Abstract
The form and content of archaeological field schools can vary greatly, but with the increased professionalisation of both field archaeology and university teaching, far more sophisticated planning is required for a field school to meet all its many expectations than used to be the case. Issues of breadth and depth of training, the structure and quality of supervision, and the extent to which a field school can prepare students for non-University fieldwork are all debated by both CRM professionals and academics. Few doubt the value of field schools, but what is seen as most important is contentious; these issues vary internationally only by degree, and all directors have to balance student and potential employers’ expectations while creating an ethical project that also contributes to our understanding of the past.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adler, M. (2001). The register. Certifying your archaeology field school. SAA Record, 1(2), 15–16.
Baxter, J. E. (2009). Archaeological field schools. A guide for teaching in the field. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S., Turner, A., Wurthmann, S., & Conchie, S. (2007). Fieldwork is good: The student perception and the affective domain. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(2), 299–317.
Cobb, H., & Richardson, P. (2008). Transition/transformation: Exploring alternative excavation practices to transform student learning and development in the field. Research in Archaeological Education, 2, 21–40. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/hca/archaeology/RAEJournal
Darvill, T. (2008). UK Archaeology benchmark updated. Research in Archaeological Education, 1. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/hca/archaeology/RAEJournal
Fleming, N., & Baume, D. (2006). Styles again: VARKing up the right tree! Educational Developments, 7(4), 4–7.
Fuller, I., Book, M., & Holt, K. (2010). Linking teaching and research in undergraduate physical geography papers: the role of fieldwork. New Zealand Geographer, 66, 196–202.
Hamilakis, Y. (2004). Archaeology and the politics of pedagogy. World Archaeology, 36(2), 287–309.
Healey, M. (2005). Linking teaching and research to benefit student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29, 183–201.
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99, 185–195.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1982). Manual of learning styles. London: P. Honey.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Marvell, A. (2008). Student-led presentations in situ: the challenges to presenting on the edge of a volcano. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(2), 321–335.
Mills, B. J., Altaha, M., Welch, J. R., & Ferguson, T. J. (2008). Field schools without trowels: teaching archaeological ethics and heritage preservation in a collaborative context. In S. W. Silliman (Ed.), Collaboration at the trowel’s edge: Teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology (pp. 25–249). American studies in archaeology, J. Ware, general editor. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Neusius, S. W. (2009). Changing the curriculum: Preparing archaeologists for careers in applied archaeology. SAA Record, 9(1), 18–22.
Perry, J. E. (2004). Authentic learning in field schools: Preparing future members of the archaeological community. World Archaeology, 36(2), 236–260.
Prosser, M. (2010). Grade descriptors and standards. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Retrieved April 24, 2011, from http://www.cetl.hku.hk/system/files/Grade_Descriptors_and_Standards_Oct_2010.pdf
Schuldenrein, J., & Altschul, J. (2000). Archaeological education and private sector employment. In S. J. Bender & G. S. Smith (Eds.), Teaching archaeology in the twenty-first century (pp. 59–64). Washington: Society for American Archaeology.
Silliman, S. W. (Ed.). (2008). Collaborating at the trowel’s edge: Teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Spronken-Smith, R., & Hilton, M. (2009). Recapturing quality field experiences and strengthening teaching-research links. New Zealand Geographer, 65, 139–146.
Walker, M., & Saitta, D. J. (2002). Teaching the craft of archaeology: Theory, practice, and the field school. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 6(3), 199–207.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mytum, H. (2012). The Pedagogic Value of Field Schools: Some Frameworks. In: Mytum, H. (eds) Global Perspectives on Archaeological Field Schools. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0433-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0433-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-0432-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-0433-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)