Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

An Authentic Learning Approach to Assessment in Australian Archaeology

  • Research
  • Published:
Archaeologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A growing body of research exists that identifies the importance of authentic (including work integrated) learning for higher education. This follows increased pressure to produce graduates with skills and aptitudes that align with real-world requirements but also evidence which suggests long-term benefits of this form of self-directed and reflective learning. Major surveys involving academic and professional archaeologists have identified sizable gaps between university courses and the skill sets and attributes required by graduates seeking employment (eg. Ulm et al. in J Aust Archaeol Assoc 76:21–34, 2013). While there are many examples of active learning innovations in archaeology, the responsiveness of educators to these concerns is hard to gauge, as is the extent to which authentic learning has been scaffolded across the archaeology curriculum. This paper describes the adoption of a situated-learning, work-integrated approach to student learning for an “Australian archaeology” course at the Australian National University in Canberra. It reflects on the traditional/authentic divide including the value and constraints of such a model in the Australian higher education system.

Résumé

Il existe un nombre croissant de recherches qui identifient l’importance d’une formation authentique (y compris intégrée au travail) pour l’enseignement supérieur. Elles font suite à une pression accrue visant à former des diplômés ayant des compétences et des aptitudes conformes aux exigences du monde réel, mais également des éléments de preuve qui suggèrent les avantages à long terme de cette forme de formation autogérée et réfléchie. Les principales enquêtes impliquant des archéologues universitaires et professionnels ont identifié des écarts assez importants entre les cours universitaires et l’ensemble des compétences et des caractéristiques requises par les diplômés en recherche d’emploi (p. ex. Ulm et coll. 2013). Alors qu’il existe de nombreux exemples d’innovations en termes d’apprentissage actif en archéologie, la réactivité des éducateurs à ces préoccupations est difficile à évaluer, tout comme la mesure dans laquelle l’apprentissage authentique a été la structure de du programme archéologique. Cet article décrit l’adoption d’une approche d’apprentissage contextualisé et intégrée au travail à la formation des étudiants pour un cours d’ « archéologie australienne » à l’université nationale australienne de Canberra. Il reflète la fracture traditionnelle et authentique, y compris l’intérêt et les contraintes d’un tel modèle dans l’enseignement supérieur australien.

Resumen

Existe un creciente conjunto de investigaciones que identifica la importancia del aprendizaje auténtico (incluido el aprendizaje integrado en el trabajo) para la Educación Superior. Esto se debe a la creciente presión para producir graduados con habilidades y aptitudes que se adapten a los requisitos del mundo real y también a la evidencia lo que sugiere beneficios a largo plazo de esta forma de aprendizaje autodirigida y reflexiva. Encuestas importantes que implican a arqueólogos profesionales y académicos han identificado considerables brechas entre los cursos universitarios y los conjuntos de habilidades y atributos requeridos por los graduados que buscan empleo (por ejemplo, Ulm et al. 2013). Aunque existen muchos ejemplos de innovaciones del aprendizaje activas en arqueología, el grado de reacción de los educadores a estas preocupaciones es difícil de medir, al igual que la medida en que el aprendizaje auténtico ha sido escalonado a lo largo del plan de estudios de arqueología. El presente documento describe la adopción de un enfoque de aprendizaje situado integrado en el trabajo para el aprendizaje de los estudiantes de un curso de “Arqueología australiana” en la Universidad Nacional Australiana en Canberra. Reflexiona sobre la división tradicional/auténtica incluido el valor y las restricciones de dicho modelo en el sistema de Educación Superior australiano.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alderman, B. and Milne, P. (2005). A Model for Workplace Learning, Scarecrow Press: Lanham.

  • Ashford Rowe, K., Herrington, J. and C. Brown. (2014). Establishing the critical elements that determine authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2): 205–222.

  • Bennett, N., Dunne, E.J. & Carré, C. (1999). Patterns of core and generic skill provision in higher education. Higher Education, 37: 71–93.

  • Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. London: Taylor & Francis. In British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(1): 119–124.

  • Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university, Fourth Edition. Open University Press. Berkshire, UK and New York, USA.

  • Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing Learning through Self Assessment. London: Kogan Page.

  • Boud, D and R. Soler. (2015). Sustainable assessment revisited. IN Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133

  • Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

  • Brown, G., Bull, J. and Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education. London: Routledge.

  • Burke, H. and C. Smith. (2007). Archaeology to Delight and Instruct. Active Learning in the University Classroom. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

  • Carman, J. (2007). The Game of Context: Teaching the history of archaeology without foregone conclusions. In H. Burke and C. Smith (Eds.), Archaeology to Delight and Instruct: Active Learning in the University Classroom (pp. 115–127). Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press.

  • Choo, C.B. (2007). Activity-based approach to authentic learning in a vocational institute. Educational Media International, 44(3): 185–205.

  • Glendinning, M. (2005). Digging into history: Authentic learning through archeology. The History Teacher, 38(2): 209–223.

  • Hamilakis, Y. (2004). Archaeology and the politics of pedagogy. World Archaeology, 36(2): 287–309.

  • Harvey, L. (2000). New realities: the relationship between higher education and employment. Tertiary Education and Management 6: 3–17

  • Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.

  • Hounsell, D. (2008). Evaluating courses and teaching. In Fry, H. S. Ketteridge, S. Marshall, A handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Pp. 198–211. Routledge: New York and London.

  • Knight, P. (2001). Employability and Assessment. Skills plus – a paper prepared for the fourth colloquium, 3rd October 2001.

  • Knight, P. and Yorke, M. (2004). Learning, Curriculum and Employability in Higher Education, Routledge Falmer, London.

  • Lombardi, M. (2008). Making the Grade: The Role of Assessment in Authentic Learning. Educause Learning Initiative (Creative Commons initiative).

  • Meyer, J and R. Land. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49, 373–388.

  • Pool, L and P. Sewell (2007). The key to employability: developing a practical model of graduate employability. Education and Training, 49(4): 277–289.

  • Smith, C. (2012). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: a comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2): 247–262.

  • Ulm, S., S. Nicholls and C. Daley. (2005). Mapping the shape of contemporary Australian archaeology: Implications for archaeology teaching and learning. Journal of the Australian Archaeology Association 61,11–23.

  • Ulm, S., Mate, G, Dalley, C and S. Nichols. (2013). A working profile: The changing face of professional archaeology in Australia. Journal of the Australian Archaeology Association 76, 21–34.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah Veness.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wright, D., Veness, D. An Authentic Learning Approach to Assessment in Australian Archaeology. Arch 12, 264–280 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-017-9301-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-017-9301-2

Key Words

Navigation