education that is highlighted in the following. Liberal Studies Program at DePaul The Liberal Studies Program (LSP) is the common curriculum taken by all students in the seven undergraduate colleges of DePaul University. Overall, the LSP is designed to develop students’ writing 2

abilities, computational and technological proficiencies, and critical and creative thinking skills. “Some liberal studies courses introduce the institution’s unique Catholic, Vincentian, and urban mission and identity, and often include opportunities for community service” (Udovic 2005). While the liberal studies curriculum itself is quite varied, the LSP as a whole shares these four learning goals: 1) Reflectiveness; 2) Value Consciousness and Ethical Reasoning, 3) Multicultural Perspective, and 4) Creative and Critical Thinking ( Each course that is offered as part of this curriculum must include these four elements in its development– through assignments, exercises, classroom interaction and assessments. Unlike a student’s chosen major, which offers depth of knowledge in a single focused field, a liberal studies education provides breadth of scholarship across many different areas of study.” At DePaul, faculty from virtually every department, interdisciplinary program, and college help to teach the over 1400 different courses from which students can choose to meet their liberal studies requirements. This wide spectrum of participation on the part of students and faculty alike contributes to a strong sense of intellectual community at DePaul, and a shared commitment to its mission and values” ( In proposing classes to fulfill LSP requirements the syllabus that faculty design must address the core values and mission of DePaul while balancing the intellectual content of the subject and discipline – for me that is archaeology and museums. Ultimately, the LSP seeks to educate future leaders who will create a more just and humane world – at DePaul (as most universities) we are molding citizens of the world and in this specific instance – citizens who care about the past, culture and global heritage. Challenge 1 – Discovering Chicago Core requirements begin when incoming students in autumn take a Chicago Quarter (CQ) course. “From over a hundred different topic offerings, a single class, which includes an intensive immersion week experience prior to the start of fall classes. CQ instructors use both traditional and experiential pedagogies to teach students not only relevant course content, but also information about the city’s people, communities, institutions, and system of public transportation” ( The idea behind the Chicago Quarter is to get students out into the city of Chicago to “discover” the city, its environs, its people, its institutions and its atmosphere.


When I joined the Anthropology Department my chair encouraged me to submit a proposal to offer a Discover Chicago course, which would serve a multiplicity of purposes: to fulfill the broad educational and community engagement remit of DePaul; to utilize the city as a teaching tool; to encourage incoming freshman to declare anthropology as their major; and to add to the department’s intellectual and pedagogical contribution to the College of Library Arts and Social Sciences. And so Objects ‘R’ Us – Identity and Nationalism in Chicago Museums was born. Through first-hand observation, active participation and reflection, this course acquainted incoming freshman with Chicago. Introducing 22 freshmen to museums in Objects ‘R’ Us was more intriguing than I could ever have anticipated. As an archaeologist with an interest in cultural heritage and presentations of archaeology to the public I decided that the best way to introduce freshman to the city of Chicago and its people was to focus on objects in museums and how those objects represent the people of Chicago. From the lasting legacy of the1893 World’s Columbian Exposition, Chicago is a city known for its museums – places like the Field Museum, The Art Institute and the Shedd Aquarium are thought to represent the social and cultural fabric of Chicago. Looking beyond these traditional Chicago museums, my proposed course explored the diverse ethnic makeup of the city through its smaller, less-traditional museums and cultural centers. Prior to the start of the traditional academic Quarter, in immersion week (5 days, 8 hours/day) we visited 8 museums, travelling on the ‘L’ and the bus to the Southside, Pilsen, Andersonville, Chinatown and the Loop (see Immersion Week Schedule). Through a single iron at the Chinese-American Museum we discovered what life was like for the newly immigrant Chinese families who chose to establish roots in Chicago. At the Swedish-American Museum a well-travelled trunk spoke volumes about those who left Sweden to take up positions as domestic help in the well-heeled parts of Chicago. We then visited the other side of that relationship at The Driehaus Museum, a stunning example of the Gilded Age in Chicago – there the house itself acted as object, compelling the students to think about the variety of people and places and classes of Chicago. During that week students kept a reflection journal where they were asked to record their thoughts and ideas on how objects represent people and how objects are represented in museums and other educational institutions. In the journal they included their reactions to the assigned readings, the class discussions (on the ‘L’ bus and in the confines of the classroom), the thoughts and musing of various curators, tour guides and docents encountered during the museum visits. In the first class meeting after immersion week, students were asked to discuss a


single object that they would chose to represent their own lives and what that object would convey about them, their past, their present, and their future.

Monday Aug 29 10:00am First Class – Meet Pinky and Kim (SAC 270) Syllabus overview Feet 12:00pm NOON BBQ in the QUAD Tuesday Aug 30 8:30am Meet in Classroom! Museums on the Red Line Reflection Journal Red Line 10:00am ChineseAmerican Museum www.ccamuseu Reflection Journal Red Line 2:30pm Swedish American Museum www.swedisha merican Wednesday Aug 31 9:00am Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies http://www.spert Reflection Journal Red Line 2:00pm National Museum of Mexican Art www.nationalmu seum Reflection Journal CTA 3:30pm Pilsen Walking Tour 10:00am DuSable Museum of African American History www.dusablemus Reflection Journal Bus and Red Line 2:00pm The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 10:00am Richard H. Driehaus Museum http://www.dri ehaus Reflection Journal Red Line 1:00pm Meet in Loop Classroom!! Thursday Sept 1 8:30am Meet in Classroom! South Side Museums – Hyde Park Reflection Journal Friday Sept 2 9:00am Meet in Classroom! The Gilded Age Downtown Reflection Journal

Time Activity

Assignment Transport Time Activity

Assignment Transport Time Activity


Assignment Transport

1:30pm Chicago History Museum Visit and Meet the Curators www.chica Reflection Journal Red Line

Reflection Journal Red Line

Reflection Journal Feet

Reflection Journal Bus/Feet

Common Hour Red Line


Night at the Museum As one of the assignments in the class students viewed and wrote a movie review of Night at the Museum. Rather than just presenting a plot summary and a thumbs up or a thumbs down rating, students addressed the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. What are some of the very obvious stereotypes about museums in the film? What staff members are evident in the film, and what is their role in the Museum? What inaccuracies/anachronisms did you notice (examples: things in the wrong time or place)? Where are issues of gender and race evident in the film? Though it changes by the end, what is the nature of this museum in its relationship to community? 6. How are objects used to represent people, places and time periods?

Drawing from class readings, discussions and our own museum visits students challenged Hollywood’s portrayal of museums, their missions, objects in museums and ethnic representations. Many suggested that they had never considered this type of movie as anything other than entertainment – some told me that I was spoiling all future movie viewing for them. Spoil we did and in deconstructing the film we came to a consensus that while the film was entertaining and “a good night out” there were serious flaws in gender stereotyping (females as docents or love interests); inaccuracies and anachronisms in presenting historical people and events (Roman centurions battling cowboys from the Wild West); and a glossing over of the relationship between the museum and its communities. This proved to be a useful exercise in creating a more critical and aware class and I am indebted to Larry Zimmerman for bringing to my attention the use of Night at the Museum as an effective teaching tool. Learning Outcomes and the Goals of the Liberal Studies Program What I thought they got out of the class: Reflectiveness: Students were asked to reflect on the origins of museums, concepts of national identity and materiality, greater issues of cultural diplomacy and the use of museums in building local relations and social cohesion. In doing this students also considered their own cultural background and how it is represented by objects, which might make their way into museums. Value consciousness: 6

Through the visits to cultural institutions to the readings on nationalism, identity and museums, students gained a greater awareness of how individuals and communities value their pasts, their countries of origin and their ethnic and religious backgrounds. They also began thinking about questions surrounding ‘Who owns the past?” “How is the past represented?” and “Just who makes up the city of Chicago?” The theory and background in museum studies anchored student discussions and writing on valuing cultural heritage. Multicultural perspective: By visiting smaller community museums across Chicago students were exposed to the multicultural nature of Chicago and how that diversity is expressed through public display. In the ensuing meetings after immersion week students had the ability to formulate ideas about nationalism, identity and museums. They questioned everything from the objects on display, curatorial authority, to identity formation and motives of the represented ethnic groups. Critical and creative thinking: Through specific exhibit analysis (the final project) and reflection exercises, students learned creative, reflexive and critical thinking. Hopefully, these students will no longer be passive visitors to museums but will question the motives of the directors, curators and visitors to museums and the underlying motives of the various stakeholder groups with an interest in public display. As the instructor this final learning outcome was essential – I wanted the students of “Objects ‘R’ Us” to think about museums and objects differently, with greater insight and with a more critical appraisal of what they were viewing. I wanted them to consider contemporary issues, social and political power relations that are intrinsic to archaeology, museums and cultural heritage research (Atalay 2008). When they visit museums, I want them to ask the basic question “why is that object on display?” What they got out of the class: Last week (March 2012) some three months after the end of the Fall Quarter, I happened to run into three of the former “Objects ‘R’ Us” students on separate occasions. I attribute these coincidental meetings to the unseasonably warm Chicago Spring – everyone was out discovering the city again. One of my students said “You’ll never believe this, but I am on my way to meet a friend at the bus station and then I am taking him to the Chinese American Museum. He’s never been to Chinatown and I told 7

him that I could show him around the museum and we could get some good food” (as part of immersion week we ate at restaurants in many of the ethnic neighborhoods we visited – the combination of food and museums made for some memorable experiences). Another was on her way to Jordan on another DePaul innovative first year programs – the Focal Point Seminar – where students spend their freshman spring break in a foreign locale. I knew that during her 10 days in Jordan she would visit many museums, archaeological sites, and heritage institutions; she mentioned that she would be thinking critically about the presentation of the past, without any prompting on my part. The third student told me that she was transferring from DePaul in the Fall of 2012. She found Chicago too big, too noisy and she was not really satisfied with the course offerings (a declared history major). She then went on to tell me that she had registered for my Spring Quarter Introduction to Archaeology, which I found very surprising. During the “Objects ‘R’ Us” course she seemed the least engaged and least interested in the subject matter. Clearly I was missing something and there were elements of the Chicago Quarter class that piqued her interest enough to make her enroll in another anthropology class. The formal course evaluations where good and encouraging although there were remarks about specific museums we visited which were not deemed as interesting as others. The most consistent negative comment was about a grading rubric, what I take to mean “we want more specifics about what is needed to get an ‘A’ or a ‘B’”. That students are focused on what they need to do to get a good grade (Hamilakis 2004: 301) is nothing new but it is still disheartening to think that in the end the course may amount to a grade and not a new way of thinking about museums or archaeology. Challenge 2 – Integrating Theory and Practice through the Science of Archaeology One of the most difficult things for undergraduates to do is to merge theory (classroom experience) with practice (real world experience) (Davis et al. 1999). The Science of Archaeology course is an attempt to bridge this divide by providing a practical lab or “a real world experience” associated with each week of lectures (the classroom experience). The second component of the Liberal Studies Program at DePaul is made up of courses in well-defined Learning Domains. “Students are assured breadth of learning by being required to take two to three courses in each domain, but are also given enough latitude to experience and apply the many exciting forms of intellectual inquiry taking place in today’s modern university” ( The Science of Archaeology course fulfills an element in the Scientific Inquiry Learning Domain; a course like this is designed to broaden students’ knowledge base beyond their major. The Science of Archaeology is a science lab class that meets for 90 8

minute lectures twice a week and an extra 90 minute practicum. Through simulation exercises as well as the analysis of actual archaeological data, students learn the principles of archaeology. The typical topics of archaeology: dating, what is archaeology, how do archaeologists find stuff, bioarchaeology, pottery, and lithics are all discussed and a practical lab assignment accompanies each of the “big picture” subjects. In general terms, learning outcomes for undergraduates studying archaeology may include knowledge and skills in regional archaeologies (sites, artifacts, time periods, research themes); theory, method and practice; research design, project management; practical skill sets (Colley 2004: 190) – are these the same goals for non-majors in general education requirements? And how do these academic/practical goals mesh with the stated learning outcomes of the LSP at DePaul? As I contemplated teaching my first archaeological science lab class I wondered about the competing educational goals, the desires of the students and my own areas of expertise and competence. Enrolment for ANT 120 (The Science of Archaeology) was capped at 40 and on our first meeting I asked for a show of hands in order to assess the class makeup. “How many of you are seniors?” 39 hands went up – 39 seniors and 1 sophomore. “How many are anthropology or history majors?” (this class can be an elective in the Anthropology curriculum) – no hands. “Geography, art history, biology, or from the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences?” – 3 hands. As it turned out the majority of the students were from the Colleges of Commerce, Communications and Computing and Digital Media (DePaul power houses, who form the basis for DePaul’s academic reputation). Although taken aback at the lack of anthropology students in the class I decided not to cover the material any differently but instead to add elements that I thought would make archaeological science relevant to their daily and future lives. In 2002 my DePaul colleague Jane Baxter stated: “It would be difficult to argue that there is a more popular image of an archaeologist than Indiana Jones” (Baxter 2002: 16) – Jane could not be more correct, so that is where I began. In the first class using Susan Renoe’s excellent exercise The Draw-anArchaeologist Test I handed out crayons and blank sheets of paper and asked students to “draw an archaeologist” (Renoe 2007: 225). We then deconstructed popular perceptions of “archaeologists” – white males wearing fedoras and carrying bullwhips. Only 2 students drew females and all of the archaeologists depicted were white. Many were set in exotic locales – with pyramids or temples, in the desert – no one was depicted doing a CRM survey in Texarkana. Some had the tools of excavation and were depicted “doing the work of an archaeologist” – digging up dinosaur bones or golden idols. I am 9

well-known for my field mantra – where’s your hat and how much water have you had today?, so I was interested in the illustration of those elements. One person drew a water bottle and, while most of the archaeologists were depicted as wearing a fedora or pith helmet, a bunch of archaeologists wore no hat at all! It was a fascinating exercise for the students and me as we talked about Hollywood stereotypes and the actual work of archaeologists. I assured them that in the lab portion of class they would get to experience some of the work of an archaeologist. Some were immediately hooked, some remained unconvinced as to the relevance of the class and we were back to the “what do I need to do to get an ‘A’ in this class?” question. Making Archaeology Relevant “If we are to justify the existence of archaeology as a discipline and gain public interest and support then we must effectively show how archaeology benefits society” (Davis et al. 1999). In a room filled with non-majors, the need to make a connection between future real estate moguls, sales personnel, fathers, mothers, computer graphics designers and educators and the importance of archaeology was acute. While I was not teaching the course any differently, one might expect that in a class of anthropology majors the need to “make the case” for the importance of archaeology would not be warranted. I was amazed at the response I received in response to the Ripped from the Headlines assignment. In each class students were asked to bring an archaeology, cultural heritage or museum headline from that week’s online, print or social media news. At first the students did not believe there would be anything to report but by the end of the quarter students were posting extra headlines to the shared D2L class site and sending me links daily. Everyday there are news items in the pages of mainstream media outlets but most students had not taken the time to read those types of articles and now they did. The breadth of coverage was stunning – antiquities theft, early man, dinosaurs, CRM, local, national and international in scope. The topics raised in class reinforced material covered in lectures and labs – archaeology was cutting edge! I knew that the exercise had been a success when marketing major came up to me at the end of a class. In his hand he had the most recent issue of GQ magazine – in my head I thought “where is this going?” he pointed to an advertisement and short review of the Indiana Jones and Adventure of Archaeology exhibit at the Montréal Science Centre ( . “Do you think that they will talk about all of the archaeological stereotypes in the Indiana Jones movies?” (Assignment #2 was a critical assessment of the portrayal of archaeology and 10

archaeologists in Raiders of the Lost Ark). We discussed his question and I then asked “would you visit the exhibit?” We both agreed that we would definitely visit the exhibit but with a more critical stance and assessment of the exhibit. Effective teaching is not a one-way street and I learned much from the students. I have been an archaeologist for many years and I recognize that I have become entrenched in certain lines of thinking; these students challenged me to consider my own biases and academic leanings. I am Canadian and surprisingly there were some issues of language and word choice which they helped me to navigate. This was my first time teaching practical labs, so together we worked through worksheets and exercises that colleagues and the internet generously shared. We “excavated” bulletin boards to demonstrate the ideas of stratigraphy, producing a Harris Matrix. We measured replicas of early hominid skulls and skeletons in order to examine ideas of sexual dimorphism and evolution. We analyzed garbage in order to reconstruct the day in the life of a person. And we sorted and analyzed an assemblage of historical artifacts from a DePaul field school excavation at the Charnley-Persky House conducted by Rebecca Graff. But the labs were often simulations (such as the candy survey of Cahokia) and while these go a long way to bridging the theory and practice divide, nothing beats a real field work experience. In every class I tried to use examples from my own life as a field archaeologist and would often use slides of students from my summer field project (which I co-direct with Yorke Rowan) at Marj Rabba – a Chalcolithic site in the lower Galilee of Israel. By the end of the Quarter students were tired of the same old “this could be you” slides interspersed with the regular topic being covered, but it worked. In late April a burly football player type student approached me after class and said that he was interested in spending the summer in Israel on the excavation. He was a philosophy major and he was pretty sure that he did not want to become an archaeologist but he wanted to “put theory into practice” and to “try out some of the techniques we learned in class”. Through the Anthropology Department and the Office of Student Advising at DePaul the student received academic credit and fulfilled his Junior Year Experiential Learning credit (another of the LSP requirements) and the Galilee Prehistory Project gained a field school student. It was clear to all involved that after about two days in the July heat, opening a new square, countless scorpions, and monotonous pesto and cheese sandwiches that the student was correct in his original assessment – he would not change majors and become an archaeologist. In his evaluation of the program he stated: “I felt that this was such a life-changing course that there was a need for me to evaluate the course to show how wonderful the course was and what 11

impact it made on my life. I am a philosophy major here at DePaul University and was in need of fulfilling a science requirement. So I enrolled in Dr. Kersel’s class and was pleasantly surprised about how much I enjoyed the class and its material. I knew from class that she had a summer program and I asked her about joining to help me further explore this new interest in archaeology that I had gained” (Field School evaluation). Putting theory into practice was an outcome, but so too was rooming with a Turkish high school student, working with Israelis and Palestinians, visiting Jerusalem, and losing 35 pounds. Conclusion While I would like to leave you with the impression that everyone walks away from these classes, happy and satisfied, this is not always the case. There have been tears (students and mine) as students complain about low grades and ineffectual teaching styles. Although I make it clear in the first class and in the syllabus that sustained participation is critical to receiving an ‘A’ in the class, students never believe me. The traditional DePaul model for classes of 40 or more students is straight lecture, but that is not my teaching philosophy, and I incorporate a mixture of lecture, seminar, discussion, and debates (e.g. archaeological ethics, the politics of public display, Neanderthal cloning) in which I expect students to speak up. It was a new learning experience for me and the students. As an element of self-reflection (How’s My Driving) I include a mid-quarter evaluation where students can let me know what is and is not working. Together we revisit the syllabus and assignments to varying degrees of success. Inevitably this assessment coincides with a mid-term or an assignment that nobody wants, so that is the first complaint. One honest student told me that I should give more pop quizzes because “no one was doing the reading” – they were right. I gave more quizzes and the level and content of participation increased significantly. This shared notion of education and directing the class created a greater bond where a greater number of students had a vested interest in the class. Before starting my year of teaching at DePaul I reread Sonya Atalay’s (2008) inspirational chapter entitled Pedagogy of Decolonization: Advancing Archaeological Practice through Education. In that essay, Atalay calls upon the work of Audre Lorde and a recent book by bell hooks (2003) to reinforce the idea that the role of the scholar and educator is to create critical thinkers and good citizens (Atalay 2008: 141). In teaching archaeology, museums and cultural heritage to majors and non-majors alike within the Vincentian ideals of DePaul, I aspire to create critical thinkers and citizens of the world. Thank you for the reminder Sonya. 12

Acknowledgements Everyone warns you about your first year in an academic job but like my cautions to my students those warnings often go unheeded. My colleagues in the Department of Anthropology at DePaul eased my transition to full-time employment and DePaul. Thanks to Jane Baxter, Antonio Luis Curet, Sonny Faulseit, Marcia Good, Michael Gregory, Ginger Hofman, Joe Kinsella, Larry Mayo, John Mazzeo, Sharon Nagy and Robert Rotenberg. I also want to thank my many archaeological and anthropological colleagues who graciously provided me with syllabi, lab exercises, PowerPoints, and general encouragement: Anna Agbe-Davies, Daniel Adler, Meredith Chesson, Karen Holmberg, Laura Mazow, Yorke Rowan, Krysta Ryzewski, Benjamin Saidel, and Larry Zimmerman. Navigating my first year was made infinitely more enjoyable by the students in my Introduction to Archaeology, The Science of Archaeology, Anthropology and Museums, and Objects ‘R’ Us – Identity and Nationalism in Chicago Museums. I learned much from them, but have much to learn. References Atalay, Sonya 2008 Pedagogy of Decolonization: Advancing Archaeological Practice through Education. In Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge. Teaching and learning in Indigenous Archaeology , edited by Stephen Silliman, pp. 123-144. Tucson, The University of Arizona Press. Baxter, Jane 2002 Popular Images and Popular Stereotypes: Images of Archaeologists in Popular and Documentary Film. The SAA Archaeological Record 2(4): 16-17. Colley, Sarah 2004 University-Based Archaeology teaching and Learning and Professionalism in Australia. World Archaeology 36(2): 189-202. Davis, Hester, Jeffrey H. Altschul, Judith Bense, Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, Shereen Lerner, James J. Miller, Vincas P. Steponaitis, and Joe Watkins 1999 Teaching Archaeology in the 21st Century: Thoughts on Undergraduate Education. SAA Bulletin 17(1). Electronic document Accessed March 5, 2012. Hamilaks, Yannis 2004 Archaeology and the Politics of Pedagogy. World Archaeology 36(2): 287-309. hooks, bell 2003 Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. New York, Routledge. Renoe, Susan 2007 The Draw-an-Archaeologist Test. In Archaeology to Delight and Instruct. Active Learning in the University Classroom, edited by Heather Burke and Claire Smith, pp. 225-233. Walnut Creek, CA, Left Coast Press. Udovic, Edward R. 2005 Translating Vincent de Paul for the 21st Century: A Case Study of Vincentian Mission Effectiveness Efforts at DePaul University. Vincentian Heritage Journal 26( 1): Article 16. Electronic document Accessed March 5, 2012.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful