A Discussion of the Project

This project developed a set of activities for use in a fourth through sixth grade classroom or natural history museum setting. The key component of the project was the creation of the Archaeology Activity Guide, providing a concept outline and a step-by-step plan for conducting each activity. The activities provide the conceptual grounding needed to understand and appreciate the archaeologist’s and museum curator’s work. The activities serve as an orientation for a visit to an archaeology museum by contributing to an understanding of the context by which artifacts come to be placed in a museum, and the methods by which they are interpreted. Orientation leads to greater engagement with the exhibit and a concomitant increase in understanding and affect. Providing pre-trip orientation about the material to be covered during the museum visit yields improved learning about the content of the visit.

Reflecting the theory researched in the literature, the activities seek to engage students in a way that will enable them to link what they experience through the activities with what they encounter in the museum. This requires, initially, a shift of focus away from objects, the things central to museums, and toward providing a vehicle for activities. The resulting activity guide is not intended to be a substitute for a museum visit, but rather, preparation for it.

The activities developed for this project create a learning environment that accommodates a range of problem solving skills, based on Howard Gardner’s (1983, 1991, 1993) multiple intelligences paradigm. The activities ask students to play the role of archaeologist and experience the process of archaeological discovery and interpretation. Students make use of spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, logical-mathematical, interpersonal, and linguistic problem solving skills.

The activities were constructed to allow students to approach the topic (entry points into the topic—see Gardner, 1993) in several ways that roughly map onto the multiple intelligences paradigm. The narrational entry point is through story-telling. The logical-quantitative entry point is through mapping and deductive analysis of their “finds.” Foundational entry is gained also through analysis, and through development of vocabulary. The esthetic entry point is via consideration of the form of the objects, and dramatic or artistic presentation as a reporting and discussion format. The fifth entry point to the topic, experiential, is supplied through the basic activity.

The activity guide is process oriented, in contrast to the museum exhibit that is product oriented. Introducing the process of archaeology into a museum education program offers several potential benefits to the museum, teachers, and students. Archaeology has a multidisciplinary basis that allows the individual to use either a holistic or highly focused approach to the study of a culture. It teaches critical thinking and problem solving skills, and as a small group activity, it enhances cooperative learning. Along with benefits for students, as teachers use the guide they gain a greater understanding and appreciation of museum processes, and familiarity with the resources the museum has to offer. This serves to strengthen ties with the museum, and reinforce the image of museums as valuable resources for the schools.

Goals of The Activity Guide

Through the activities developed in this project, students gain an understanding of the museum context in terms of how the objects came to be exhibited and interpreted. This understanding serves to orient students to museum exhibits by providing a context for the presence of objects in the museum: how they got there, why those particular objects are displayed, and the basis on which ‘meaning’ has been given to objects through the curator’s interpretation.(The methods of interpretation explored in the activities can be extrapolated to other types of museum exhibits.)

The activities in the guide also enable students to confront collateral issues of cultural stewardship: the human and natural destruction of cultural resources, the role that everyone can play in the wise management of cultural resources, and the obligation that individuals have in weighing the consequences of their actions on the irreplaceable evidence of the past. Students also gain a multicultural perspective in which they begin to recognize similar needs and concerns across cultures Formal Education Subcommittee, 1995; Suina, 1990/1992.

A Description of the Activities

The guide contains three activities that demonstrate principles of archaeology. The activities were synthesized from materials used in museology courses, pre-existing elementary school curriculum supplements, and the author’s inspiration. The activities are presented in the guide in increasing order of conceptual and organizational complexity. The activities may be used individually, or in combination. The first activity serves as a good conceptual introduction to the second or third. It is expected that the teacher will bring their expertise in adapting the activities to the specific requirements of their classroom and students.

The first activity, “A Pocket Museum,” illustrates some of the issues of interpretation facing archaeologists. It introduces the idea of ‘artifact’ and shows how the way that we interpret an object is influenced by both the object’s and the interpreter’s context. The purpose of the activity is to engage the students in the process of analysis. The answers that they come up with are not as important as the questions that they ask. “A Pocket Museum” is suggested as an introduction to either of the other activities, “Archaeological Survey” or “A Sandbox Archaeological Site.”

“Archaeological Survey” is a mapping exercise that uses familiar objects, viewed in a new light, to demonstrate the process of archaeological discovery and interpretation. Like “A Pocket Museum,” this activity requires relatively little teacher preparation time. It expands on the analytical process explored in the first activity, and introduces concepts related to mapping. It can be used in place of “A Sandbox Archaeological Site” if school resources, particularly time, are limited.

“A Sandbox Archaeological Site” is the most ambitious activity, and provides a complete archaeological experience. Students excavate a mock archaeological site and use their interpretive skills to create a museum of their discoveries. This activity can consume class periods over several days. The sandbox activity is modular in its construction, offering the teacher several options, depending on the amount of time and class resources available.

All work done in the activities is performed in teams. After each activity, the teams report their results to the class. The report might take the form of a story (or stories) about the people who lived at the site. These stories should be based on the objects that were discovered in the activity.

Design Of The Project

The Archaeology Activity Guide grew out of an internship assignment at the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. Through its teaching kits, the museum circulated reproductions, some artifacts, photographic slides, and densely worded labels and lecture notes to area elementary schools. The kits were used as curriculum supplements primarily by fourth through sixth grade teachers. Subject areas for the kits included Mesopotamia (the origins of writing), Africa (the Yoruba), and several kits dealing with Native Californians. The Coordinator of Education and Public Programs, Martha Muhs, felt a need for a kit teaching archaeology.

Several options were considered for the form of the archaeology kit, ranging from a script for a docent lecture to a traveling box that simulated an archaeological site. As the subject of archaeology was researched, and learning goals for the project were developed, it became clear that the focus must be on process (what archaeologists do) rather than product (what they find). The product of archaeology was already being dealt with in existing kits. A way to approach the subject of process was needed.

The creation of an object-based kit on archaeology that incorporated process seemed a bit problematic. Addressing process seemed to imply some sort of hands-on approach, which could entail, at some point, conducting an excavation. Providing objects to be buried carried the risk of loss and the expense of replacement. The cost associated with maintaining an object-based kit requiring frequent replacement argued against creation of such a kit. With a focus on activities rather than objects, a more appropriate format seemed to be a guide or instruction manual for conducting the activities.

Creating the Activities

The first phase of the project involved a two-pronged research strategy into the principles of archaeology by means of a focused literature review, and looking at the forms that activities teaching archaeology to elementary students have taken. Materials were collected from museology courses and published curriculum supplements dealing with anthropology and archaeology (see Appendix A for a list of resources used in developing the guide).

These materials were evaluated on the basis of a) accuracy in portraying archaeological processes, b) providing a range of experiences for the student and accommodating a variety of learning styles, c) simplicity of use for the classroom teacher, and d) appropriateness to grade level. The results of that analysis were used in the development of learning goals. Those goals, coupled with the literature and resource review, provided the foundation for the design of the activities included in the guide.

The project’s second phase involved an iterative process of synthesis and evaluation, through which a “mega-activity” was created. This activity would take students through site formation processes, excavation, and curating an exhibit. The synthesis process merged elements from the analysis of existing materials and the results of the archaeological literature review. Elements were modified, or new elements created, to meet the project’s goals. Each stage of the activity would involve students in role-playing activities, and each stage provided opportunity for reflection and analysis by having students report on their work in a variety of formats, such as art, drama, or writing.

Evaluation of the mega-activity involved review by Ms. Muhs, and Margaret Pillsbury, an educational consultant to the museum. Their discussion of the feasibility, strengths, and weaknesses of the developing activity helped to focus and refine the work. A shared concern with the length and complexity of the activity led to significant revisions. Two smaller, simpler activities were developed to introduce the concepts of artifact and interpretation. The large activity changed to focus on excavation and curating, leaving hands-on exploration of the site formation processes as an option for the adventurous. Each activity was designed to stand alone in providing a basic orientation to the archaeology museum. Used sequentially, the activities would provide an intensive, and fairly complete understanding of basic archaeological processes and museum interpretation.

Designing the Guide

The third phase of the project was the design and printing of the activity guide. In designing the guide, great care has been taken to create a ‘user friendly’ product. The guide presents complex, detailed information and instructions. A visually welcoming layout was employed to encourage teachers to read and use the guide. Attention was paid to the use of white space, selection and size of typefaces, use of bullets, cues, and headlines, and organization of the guide into a logical, clear progression of information.

Evaluation Process

Due to time constraints, evaluation of the activity guide has been limited to review by anthropologists, and museum and education specialists, for accuracy, clarity, and appropriateness to grade level. Testing of the activities within a classroom setting has not been possible.

The activities were reviewed and evaluated during development, using an iterative process in which results of expert review and evaluation were used to refine the activities. A draft of the guide was made available to elementary teachers and museum professionals for further review and comment. Comments from these experts, as well as omissions and errors discovered by the author during the writing of this paper, was used to refine the final version of the guide.