Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education more

Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Paul Everill Rachel Nicholls Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Dr Paul Everill MIFA FHEA and Rachel Nicholls Department of Archaeology, University of Winchester June 2011 © Paul Everill and Rachel Nicholls 2011 Permission is granted to copy and distribute this document in unaltered form only, for the purposes of teaching, research, private study, criticism and review, provided that the original authors are acknowledged Cover photo: Students from the Universities of Winchester, Southampton and Bradford excavating in Nokalakevi, western Georgia © Anglo-Georgian Expedition to Nokalakevi Contents 1. 2. Summary ....................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 3 Background .............................................................................................. 4 Previous research on fieldwork training ........................................................ 7 Methodology............................................................................................. 8 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 3. RESULTS: Demographics.................................................................................. 9 Institutions .............................................................................................. 9 Student numbers .................................................................................... 11 Staff ...................................................................................................... 13 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 4. RESULTS: Fieldwork ...................................................................................... 15 The importance of fieldwork ..................................................................... 15 Fieldwork provision ................................................................................. 16 Fieldwork requirements ........................................................................... 17 Location of fieldwork ............................................................................... 18 Funding of fieldwork ................................................................................ 20 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 5. RESULTS: Assessment ................................................................................... 23 Assessment Practice ................................................................................ 23 Assessment Type .................................................................................... 24 5.1. 5.2. 6. 7. 8. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 27 Acknowledgements........................................................................................ 28 References ................................................................................................... 29 Appendix A: Questionnaire ................................................................................... 31 Appendix B: Institutional Participants .................................................................... 34 Appendix C: Assessment types grouped by primary category .................................... 35 Figures Figure 1: The rate of job losses in commercial archaeology (from Aitchison 2011) ......... 6 Figure 2: Institutional groupings ........................................................................... 10 Figure 3: Student recruitment trends (HESA, plus our results for 2010/11) ................ 13 Figure 4: Location of fieldwork .............................................................................. 19 Figure 5: The extent of financial support for student fieldwork .................................. 21 Figure 6: Spend per student on assessed fieldwork ................................................. 22 Figure 7: Descriptions of assessment types ............................................................ 25 Tables Table 1: Numbers employed in commercial archaeology (Aitchison 2011: 6) ................ 6 Table 2: Institutions by region .............................................................................. 10 Table 3: Institution size indicated by archaeology (or related subject) students per year ......................................................................................................................... 11 Table 4: Student numbers, compared with HESA figures for 09-10 ............................ 12 Table 5: Academic and Support Staff in HE Archaeology (FTE) .................................. 13 Table 6: Archaeology staff involvement in fieldwork ................................................ 14 Table 7: The importance of fieldwork - Keyword characterisation .............................. 16 Table 8: Fieldwork Policy ...................................................................................... 16 Table 9: Yearly fieldwork requirements in weeks ..................................................... 18 Table 10: Total fieldwork requirement over the course of a degree ............................ 18 Table 11: The extent of financial support for student fieldwork ................................. 21 Table 12: Spend per student on assessed fieldwork ................................................. 22 Table 13: Spend per student by size of institution ................................................... 23 Table 14: Spend per student by location of fieldwork ............................................... 23 Table 15: Assessment of fieldwork ........................................................................ 24 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education 1. Summary This research was jointly funded by the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the Department of Archaeology of the University of Winchester. Support was secured from the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for History, Classics and Archaeology who were consulted on the initial questionnaire, which was distributed in February 2011. Survey responses were received from all 44 UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that were listed on UCAS as offering degree programmes with a majority or significant archaeological component. The HEIs represent a diverse cross-section of the sector, ranging from small independent universities and HE colleges, through to large collegiate universities. Seventeen (38.6%) of the universities belonged to the Russell Group, while eight (18.2%) belong to the 1994 Group. Eleven (25%) of the universities were independent, and the rest belonged to smaller alliances. Results demonstrate the diversity of approaches to archaeological fieldwork training across the UK HE sector, within which the term fieldwork itself has a variety of meanings. Predominantly used to refer to excavation, it also often includes survey and other non-invasive applied techniques, as well as, less commonly, broader off-site experiential learning. Results indicate that there are currently 4,718 undergraduate students on archaeology, or closely-related, degree programmes in the UK. This represents approximately 1,591 per year group when one takes into account the four year programmes. Thirty-six percent of HEIs indicated that they had fewer than 31 students per year; 16% had between 31 and 50 students per year; 23% reported between 51 and 100 students per year; 9% have more than 100 students per year. These students are taught by a total of 708.61 (FTE) academic and support staff. An average of 66.47% of staff in each department are actively engaged in archaeological fieldwork with, on average, higher percentages reported in smaller departments. Over a quarter of HEIs reported either no fixed policy on assessed fieldwork, or no requirement. Of those that reported a fieldwork requirement by year, the greatest number indicated that this was four weeks in the summer between 1 st year and 2nd year and/ or 2nd year and 3rd year. In terms of total fieldwork requirements over the course of an entire degree programme the greatest numbers require four or six weeks. Thirty two percent of HEIs reported that their fieldwork was mostly UK-based with some overseas projects, while 30% predominantly work in their home region. Larger departments are marginally more likely to work overseas. 1 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Fifty eight percent of HEIs partly fund their students‟ fieldwork, while 26% fully fund it. Of those that gave a figure, 29% spend between £100-£300 per student; 20% spend between £300-£500; 14% spend up to £100; and 14% spend more than £500. While 20% spend nothing at all supporting student fieldwork, this does include some institutions at which no assessed fieldwork takes place. In terms of assessment, 41% of respondents assess their students in the field – giving either an overall mark or individual marks for each task – supported by assessed written work, predominantly in the form of site diaries. This research has provided much needed data on archaeological fieldwork provision and assessment, and has done so on the eve of the greatest ever change to Higher Education provision in the UK. It is intended that this survey be repeated at regular intervals in order to map changes as the sector negotiates significant new challenges. 2 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education 2. Introduction Excavation and, more broadly speaking, fieldwork have defined the discipline of archaeology since its earliest origins as a practically-minded offshoot of antiquarianism. Sir Richard Colt Hoare introduced the first volume of Ancient Wiltshire with the phrase “We speak from facts, not theory” (Hoare 1810) in reference to the approach to excavation and recording being pioneered by William Cunnington. This was in stark contrast to the largely literary and etymological researches of antiquarians of the day. A hundred years later and, although the processes themselves had been refined by subsequent generations of archaeologists, fieldwork remained at the heart of the discipline. Sir Leonard Woolley, in distinguishing between archaeology and „casual‟ excavation, wrote that In its essence Field Archaeology is the application of scientific method to the excavation of ancient objects, and it is based on the theory that the historical value of an object depends not so much on the nature of the object itself as on its associations, which only scientific excavation can detect. (Woolley 1937:16) He also emphasised the destructiveness of excavation (Woolley 1937:35), a warning repeated by Sir Mortimer Wheeler in his classic textbook Archaeology from the Earth. At the best, excavation is destruction; and destruction unmitigated by all the resources of contemporary knowledge and accumulated experience cannot be too rigorously impugned. (Wheeler 1954 :15) This emphasis on the centrality of fieldwork to the discipline, and the critical importance of training and “learning from the experience of [our] predecessors” (Kenyon 1952: 54) appears time and again in the best known introductory texts of the 20th century (Piggot 1959; Webster 1963; Barker 1977). This emphasis is also to be found in the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education subject benchmark statement for archaeology, which states that Archaeology at HE firmly aligns itself with a liberal view of education and learning, while recognising the practical application of the subject’s knowledge base and skills. Understanding the interplay between theories and methods, central to any archaeology programme, is achieved by involving students directly in the recovery and analysis of primary material via involvement in departmental or other approved research projects. (QAA 2007: 2) 3 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Given all of the above, it is perhaps surprising that there remains a significant degree of variability in the teaching of archaeology at HEIs, in terms of the delivery and extent of training in field skills. In February and March 2011 the authors carried out the first complete survey of the various approaches to fieldwork provision and assessment across the UK Higher Education sector, receiving detailed responses from 44 institutions listed on UCAS as offering archaeology degree programmes. Our stated aim was to compare responses from across the sector in order to produce an overview of the variety of approaches taken; drawing broad but informative conclusions on, for example, what percentage of departments provide one main fieldwork project for students to attend, whether this varies by institution size, and whether there is a relationship between fieldwork provision and assessment practice etc. Respondents were encouraged to append copies of guidance notes for staff and students concerning assessment, and examples of how they feel their department‟s fieldwork/ assessment practice contributes to successful learning and teaching outcomes. 2.1. Background This research took place against a backdrop of significant job losses in commercial archaeology, and an expectation that competition for advertised vacancies would be fiercer than ever before. In that marketplace more scrutiny is being placed upon the ways in which HEIs prepare their students for a career in archaeology, through the provision and assessment of training in applied archaeological techniques. This issue looks likely to be compounded by the Coalition Government‟s decision to massively reduce public financial support for Higher Education - a decision which has seen the teaching budget cut by 80% overall, and cut completely for arts and humanities subjects. This huge shortfall in funding has had to be filled through unprecedented increases in tuition fees in England1. At the time of writing the vast majority of English HEIs offering archaeology have announced that they will be charging the maximum allowable tuition fees of £9,000 a year from 2012. However, until recently, the Higher Education Funding Council‟s support of subjects like archaeology (so called „Band C‟ subjects such as geography and psychology with increased running costs by virtue of including fieldwork and/ or laboratory work) has reflected the additional associated costs. With many institutions now set to charge a flat fee across all their programmes, regardless of running costs, it seems likely that the focus of university managers will fall on areas where „efficiency savings‟ can be made, with a very real threat to the integrity of those humanities subjects with a strong practical component (Sinclair 2010). These 1 The Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly have thus far opted to protect Higher Education funding. 4 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education recent changes to the way in which HE is funded in England therefore seem likely to have the twin, opposing effects of bringing graduate employability to the fore in student recruitment and reducing the funds that departments have available to support increased levels of fieldwork training. Alongside these recent developments, resulting from the ongoing economic crisis, is the longer term concern that graduate archaeologists are not universally equipped with the appropriate skills sets to make the transition into commercial, developer-funded archaeology. This was identified at least 14 years ago at a Young Archaeologists‟ Conference in Southampton. few, if any, of the [degree] courses were really seen, by those on them, as providing the necessary background for archaeological employment. One major factor in this was argued to be the perceived conflict between an archaeology degree as a general academic education and as an archaeological training. Put crudely, some archaeology degrees have little or no value for a student rash enough to want to follow a career in archaeology in Britain (Joyce et al 1987: v) Since then of course employment in the commercial sector has become an almost entirely graduate-entry career, and the growth in that sector between the implementation of PPG16 in 1990 and the onset of the recent economic crisis has supported greater numbers of archaeologists than ever before. Even with the recent job losses it is, as a sector, still the single largest employer of graduate archaeologists. The Invisible Diggers survey recorded 103 commercial organisations employing 2248 archaeologists in 2006 (Everill 2009). By contrast, the Institute for Archaeologists‟ Archaeology Labour Market Intelligence: Profiling the Profession 2007-08 (Aitchison and Edwards 2008) reported 4036 archaeologists employed in the commercial sector (and a total of 6865 across all sectors). The discrepancy between the two surveys is undoubtedly partly a result of an increase in staff levels in the intervening two years, but also because of the different data collection practices which saw Profiling the Profession report authors estimate staff numbers where the organisation had not responded, and the Invisible Diggers data simply reporting responses. In reality, therefore, it seems likely that one figure is too high and one too low. The real figure might be reasonably expected to have stood in the region of 3000-3500 prior to the first indications of the impact of the economic downturn on the commercial sector in late 2008. The Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) and the Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers (FAME) have produced quarterly reports of job losses in archaeology since January 5 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education 20092. These surveys provide a startling picture of the scale and pace of job losses (Table 1; Figure 1) that have reduced the size of the workforce by 20.9% since August 2007, and are expected to continue for some time. Aug 2007 4036 Oct 2008 3906 Jan 2009 3561 Apr 2009 3323 Jul 2009 3472 Oct 2009 3526 Jan 2010 3270 Apr 2010 3404 Jul 2010 3669 Oct 2010 3333 Jan 2011 3189 Table 1: Numbers employed in commercial archaeology (Aitchison 2011: 6) 4200 4000 3800 3600 3400 3200 3000 Jun-08 Jun-09 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Jun-10 Apr-08 Apr-09 Aug-07 Aug-08 Aug-09 Apr-10 Aug-10 Feb-08 Feb-09 Dec-07 Dec-08 Dec-09 Feb-10 Oct-10 Dec-10 Figure 1: The rate of job losses in commercial archaeology (from Aitchison 2011) With the loss of jobs inevitably comes a loss of skills from the sector, and this has exacerbated a growing concern amongst employers regarding skills gaps. In Profiling the Profession 2007-08, 19% of employers reported skills gaps relating to “contributing to intrusive investigations (evaluation, excavation) as team members or diggers” (Aitchison and Edwards 2008: 153). The only areas that were more exposed were “artefact research” (39%) and “desk-based historic environment research” (36%), both of which might be considered to be specialisms the training for which lay beyond the remit of a standard degree programme, probably in the form of postgraduate degrees or „on the job‟ training. In the Job Losses in Archaeology – October 2010, January 2011 report 2 Job Losses in Archaeology – October 2010, January 2011 (Aitchison 2011) is the most recent of these at the time of writing and summarises previous results 6 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education (Aitchison 2011), employers were asked to identify which skills areas were being particularly affected by the redundancies. “Contributing to intrusive investigations” (28%), and “Conducting (leading or directing) intrusive investigations” (26%), were the top two responses by a significant margin, undoubtedly reflecting the increasing scarcity of large excavation projects making it harder to retain the large number of staff (often in their 20s and on short, fixed term contracts) employed purely in those roles. 2.2. Previous research on fieldwork training Undoubtedly the most significant UK study on this topic has been Investigating the role of fieldwork in teaching and learning archaeology (Croucher et al 2008) for which 434 students and 103 staff were interviewed in the summers of 2004 and 2005. The respondents represented 25 UK HEIs, plus nine Further and Continuing Education institutions, four non-UK HEIs and four non-student volunteers (Croucher et al 2008: 10). This was the first research to offer a national perspective on fieldwork provision and its pedagogic importance to archaeology. The conclusions of the report can be summarised by the section headings used, as follows:             Students wanted more archaeological fieldwork during their degree programmes The value that fieldwork added to the undergraduate degree experience was almost entirely positive Fieldwork may be profitable in attracting student numbers It is important that students do not feel that their fieldwork is isolated and unrelated to the rest of their degree Assessment is a contributory factor to positive fieldwork experiences A high number of students expressed a wish to continue into a career in archaeology Students believe that universities should be providing at least some foundation for a career in archaeology Areas of good practice often involved professional unit and academic departments working together There are a large number of transferable skills gained through fieldwork Education and training do not need to be opposed Giving students responsibility within the interpretive process can enhance student experiences of fieldwork and beyond Considered thought about supervision and communication between staff and students in the field is extremely important 7 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education   There should be recognition that students contribute to the research process Fieldwork provides an opportunity to readdress traditional inequalities in archaeological practice (Croucher et al 2008: 51-3) Other recent research that looks specifically at the teaching of fieldwork includes work on the value of field schools in providing an „authentic‟ learning experience for future professionals (Perry 2004); research on student self-evaluation in fieldwork, and the potential role of critical appraisal by students of their own performance in the field (Thorpe 2004); a study considering the importance of the hierarchy, structure and organisation of a training excavation in terms of delivering appropriate teaching and learning outcomes (Everill 2007); a discussion of the ways in which the focus of fieldwork can be altered to better support the learning of generic skills (Brookes 2008); and an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of student-led/ proactive training on a research excavation (Everill 2011). There was, however, no recent data on fieldwork requirements within degree programmes, the assessment types employed or the extent to which student participation was funded. The need to obtain this data was noted in meetings of the Standing Committee for Archaeology (SCFA) in 2007 and 2008 (Anthony Sinclair, pers. comm.). This research has, therefore, not only provided this much needed data, but it has done so on the eve of the greatest ever change to Higher Education provision in the UK. This timing is crucial in providing a snapshot of the state of archaeology within HE at the end of a „golden age‟ (Sinclair 2010). It is intended that this survey be repeated at regular intervals in order to map changes as the sector negotiates significant new challenges. 2.3. Methodology A contact list was produced from a search on the University and College Admissions Service (UCAS) website. UCAS listed a total of 49 institutions offering archaeology for admission in September 2011. Amongst these institutions were those offering Forensic science programmes that included an element of anthropology. However, on further investigation a number of these were not found to include substantial amounts of archaeological study or fieldwork, and as such were not included on the contact list. The UCAS listing also included some Universities that, while not offering a full Archaeology degree, did offer a related degree including a significant amount of archaeology, and these were included on the project contact list. Individual points of contact were added 8 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education to the database from a search of departmental websites, looking specifically for those identified as Fieldwork Officers, Heads of Undergraduate Teaching, or similar posts. The basic questionnaire (Appendix A) was developed with the intention that it be quick and easy to complete. However, institutions were encouraged to provide more detailed answers, further information and/ or supporting documentation if they had time. The questionnaires, along with a covering letter, were sent out on 10th February 2011 to 44 institutions. These institutions were those offering single honours archaeology degrees, through to institutions that offered related subjects in Ancient History, Egyptology and Heritage management. Despite an advertised deadline of 28th February the initial response rate to the survey was slow, so a reminder email was sent to a number of institutions and to the second contact of institutions from whom out of office auto responses had been received. By 8th March, a total of 33 replies had been received, and after concerted efforts to follow up on non-responders, all 44 target institutions had supplied data by 14th March. This data was entered onto a Microsoft Access database upon which queries were run. 3. RESULTS: Demographics 3.1. Institutions The nature of responses was wide ranging, from those which were extremely detailed through to those which answered the key questions but did not expand or provide any further information. While the questionnaire asked institutions to provide data on student and staff numbers not all respondents were able to provide this information. Six institutions were unable to provide student numbers, although of these only one offered an archaeology degree programme, with the remainder teaching broadly related subjects with no fieldwork requirement. The HEIs represent a diverse cross-section of the sector, ranging from small independent universities and HE colleges, through to large collegiate universities. Seventeen (38.6%) of the universities belonged to the Russell Group, while eight (18.2%) belong to the 1994 Group. Eleven (25%) of the universities were independent, and the rest belonged to smaller alliances. 9 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Million+ GU8 Russell Group Independent Russell Group 1994 Group University Alliance UoW Independent UoW University Alliance 1994 Group Million+ GU8 Figure 2: Institutional groupings The regional density of HEIs offering archaeology or related programmes also varied slightly. The 44 institutions were distributed reasonably evenly across the UK, however there was a slight concentration in the South East. Region East Anglia East Midlands Northern Ireland North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Yorkshire and Humberside Total Institutions Number of institutions 3 3 1 2 4 5 10 4 5 3 4 44 Table 2: Institutions by region 10 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education 3.2. Student numbers The responses were collated in the database, and queries run on undergraduate student numbers by „Single Honours Archaeology‟, „Joint honours Archaeology‟ and other, „archaeology-related subject‟ to produce approximate student numbers by year group and total. Thirty-six percent of HEIs indicated that they had fewer than 31 students per year; 16% had between 31 and 50 students per year; 23% reported between 51 and 100 students per year; 9% have more than 100 students per year. Non-responses accounted for 16% (Table 3). 1-30 students per year 31 to 50 students per year 51 to 100 students per year More than 100 students per year Non-responses 16 7 10 4 7 Table 3: Institution size indicated by archaeology (or related subject) students per year As stated above only one institution that taught an archaeology degree programme with an assessed fieldwork component failed to provide numerical data for their students. Despite this fact it should be recognised that a number of departments provided estimated numbers and therefore our figure of 4718 undergraduate students (all years) on archaeology or related programmes is not exact. However, it does represent the most accurate indication currently available. Taking into account the fact that certain institutions offer four year courses (and using precise year group figures where they were supplied) the responses indicate that there are approximately 1591 undergraduate students per year group studying archaeology or a closely related subject in the UK. This provides some indication of the current number of graduates seeking employment or further study each year. Phillips and Gilchrist (2005) conducted a survey of 35 HEIs, 20 of which responded. Of those, only 18 provided student numbers and consequently their data appear to represent around 50% of the actual number of archaeology undergraduate students (Table 3). The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) has provided figures for those studying archaeology since the mid 1990s, and this data has been reported for Universities UK by Ramsden since 2001 (Ramsden 2010: 3), and for the archaeological sector by Aitchison and Edwards (2008). However, the categorisation of archaeology in the original HESA data is not straightforward and therefore the figures are not completely reliable (Aitchison and Edwards 2008: 45). Initially the subject was reported 11 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education as “Archaeology”, under the category of “Historical and philosophical studies”, and as “Archaeology as a physical science” listed under the category of “Physical Science”. Since 2002/3 the latter was changed to “Forensic and archaeological science” presumably, therefore, including a number of students for whom archaeology was not a significant area of study. Comparison with the results of our recent survey (Table 4) appears to indicate that a strikingly small number of undergraduates, considered by their own departments to be primarily studying archaeology or a closely related degree, fall within the “Physical Science” category. Figure 3 shows the trends in student recruitment using HESA figures for archaeology within the category of “Historical and philosophical studies”. These figures demonstrate a substantial increase in student numbers in the academic year 2002/3. Contrary to popular opinion, this does not appear to be linked to the inclusion of forensic sciences as that seems to have only impacted on the “Physical Science” category. It is possible that some other change in the way data was collected or reported is responsible for this increase. Type of Degree Total students per year 947 460 184 Total students, all years 2828 1318 572 HESA figures 09-10 Archaeology within “Historical and philosophical studies” - HESA figures 09-10 Forensic and archaeological science within “Physical Science” - Phillips and Gilchrist (2005) 1453 675 181 Single Honours Degree Joint Honours Degree Related subject Degree Total u/g Students 1591 4718 4410 8535 2309 Table 4: Student numbers, compared with HESA figures for 09-10 12 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Total number of undergraduates studying Archaeology listed under “Historical and Philosophical Studies": HESA 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Number of students Figure 3: Student recruitment trends (HESA, plus our results for 2010/11) 3.3. Staff Respondents were asked to identify numbers of academic and support staff in terms of „Full-Time Equivalence‟ (FTE). Aitchison and Edwards (2008) give an estimated number of individual archaeological staff working at Universities as 1009, scaled up from a confirmed, but partial figure of 437. The FTE figures provided by respondents to our survey (708.61 academic and support staff, see Table 5) would appear to broadly support Aitchison and Edwards‟ figure, and suggests that there are a substantial number of part-time staff teaching (or supporting the teaching of) archaeology at HE level – perhaps as many as a third of the total number of staff. Type of staff Academic Staff Support Staff Total Staff Number of staff (FTE) 552.5 156.11 708.61 Table 5: Academic and Support Staff in HE Archaeology (FTE) 13 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education The questionnaire also asked for an indication of what percentage of staff were actively engaged in fieldwork (Table 6). Excluding the responses from departments who felt this was not applicable (largely those who did not have a fieldwork requirement on programmes which were predominantly not archaeologically focused) the average across the UK HE sector is 66.47% of staff actively engaged in fieldwork. Percentage of staff involved in fieldwork Not Applicable 1-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Number of responses 6 3 6 6 12 11 Table 6: Archaeology staff involvement in fieldwork Another interesting perspective on staff involvement in fieldwork is provided by looking at those responses in relation to the size of the institution. Fourteen of the HEIs in this survey reported less than 10 academic staff. Of these, only two reported less than 50% of staff involved in fieldwork projects; five reported between 51% and 80%; and six reported that more than 80% of their staff were actively engaged in fieldwork. Seventeen HEIs had between 10 and 20 academic staff. Of these, eight had 50% or less involved in fieldwork; four reported between 51% and 80% involved in fieldwork; and five reported more than 81%. Eight HEIs had 21 members of academic staff or more. Of these institutions, only two had less than 50% of staff involved in fieldwork, six had between 51% and 80% involved in fieldwork projects and none had more than 81% involved in fieldwork. The implication of these results seems to be that there is a core of staff engaged in fieldwork in every department, and numerically speaking this might be a similar number regardless of institution size. However, within smaller departments fieldwork perhaps underpins a greater percentage of the teaching focus, while larger departments are able to invest in other areas of teaching/ research that are not dependent on active engagement with fieldwork. 14 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education 4. RESULTS: Fieldwork 4.1. The importance of fieldwork As discussed previously, fieldwork defines and characterises the discipline of archaeology in a way that is true of very few other subject areas. It is unsurprising to find this reflected in the comments received from survey participants, in response to the question “In your opinion how important is fieldwork training within an Archaeology degree?” Keyword analysis of the free-text comments, some of which were substantial, easily identifies the importance of fieldwork to degree programmes, with 30% of the 33 respondents to this question describing it as „essential‟ (Table 7). Of the two responses that cannot be so easily characterised, one was the only slightly dissenting voice stating that fieldwork was “Important, but not essential depending upon branch of archaeology student aims to pursue (if any) beyond degree.” Interestingly, the second of the two provided the polar opposite view: “Personally I feel strongly that all archaeology students should have some sort of fieldwork experience irrespective of their particular specialism.” In general terms the attitudes across the sector can be summarised in the following responses: Fieldwork is absolutely fundamental to the discipline as it is the primary means of data discovery, recovery and construction, and is the driving force of much primary research. Understanding the principles, rationales, methodologies and practices of field archaeology is thus central to the subject. An undergraduate archaeology programme without a field archaeology component would be intellectually impoverished in a profound way, and arguably pointless. It is a vital component of the degree, enabling students to learn both the methods of archaeological research and the tools of analysis and interpretation. It is also a vital means through which a sense of cohort identity is forged, and provides an essential opportunity for peer and tutor feedback, on aspects of skill and performance vital to future employment e.g. group work, independence, time management, planning and recording, H&S policy. 15 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education In your opinion how important is fieldwork training within an Archaeology degree? Essential Very/ Extremely Important Central (absolutely) Fundamental Crucial Vital Critical Integral Invaluable Highly significant 30% 21% 12% 9% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Table 7: The importance of fieldwork - Keyword characterisation 4.2. Fieldwork provision The survey asked participants about their fieldwork policy in relation to the best location for the teaching and learning of applied techniques (Table 8). Eighteen percent felt that dedicated training excavations were most appropriate; 7% favoured research projects with a managed training component; 5% believed that simply participating on staff research projects was sufficient. However 50% of the HEIs surveyed felt that the most effective vehicle was to utilise a combination of all those approaches. Twenty percent had no fixed policy in this regard. “We believe our students’ learning of applied techniques is best supported:” On a dedicated training excavation, incorporating a variety of tasks On research projects with a planned/ managed training element Through participation on staff research projects A combination of the above No fixed policy Table 8: Fieldwork Policy 8 3 2 22 9 Participants were also asked about the provision of fieldwork within their department, and were able to tick more than one box on the questionnaire. Of the 44 HEIs, 34% offered a principal department fieldwork project. However, 18% of all respondents also 16 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education answered secondarily that they offered a variety of projects to choose from, and 14% indicated a tertiary option: that they offered places on projects that are managed/ led externally. This range of answers appears in most cases to result from differing requirements and provision across year groups. A total of 45% offer a variety of inhouse projects with 18% of all HEIs describing a secondary option of externally managed/ led projects. Five percent of the 44 institutions responded that they simply offered places on externally managed/ led projects, and 2% expect their students to organise their own participation on external projects. The smallest institutions (i.e. the 7% with 10 students per year or less) were completely dependent on external partners, or projects managed externally. While this is probably a result of existing budgetary constraints, it seems likely that institutions of all sizes will increasingly utilise external partners/ projects in the future in order to deliver cost-effective training opportunities, often including an element of „industry experience‟. 4.3. Fieldwork requirements Respondents were asked to provide basic information relating to fieldwork requirements for their undergraduate programmes, and whether this differed across year groups and/ or programmes. Responses were grouped by year group where possible (Table 9), or as an overall figure for the total amount of fieldwork required to be undertaken at some point during the degree (Table 10). The results in these tables are the maxima, in cases where several degree programmes had different requirements. However, these figures are exclusive of instances where applied techniques were identified as being taught as part of weekly sessions within modules. This is, of course, common practice, but for the purposes of this research the primary focus was on fieldwork training that took place within a specific project over a prolonged, continuous period. One of the striking aspects of these figures is that 27% of HEIs reported either no fixed policy on assessed fieldwork, or no requirement. Of those that reported a fieldwork requirement by year, the majority indicated that this was four weeks in the summer between 1st year and 2nd year and/ or 2nd year and 3rd year, closely followed by three weeks over the same periods. A smaller, but significant number also now require undergraduates to undertake a block of one or two weeks fieldwork (often a training excavation) during the 1st year. One respondent observed that “since we introduced the one week training dig prior to going on the research field projects, the standard of the student contribution and experience [on the summer excavation] has improved.” In terms of total fieldwork requirements over the course of an entire degree programme, this varies from 0 – 11 weeks, however the greatest numbers require four or six weeks. 17 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Though often supported by individual practical sessions within other modules, this is clearly not sufficient to prepare an undergraduate for archaeological employment. 1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks 5 weeks 6 weeks No yearly requirement specified No fixed policy/ No fieldwork requirement First Year – during academic year 9% 5% Second Year – summer between 1st and 2nd Year 2% 7% 9% 14% 2% 2% 30% 27% Third Year – summer between 2nd and 3rd Year 5% 9% 11% 2% Table 9: Yearly fieldwork requirements in weeks Total number of weeks No fixed policy/ No fieldwork requirement 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks 5 weeks 6 weeks 7 weeks 8 weeks 10 weeks 11 weeks Responses 27% 5% 7% 18% 5% 18% 2% 7% 7% 2% Table 10: Total fieldwork requirement over the course of a degree 4.4. Location of fieldwork HEIs were asked about the location of their fieldwork and from the responses it is possible to draw a number of conclusions, possibly reflecting different approaches based on institutional size and resources. Of the four available options a narrow majority 18 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education (32%) answered that their fieldwork took place predominantly in the UK, with some international projects. This was closely followed by those who answered that their fieldwork took place within their local region (30%). Only 11% answered that their fieldwork was restricted to the UK, with the same percentage working entirely abroad. (Figure 4). No answer was received from 16% of HEIs – this includes those who felt the question was not applicable to them. Location of Fieldwork Mostly outside the UK No answer/ Not applicable Within the local region Within the local region Within the UK Mostly in the UK, but some outside the UK Mostly in the UK, Within the UK but some outside the UK Mostly outside the UK No answer/ Not applicable Figure 4: Location of fieldwork If these figures are analysed in relation to staff numbers the difference between small and large departments becomes clearer: Of the 13 departments who had 10 members of academic staff or less, 46% undertook fieldwork in the local region; 8% undertook fieldwork across the UK; and 38% undertook fieldwork mostly in the UK, with some overseas projects. fieldwork mostly overseas. Seventeen departments had between 10 and 20 members of academic staff. Of these, 29% undertook fieldwork locally; 18% undertook fieldwork across the UK; 29% undertook fieldwork mostly in the UK, with some overseas fieldwork; and 12% offered fieldwork mostly overseas. However, none undertook 19 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Of the eight departments that had 21 or more academic staff, 25% undertook fieldwork locally, but none undertook fieldwork elsewhere in the UK. Thirty eight percent undertook fieldwork mostly in the UK, with some overseas projects, and 38% undertook most of their fieldwork outside the UK. Perhaps unsurprisingly it seems from these responses that larger departments, in terms of staff numbers, are able to resource fieldwork beyond the local region, and broadly speaking the largest departments are able to offer more fieldwork outside the UK than the small departments with less than 10 members of academic staff. This is also reflected in student numbers. Of the 16 HEIs that responded that they had fewer than 31 students per year, the majority had a local (44%) or UK (19%) focus to their fieldwork; 25% undertook most of their fieldwork in the UK, with some international projects. One institution (6% of the cohort) undertook most of their fieldwork outside the UK, and one answered that this question was not applicable Of the seven HEIs with between 31 and 50 students per year 14% reported a local focus; 29% undertook fieldwork within the UK; 29% undertook fieldwork in the UK and overseas; and 14% undertook most of their fieldwork outside the UK. Ten institutions reported between 51 and 100 students per year, of these, 40% undertake fieldwork in the local region; 40% undertake most of their fieldwork in the UK, with some overseas projects; and 20% undertake most of their fieldwork overseas. Four universities have more than 100 students per year. Of these, 75% undertake most of their fieldwork in the UK, but do offer fieldwork overseas, and one institution (25%) undertakes most of its fieldwork outside the UK. 4.5. Funding of fieldwork Institutional financial support of fieldwork was an important consideration of the survey. However, given the sensitive nature of the data requested it was made clear that respondents who were concerned about it should leave this blank rather than simply not return the questionnaire. Where this information was provided it has provided an interesting insight. HEIs were asked how much funding they provided to support student fieldwork, both in terms of the extent to which it was funded (fully, partially, not at all), and the amount available per student. Of those who answered the first question, 58% partly funded their students‟ fieldwork and 26% fully funded it (Table 11; Figure 5). 20 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education To what extent do you fund student fieldwork? The department fully funds student participation The department partly funds student participation The department offers no financial support No Answer Number of Institutions 10 22 6 6 Table 11: The extent of financial support for student fieldwork Funding of Fieldwork No Answer No Financial Support Fully Funded Fully Funded Partly Funds No Financial Support Partly Funds No Answer Figure 5: The extent of financial support for student fieldwork When asked how much was spent supporting student fieldwork over the course of a degree, 35 institutions gave a figure from within a range of options (Table 12; Figure 6). The greatest number of those (29%) spend between £100-£300 per student; 20% spend between £300-£500; 14% spend up to £100; and 14% spend more than £500. While 20% spend nothing at all supporting student fieldwork, this does include some institutions at which no assessed fieldwork takes place. Institutional support of assessed fieldwork was also analysed using student numbers as an indication of institution size (Table 13). The general trend appears, unsurprisingly, to be that larger departments spend more supporting student fieldwork, however smaller departments produced the greatest variety of responses, from nothing right through to £500 or more per student. This seems most likely to be a result of combining results from institutions with small departments and modest budgets, and those at which a 21 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Spend per student Nothing Up to £100 £100-£300 £300-£500 More than £500 Unsure Declined to Answer Number of institutions 7 5 10 7 5 1 9 Table 12: Spend per student on assessed fieldwork How much? Nothing Unsure More than £500 £300-£500 Declined to answer Nothing Up to £100 £100-£300 Up to £100 £100-£300 £300-£500 More than £500 Unsure Declined to answer Figure 6: Spend per student on assessed fieldwork small archaeology department is not representative of the institution as a whole. It should also be noted that the respondent who reported by far the greatest financial support, well in excess of £500 per student, was the seventh smallest in terms of student numbers at an institution that had a fieldwork requirement. Furthermore it also seems to be the case that the upper medium-sized departments (51-100 students per year) are often able to spend more per head than the largest institutions. Another indicator was provided by analysing institutional financial support in relation to the location of fieldwork (Table 14). Of the respondents who provided this information, the same number of HEIs reported that their fieldwork was UK-based as reported that it was mostly international (14% of total cohort each). A similar number worked regionally as provided a mix of UK-based and international projects (27% and 36% respectively of 22 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education total cohort). However, the extent of financial support was markedly greater at institutions with a more significant international element. Per Year Group Up to 30 students 31-50 students 51-100 students 100+ students No funding 27% (4) £1-£100 20% (3) 40% (2) £100-£300 13% (2) 20% (1) 36% (4) 75% (3) £300-£500 27% (4) 40% (2) 18% (2) 25% (1) £500+ 13% (2) 18% (2) 27% (3) Table 13: Spend per student by size of institution Fieldwork location Local region UK Mostly UK, some No funding 33% (4) 50% (3) 13% (2) £1-£100 25% (3) 17% (1) 6% (1) £100-£300 17% (2) £300-£500 17% (2) 33% (2) £500+ 8% (1) 38% (6) 31% (5) 13% (2) international Mostly international Table 14: Spend per student by location of fieldwork 33% (2) 33% (2) 33% (2) 5. RESULTS: Assessment 5.1. Assessment Practice Respondents were asked if/ how fieldwork was assessed at their institution. They were offered a number of methods to choose from, and the option to tick more than one box. They were also encouraged to provide more detail in a „free text‟ area on the reverse of the questionnaire, and to append any relevant module documentation or student handbooks relating to the fieldwork component. Of the 44 HEIs, 41 answered this question, with a number ticking more than one box (Table 15). Of the primary answers, 16% of all HEIs replied that the question was not applicable, or that no formal assessment of fieldwork took place. Twenty seven percent 23 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education stated that students are assessed in the field and given an overall mark, while 18% assess students in the field and give marks/ feedback for each task. Twenty three percent reported that students were solely assessed by written work relating to their fieldwork, and in four cases (9% of all HEIs) students were not assessed in the field, but their attendance was signed off. Secondary responses demonstrate that 41% of HEIs supported assessment in the field (either detailed or overall) with the production of assessed work relating to the fieldwork – commonly including site diaries/ reflective journals (see below). Assessment practice No response No assessment of fieldwork Not assessed in the field. Attendance signed off Solely assessed on written work Assessed in the field and given overall mark Assessed in the field and given marks/ feedback for each task Assessment in the field supported by assessed written work Table 15: Assessment of fieldwork 3 7 4 10 12 8 18 It is interesting, and perhaps a little surprising, to note that 25% of HEIs offering archaeology, or a closely-related degree programme, do not assess fieldwork undertaken as part of that course, with a further 23% assessing the student solely on written work. It is encouraging, however, to observe that 41% of institutions assess students‟ performance in the field, and also require them to produce written work for assessment. 5.2. Assessment Type Keyword analysis of the 38 „free text‟ responses regarding assessment provides useful additional data (Figure 7; see also Appendix C for a more detailed listing of reported assessment types) The most frequent occurrences (20 each) were mentions of on-site attitude; supervisor‟s/ director‟s reports; and post-excavation write-ups of fieldwork as contributing to students‟ fieldwork marks. These were followed by 14 HEIs reporting that students were expected to keep a field diary while on site, and seven expecting students to keep a fieldwork portfolio of their skills and experience. Surprisingly three institutions require their students to sit written exams based on their fieldwork experiences. Four described monitoring the attendance of the students on site. 24 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Fieldwork Assessment Attendance monitored Written Exams Field Diary Written Work Skills Portfolio Field Diary Attitude and skills report from site Written Work Skills Portfolio Attendance monitored Written Exams Attitude and skills report from site Figure 7: Descriptions of assessment types Many of the forms of assessment mentioned above were reported with little further detail. However, from the institutions that did provide more information a much more detailed picture emerges (Appendix C). The majority of written work required seems to include accounts of the students‟ field experience, in which they are expected to discuss specific archaeological features; how they feel they contributed to the project; and analysis of the knowledge they had gained about the site. The students are often expected to explain methodologies and the importance of their work within the wider context. Other forms of written work relating to fieldwork are desk-based assessments produced during the second or third year. Fieldwork portfolios were often a composite of a variety of assessment types, including site reports, student and staff feedback forms, diaries, photographs, drawings and written work. Where Field Diaries are undertaken, they are generally of a similar nature. The student is required to complete a daily record of the work undertaken including finds; a brief analysis/ interpretation; drawings/ sketches; and photos of any features discovered or significant finds. They often include some mention of the daily conditions on site. The purpose of the field diaries is often student self-evaluation, but also an effective way of demonstrating student knowledge, understanding and skills development. Field Diaries usually figure alongside post-excavation written work; director‟s report; or marks given for attendance, attitude and skills development. 25 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Directors‟/ supervisors‟ reports seem to be a more general assessment of the students‟ skills development, attitude and conduct during the excavation. The majority of institutions described this form of assessment as a marks sheet upon which all the potential tasks were ticked off as they were undertaken by each student. Some of the marking sheets provided matrices on different levels of student interaction, team work skills and general attitude to work, as well as general fieldwork skills. The two forms of assessment least used were simple attendance monitoring, and written exams, both of which were far less popular than the other forms of assessment – perhaps for obvious reasons. described by respondents. their skills. The written tests or exams existed in two forms, as The first was a form of test taken by the undergraduates while in the field. This seemed to include testing students‟ knowledge of the site and The other form was classroom-based, with tests on health and safety, recording methods etc. One institution referred to this as a “Classroom quiz”, whereas another had an open exam for students on stratigraphy, health and safety, and sampling. While written work was predominant amongst methods for assessing fieldwork, a significant number of institutions seem to undertake some sort of field-based evaluation and assessment of students. When assessment criteria are analysed by student numbers the indication is that the more students in the department, the less task-specific the assessment becomes, almost certainly reflecting concerns over staff time being devoted to it. Interestingly this trend – away from task-specific assessment – is also visible in departments undertaking fieldwork mostly overseas. 26 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education 6. Conclusion The provision and assessment of archaeological fieldwork in Higher Education has long been a focus for discussion across the discipline. Previous research has demonstrated that students want more fieldwork during their degree programme (Croucher et al 2008), and that employers want graduates to have greater levels of fieldwork experience and competency (Aitchison and Edwards 2008). As long as entry into professional archaeology (be it developer-funded, curatorial, academic or any other route) remains through Higher Education, there is clearly a responsibility placed on HEIs to enhance the employability of their graduates and deliver appropriate levels of training and preparation for those students who want a career in professional field archaeology. That is not to say that Higher Education should necessarily produce a finished article, but that the level of fieldwork training should at least be sufficient to provide a degree of competency upon which archaeological employers can, as in other professions, complete the training process. It is obvious that this cannot be achieved in a few short weeks, and that a significant number of degree programmes therefore cannot deliver competency in field skills for these students with their current field skills training provision. The budgetary constraints of recent years look likely to be compounded by even more dramatic financial concerns within HE, all of which is certain to throw the spotlight increasingly on the perceived expense of fieldwork training. In this context there are two principal directions this debate can move in: other educational routes for entry into professional archaeology need to be found and developed; or HEIs need to develop more flexible, creative strategies for delivering the appropriate level of practical training needed for students who are seeking a career in field archaeology. This survey has demonstrated the diversity of practice within HE in terms of the provision and assessment of fieldwork training. While it seems that institutions cannot be separated cleanly into those with or without an emphasis on applied techniques, the extremes of those positions can be clearly identified. The centre ground is occupied by institutions offering broadly comparable experience, and in many cases it may simply be the number of staff actively engaged in fieldwork that give individual departments a greater or lesser focus on applied techniques. The fieldwork/ applied techniques component of archaeology degree programmes is almost universally identified as essential to the teaching of the subject, however it seems increasingly likely that employers will turn to the relatively new archaeology NVQ Level 3 and 4 as indicators of proficiency in the field, potentially circumventing Higher Education altogether in the recruitment of entry-level site staff. While there may be 27 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education much to recommend this, there is a danger inherent in this approach that it will result in two or more tiers of staff, with the predictable implications for career progression, pay and conditions of employment. It is also important to consider the role of fieldwork training for future academics, many of whom do not gain significant amounts of additional experience during their studies. For archaeology to be sustainable within HEIs the sector needs to address the concerns of employers and students. Clearly, however, traditional approaches to the teaching of applied techniques have cost implications that will be increasingly difficult to support. A number of HEIs appear to have developed close working relationships with external commercial organisations that reduce the costs of providing training, while giving their students valuable „real world‟ vocational experience. As a sector, Higher Education needs to revitalise its relationship with archaeological employers, and seek collaborative solutions that provide greater opportunities for fieldwork experience and training. 7. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Professor Kristyan Spelman Miller, Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and the support of colleagues in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Winchester without which this research would not have been possible. We also wish to thank Dr Anthony Sinclair, Director of the History, Classics and Archaeology Subject Centre of the Higher Education Academy for his invaluable support and advice during this process, and for commenting on drafts of this report. We also thank Matt Elphick for proof-reading the final draft of this report. Finally, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the many colleagues at institutions across the UK who took the time to complete the questionnaire, even if it was just to stop us pestering them. 28 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education 8. References Aitchison, K. and Edwards, R. 2008. Archaeology Labour Market Intelligence: Profiling the Profession 2007-08. Reading, Institute of Field Archaeologists Aitchison, K. 2011. Job Losses in Archaeology – October 2010, January 2011. Sheffield, Landward Research Ltd Barker, P. 1977. Techniques of Archaeological Excavation. London, B.T. Batsford Brookes, S. 2008. Archaeology in the field: enhancing the role of fieldwork training and teaching. Research in Archaeological Education 1 http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hca/documents/archaeology/RAEjournal/issue1/rae _issue1_Brooks.pdf (Accessed April 2011) Croucher, K., Cobb, H. and Brennan, A. 2008. Investigating the role of fieldwork in teaching and learning archaeology. Liverpool, Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for History, Classics and Archaeology Everill, P. 2007. A day in the life of a training excavation: Teaching fieldwork in the UK. World Archaeology 39(4): 483-498 Everill, P. 2009. The Invisible Diggers: A study of commercial archaeology in the UK. Heritage Research Series: 1. Oxford, Oxbow books Everill, P. 2011. Reflections on site-based student training: The experience of the AngloGeorgian Expedition to Nokalakevi. Research in Archaeological Education Hoare, R. 1810. Ancient History of Wiltshire, Volume 1. Joyce, S., Newbury, M. and Stone, P. (eds) 1987. Degree, digging, dole our future? Papers presented at YAC ’85 Southampton. Southampton University Archaeology Society Kenyon, K. 1952. Beginning in Archaeology. London, Phoenix House Perry, J.E. 2004. Authentic learning in field schools: preparing future members of the archaeological community. World Archaeology 36 (2): 236-60 29 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Phillips, T. and Gilchrist, R. 2005. Inclusive, accessible, archaeology. Phase 1: disability and archaeological fieldwork. University of Reading and Bournemouth University http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-7361/dissemination/pdf/iaa_phase_1/iaa_phase_1_report.pdf?CFID=573996&CFTOKEN=39 545028 (Accessed April 2011) Piggot, S. 1959. Approach to Archaeology. London, A. and C. Black Ramsden, B. 2010. Patterns of Higher Education Institutions in the UK: Tenth report. London, Universities UK http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Documents/PatternsOfHigherEducationInsti tutionsInTheUK.pdf Sinclair, A. 2010. The end of a golden age? The impending effects of the economic collapse on archaeology in higher education in the United Kingdom. In Schlanger, N. and Aitchison, K. (eds) Archaeology and the global economic crisis: Multiple impacts, possible solutions. Tervuren, Culture Lab Éditions: 31-44 Thorpe, N. 2004. Student self-evaluation in archaeological fieldwork. Report for the Higher Education Academy http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hca/documents/reports/thorpe-final.pdf (Accessed April 2011) Webster, G. 1963. Practical Archaeology: An introduction to archaeological fieldwork and excavation. London, A. and C. Black Wheeler, R.E.M. 1954. Archaeology from the Earth. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books Woolley, L. 1937. Digging up the Past: An introduction to archaeology showing how excavation has grown from a treasure hunt to a science. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books 30 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Appendix A: Questionnaire 10th February 2011 RE: The Provision and Assessment of Archaeological Fieldwork Dear Colleague, The University of Winchester – supported by the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for History, Classics and Archaeology – is undertaking research on the provision and assessment of archaeological fieldwork at UK HEIs. We ask you to help by responding to the attached survey. We recognise the potentially sensitive nature of questions relating to the funding and provision of undergraduate training opportunities. Therefore individual institutions will not be named, in relation to their fieldwork practices, in any published output resulting from this research. Instead we aim to compare responses from across the sector in order to produce an overview of the variety of approaches taken; drawing broad but informative conclusions on, for example, what percentage of departments provide one main fieldwork project for students to attend, whether this varies by institution size, and whether there is a relationship between fieldwork provision and assessment practice etc. Assessment practice itself is of particular interest to us, and we would encourage you to answer as fully and candidly as possible so that we can undertake an accurate analysis of the situation across the sector. We would be especially grateful to receive copies of guidance notes for staff and students concerning assessment, and examples of how you feel your department‟s fieldwork/ assessment practice contributes to successful learning and teaching outcomes. While institutional anonymity remains assured, we aim to collate and analyse these responses to form the basis of „best practice guidelines‟, for publication through the Subject Centre, which would draw upon the experiences of colleagues across the sector. If you have any questions or comments on any aspect of the survey please don‟t hesitate to contact us. Yours faithfully, Dr Paul Everill MIFA FHEA Rachel Nicholls PhD Candidate Please return the completed survey by Monday 28th February to: Paul.Everill@winchester.ac.uk or Rachel.Nicholls@unimail.winchester.ac.uk 31 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education 1. About You 1. Name of Department and Institution: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Number of academic staff (FTE): Number of support staff (FTE): Number undergraduate students in Archaeology single honours (FTE): Number undergraduate students in Archaeology combined honours (FTE): Number undergraduate students in an Archaeology-related subject (FTE): 2. Fieldwork provision and assessment 1. What fieldwork do you require undergraduates to participate in (if any), and for what duration (e.g. four weeks on excavation; three weeks on excavation and one week on non-intrusive survey)? Does this differ between programmes/ year groups? Please also include any other formal ‘experiential’ learning such as heritage placements/ lab work etc. 2. Which statement most closely describes your policy on fieldwork? We believe our students’ learning of applied techniques is best supported: On a dedicated training excavation, incorporating a variety of tasks On research projects with a planned/ managed training element Through participation on staff research projects A combination of the above We have no fixed policy on fieldwork 3. Which statement(s) describe(s) your provision of fieldwork? (Tick all relevant boxes) We provide one main fieldwork project for students to attend We offer a variety of projects for students to choose from We offer places on fieldwork organised/ led by an external partner We expect students to identify an external project on which to participate 4. Which statement most closely describes your funding of fieldwork? The department fully funds student participation in fieldwork The department partly funds student participation The department offers no financial support for student fieldwork 32 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education 5. How much are you able to spend on supporting fieldwork training, per student? Nothing Up to £100 £100-£300 £300-£500 More than £500 6. Which statement(s) describe(s) your assessment of fieldwork? (Tick all relevant boxes) Students are assessed in the field and marks/ feedback given for each task Students are assessed in the field and given an overall mark Students are not assessed in the field, but attendance is signed off Students submit assessed work relating to their fieldwork (e.g. report; site diary) No formal assessment takes place 7. What statement most closely describes the location of your fieldwork? Within the local region (e.g. Midlands) Within the UK Mostly in the UK, but some outside the UK Mostly outside the UK 3. The role of fieldwork in your department 1. In your opinion how important is fieldwork training within an Archaeology degree? 2. What percentage of staff are actively engaged in fieldwork projects? 3. Please outline your fieldwork assessment practice (if appropriate please consider appending your guidelines for staff/students) 4. If you have any further comments concerning your fieldwork practice, or would like to expand on your answers above, please add them here or attach a separate document Thank you for taking part in this study We welcome all further comments on any aspect of this project 33 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Appendix B: Institutional Participants Name of Institution Bangor University Bishop Grosseteste, University College Lincoln Bournemouth University Canterbury Christ Church University Cardiff University Durham University Kings College, London Newcastle University Oxford Brookes Queens University, Belfast School of Oriental and African Studies Swansea University University Centre Peterborough University College, London University of Aberdeen University of Birmingham University of Bradford University of Bristol University of Cambridge University of Central Lancashire University of Chester University of East Anglia University of Edinburgh University of Exeter University of Glasgow University of Hull University of Kent University of Leicester University of Liverpool University of Manchester University of Nottingham University of Oxford University of Reading University of Sheffield University of Southampton University of St Andrews University of the Highlands and the Islands University of Wales, Newport University of Wales, Trinity Saint David‟s University of Warwick University of Winchester University of Worcester University of York Name of Department/ School etc School of History, Welsh History and Archaeology Department of Culture and the Environment School of Applied Sciences Department of History and American Studies Archaeology and Conservation Department of Archaeology Department of Classics School of Historical Studies N/A School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology Department of the History of Art and Archaeology History and Classics Archaeology and Landscape History Department Institute of Archaeology Archaeology, School of Geosciences Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity Archaeological Sciences (AGES) Archaeology and Anthropology Archaeology Archaeology, School of Forensic & Investigative Sciences History and Archaeology School of World Art Studies School of History, Classics and Archaeology Department of Archaeology Department of Archaeology Department of History Classical and Archaeological studies School of Archaeology and Ancient History School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology Archaeology, School of Arts, Histories and Cultures Department of Archaeology School of Archaeology Department of Archaeology Department of Archaeology Archaeology School of Classics Arts, Social Sciences and Theology N/A School of Archaeology, History and Anthropology Department of Classics & Ancient History Department of Archaeology Institute of Science and the Environment Department of Archaeology Truro and Penwith College, University of Plymouth N/A 34 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Appendix C: Assessment types grouped by primary category 5 2 Not assessed/ Not applicable Not assessed, attendance signed off Students receive one week training on a training dig this is assessed as part of a first year unit. There after no formal assessment is required but students are expected to keep a note of the training they received on the three week field projects (sometimes four but three weeks compulsory for all students) and also to provide feedback on their experience and learning outcome. The field work therefore is not formally assessed other than the first training dig week. Attendance monitored student attendance monitored, feedback given in the field for individual tasks students submit a piece of assessed work based on their excavation fieldwork which counts towards their final degree mark We have a list of training tasks which, by agreement with the director of the excavations, students complete when attending a fieldwork placement supported by a bursary. We also check attendance Archaeological Fieldwork Portfolio; Field Research Logbook (portfolio) 1st year – short report with illustrations and activity „checklist‟ submitted as part of a portfolio assessment focusing on this and other practical-based activities 2nd year – field school is assessed by portfolio of field-related activities and reports based on those activities and related field evidence, a reflective essay considering interpretation and theory in the field and an „employer‟ sheet assessing attitude and work ethic on site. 3rd year modules generally assess the practical elements via written research reports based on the field data collected Students are given feedback from staff and external providers. The students then reflect on their practice and the feedback they gain. Students maintain portfolios of their work to include as evidence of their practical work. Field-based assessment (inc. Site Diary, Skills Assessment, Conduct) Field Assessment: 60% (Understanding 20%, Technique 20% Teamwork 20%) Reflective Journal 20% Year 1: Field Notebook (80%); Director‟s Report (20%) Year 2: Project Design Document (hypothetical fieldwork design, term-time: 60%); Project Review (on site: 20%); Director‟s Report (20%) The Field School is valued at 10 credits and is assessed by means of a critically reflective journal, which is based upon the learning experience of the students during the excavation. It is supported by a small number of short critically written essays elaborating on particular archaeological techniques or issues. Students compile their journals during the course of the excavation and are offered a formative tutorial midway through. They submit the journal after the excavation phase has been completed and all marks are awarded based on their submitted work (this provides a verifiable record of work and achievement which we feel could not be achieved through on site skill assessments). At present students submit a fieldwork notebook recording the experience that they have gained in the field (with a self-assessment of their performance), a 1000-word summary of the project‟s context and aims, and the extent to which these aims were achieved, plus a “Student Evaluation of Fieldwork Project” form (not assessed, but an important guide to student experience on projects which helps us to recommend projects to students in the future). We also require them to obtain a Director‟s report with comments on their performance and the activities they have carried out. This assessment will change for the present first year cohort – arrangements have not yet been finalised. Students are marked on their performance and their notebooks during our fieldcourse; this mark contributes to a wider taught course called archaeological field methods and techniques, which is compulsory for all first years. On other excavations the students‟ performance is assessed but not scored by the project director. We also have a course called […] Field Archaeology which requires the students to complete two pieces of work on fieldwork. The first 2 5 15 35 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education is a reflexive log whereby they chart their personal development and acquisition of key skills during a fieldwork placement and the second is a detailed critique of a field project they have attended. Students take part in a School-wide training project, during which they will be timetabled to develop a range of skills including excavation, finds assessment and classification, survey work, presentation to the public, etc. Students are assessed at the end of their training project period with an overall mark on their skills. • during level 1 summer fieldwork, students on the Single Hons Archaeology programme also complete a „Skills Passport‟ document, which records the development of their expertise in key areas, and is signed off by a site supervisor (the document is transferable between projects, and can also be used by Joint Hons students if they so wish) • at level 2, in […] Fieldwork, Practice and Interpretation, students complete a reflective fieldwork diary (40%), a portfolio (30%) and a critical analysis of an excavation report (30%) (they also submit their Skills Passport as part of the fieldwork diary) • at level 3, in […], they write an independent Desk Based Assessment (50%) which tests their ability not just to martial information from multiple sources (HER, aerial photographs, map regression data, finds archives) but outline appropriate mitigation strategies using PPS5 criteria If students are undertaking the “Excavation Skills” module then they are assessed in the field on a weekly basis by academic staff by means of a pro forma assessment sheet. This occurs in a weekly meeting with the individual students on a face-to-face basis between the student, academic staff member and site supervisor. Criterion for assessment include: site understanding, initiative, teamwork and health & safety. Students subsequently prepare a range of coursework including compilation of a contexts sheet, and a Harris matrix as well as a reflective account of their experience in essay form. For the field school: 50% on site performance; 25% field notebook; 25% reflective evaluation We have an on-site „conduct‟ assessment plus a written assessment later (equal weighting). “Excavation” – the module at the end of the first year for Archaeology and ACMS students – is assessed through on-site assessment during their two week participation on the main department project. Students are assessed on every aspect of excavation and recording and an average mark is generated from these observations. “Fieldwork I” – the module at the end of the first year for Archaeological Practice students – is assessed in the same way over the first two weeks of their participation, which must total four weeks. Fieldwork II” – the module at the end of the second year, compulsory for Arch. Practice, and optional for others – involves four weeks fieldwork which is assessed through a diary (50%) and a project report on an aspect of the work they undertook (50%). “Placement” – an optional module for Archaeological Practice students – is assessed through an Action Plan which must be approved prior to the placement (10% of the mark) and a 6,000 word Project Report (90% of the mark) on the work they have undertaken, as negotiated jointly by the student, the external organisation and the module leader. The director / supervisor in charge of the student is asked to complete a form on the tasks undertaken by the student as well as answer questions about the attitude, attendance and competence of the student. Without this form, the fieldwork cannot be counted towards the student‟s overall total. (Green form also submitted with this questionnaire). The student can also reflect on the fieldwork experience, which in turn allows us to consider whether we allow students to participate in that particular project. Students entering Honours start work on a portfolio of practical work during summer vacation projects, and so although we don‟t formally assess work undertaken, we do grade samples of work produced during fieldwork (drawings, photos, context sheets, survey work and so on). This forms the equivalent of 2 Hons modules. Field project directors are asked to return a form confirming that student performance is satisfactory; unsatisfactory work does not count towards the fieldwork requirement. Students must also submit a fieldwork report assessing the project and their role in it. The assessment criteria for the […] Field School modules include a self-evaluation report based on a daily fieldwork diary maintained by the student; practical assessment based on fieldwork performance; and an on-site exam and classroom quiz. Fieldwork 50% and written report 50% 6 Assessed work undertaken outside of, but relating to, fieldwork experience The students are assessed on a written report (50%) on the placement they went on, and a mark given by the director (50%) based on detailed assessment of skills. 36 Archaeological Fieldwork Training: Provision and Assessment in Higher Education Students undertake a variety of desk based and field based assessments. These include essays, critiquing excavation reports and practical notebooks. Assessment comprises an assessed student presentation, one essay and a portfolio. written reports are required for the training dig, summer fieldwork and field-trip are required for assessment, and for proceeding to the 3rd year Students are assessed on their abilities in a range of tasks. They have to write a report in the first term after which emphasises the context of the excavation and the season, and requires them to reflect on their individual contribution, techniques learned etc. We are currently amending our practice. For the compulsory fieldcourse at the end of level 1 we have been experimenting for the last 5 years with various forms of on site assessment and guidance followed up by the submission by the students of reflective accounts of their experiences. We have probably settled down now to an assessment in the field based primarily on attitude (punctuality and reliability, willingness to learn, teamwork and so on...keeping away from marking individual archaeological tasks or skills such as section drawing so that we do not find we are biasing the resulting mark simply in favour of those with previous experience). The student then also submits 2 pieces of work in the first semester of level 2. One piece of work is an assessment of the project they attended, matching its research aims to the methods used and assessing the success of the strategies and techniques employed. The second piece of work is a reflective assessment of the skills the student gained during the fieldcourse. For most other field based teaching we have a project report based assessment, where the student undertakes tasks/a piece of fieldwork and then has to write this up as a project report. This is blended with the student having to produce feasibility studies/written schemes of investigation (and risk assessments etc.) in advance of the work being undertaken. Overall admittedly, the assessment in the field forms more of a formative component of the programmes and the submitted written work forms the major part of the summative assessment. 3 Exams/ Tests All 1st year students attend the Fieldschool at the end of the 2nd semester. This constitutes a 10 credit module for which they are assessed in the field at the end of their time on the project. The assessment takes the form of a short paper exercise (c.45mins) that tests the field skills they have learnt while on the project and their knowledge of the site they have been working on. In addition to this single honours archaeology students take a further 10 credit module in the 1st year on Practical Aims and Methods in archaeology in which they undertake desk based and field based exercises in documentary and map research, surveying techniques and numerical skills – this is assessed by means of a project proposal for archaeological research on a hypothetical site. In year 2 students attend a further field project either one of c.5 offered by the School each year or on projects with external organisations. This is not formally assessed though all students have to return a short report form from the project director to verify they have done the fieldwork required and that their performance and attendance was satisfactory. In addition all Yr2 single honours BA students take a Practical archaeology course which further develops their surveying and recording skills during the 2nd semester Optional second year module for excavation of 4 weeks, held in Summer after first year study. Forms a 20 credit module. Part of this is in the classroom and taught by head of the Field Unit and tested – eg safety, methods, recording etc. Then fieldwork is 5 days a week and at the end of the module there is an exam as well as assessment of individual elements, notes, drawings etc. Informal assessment of formative journal by supervisor on site Completion of open exam on stratigraphy/health and safety/sampling (50% summative) and presentation of PowerPoint poster in teams on artefacts/phasing/ spatial data (50% summative) 37