**CLASSROOM ARCHAEOLOGY:**

**INCLUDING ARCHAEOLOGY IN EXISTING CURRICULA,**

**AN EXAMPLE FROM LOUISIANA**

Nancy W. Hawkins

**Introduction**

For more than 20 years, archaeologists and teachers have explored many
ways to include archaeology in classroom teaching. Some of the most
impressive strategies are (1) resident week-long teacher workshops with
excavation and laboratory components (Holm 1985), (2) excavation
projects for students (Cook 1985, Cotter 1979, Tirrell 1983), (3)
programs at archaeological sites or museums for school groups (Harrison
1984, Tirrell 1983), and (4) lengthy units or courses with a substantial
classroom component (Abell 1985, Anderson 1979, Chu 1982, Corbin 1985,
Dyche 1985, Hartman 1985, McNutt 1988, Parren 1987, Thomas 1967, also
see McNutt this volume).

Educators support and endorse these kinds of activities because of their
hands-on, inter-disciplinary nature, and their ability to develop skills
in reasoning, problem solving, critical thinking, and social interaction
(Abell 1985, Carroll 1987, Dyche 1985, Gettings 1970, Higgins and Holm
1985, McNutt 1988, Rogge and Bell 1989). They provide highly
stimulating, enriching experiences that cannot be replicated in other
settings.

All of these programs, however, require somewhat extraordinary
conditions. For the first three types, the most obvious conditions
required are proximity to an organization offering these programs and
awareness of their availability. Even in regions in which these may be
available and publicized, success depends on: (1) teachers financially
able and intellectually motivated to travel to a resident field
workshop, (2) students financially and emotionally able to participate
in an excavation, (3) students being taken to a museum or site with an
outstanding educational program, or (4) an exceptional school that
allows somewhat unusual electives or great flexibility within the
existing curriculum.

In Louisiana, educational archaeology programs were first developed by
the state archaeologist\'s office in the early 1980\'s. At that time, no
resident workshops or field schools designed for teachers or precollege
students were regularly offered in-state or in any of the bordering
states. No archaeology courses for any students were offered in schools,
and archaeology programs for school groups at museums and sites were
limited. Furthermore, the specific content of school courses and length
of time to be spent on each topic was outlined at the state level.

Severely limited funding for state archaeological projects forced
consideration of how effectively to reach the widest school audience
with the least expenditure of staff time and money. Excavation projects
were immediately eliminated from consideration because of their expense
in both time and money and because of the limited number of persons who
could participate annually.

Strategies that were explored, and ultimately implemented in Louisiana
were (1) booklets, (2) classroom materials to be used in existing
courses, (3) presentations at social studies and science conventions,
(4) displays at teachers\' conventions, (5) in-service training sessions
for teachers, and (6) working with the state Department of Education to
amend the state guidelines for basic content of one or more required
courses.

**Planning**

The first concern was deciding what it is about archaeology that a
majority of students should know. A course taught to a group of highly
motivated teachers or students for eight hours a day for seven days, or
to academically advanced students for 50 minutes a day for a semester,
can include a broad introduction to archaeology. Difficult priorities
have to be set for less intense interaction with less motivated
participants. This was accomplished in Louisiana in a loosely step-by
step process.

The first step was to articulate the purpose of endorsing teaching of
archaeology. Educators want an exciting way to help students gain basic
knowledge and skills. Archaeologists should take advantage of this
aspect of teaching archaeology, but in the planning stage must focus on
the archaeological goals. What is it about archaeology that this
educational experience should teach? Generally, the hope is that the
content should enhance an appreciation for archaeology and for \"the
resource.\" Specifically, two basic interests directed all of the
Louisiana public archaeology programs: the obligation to share with the
public information discovered through archaeology and the hope that
better understanding of archaeology will result in better site
preservation.

The next step was to clarify what about archaeology should be taught. In
reaching the goal of sharing information about the past as revealed
through archaeology, the appropriate content was relatively easy to
identify:

\- general and specific information archaeological research has
discovered about the people of the state

\- the relative length of prehistory compared to history

\- general dates of human arrival in the Americas and how that compares
with the time dinosaurs lived

\- technologies used in the past

\- what archaeologists have discovered about the historic era that
written documents do not tell

\- places to visit to learn more about people in the past

For the goal of improving site preservation, a major stumbling block was
encountered, and still exists. It is that archaeologists do not know
what specific content will result in an interest in site preservation.
Some options are:

\- the range of material remains archaeologists study and how they
reflect the life of people who left them

\- the importance of context in interpreting archaeological remains

\- how sites are recorded

\- techniques and purpose of excavation

\- special scientific and technical analyses in archaeology

\- archaeological reasoning, hypothesis testing, conclusion drawing

\- the importance of stratigraphy in establishing chronology

\- methods of determining relative and absolute dates

\- the importance of publishing results of archaeological research

\- the importance of conserving sites, threats to sites, and
preservation options

The decision then had to be made about which medium or type of
experience would best communicate these specific messages. Consultation
with teachers and education supervisors indicated that teachers want
materials to enhance teaching of existing topics, that require little
preparation, that do not require becoming an expert in another sub-area.

For information about archaeological findings, it was decided in
Louisiana to use booklets, slide/tape programs, hands-on artifact kits,
and to attempt to include archaeological findings in the a social
studies course. To try to foster an understanding of the principles and
processes of archaeology an activities guide called [Classroom
Archaeology]{.underline} (Hawkins 1987) was developed.

Another decision had to be made about which grade level to target.
Although resourceful teachers of any grade can manage to slip archeology
in sometime, it helps in the development of materials to select a
specific grade and subject. After consultation with educators, the
Louisiana Division of Archaeology decided to focus on eighth grade
Louisiana Studies.

A difficult issue was determining a realistic expectation of the amount
of class time that teachers will spend with archaeology, and how many
activities can be covered in that time. In the published Louisiana
Studies guidelines, only one week is allocated to Louisiana Indians,
past and present, so targeting the prehistoric time period would limit
the time in the semester that archaeology could be used. Materials about
findings of archaeology would be developed that could also be used in
units about exploration, colonization, and the Civil War.

A major consideration of the educational program in Louisiana was how to
publicize and distribute the materials. It was decided to establish
several networks for getting materials to teachers. These include
teacher\'s workshops, teacher\'s conventions, and through parish
(county) social studies supervisors. Additionally, the products are
publicized through an office newsletter and are included on a list of
materials that is enclosed with any item requested from the office.

An essential step in developing the project was commitment to developing
ways to monitor use and someday to evaluate effectiveness. It was
decided to include an evaluation card with all classroom exhibits, and
to develop a follow-up questionnaire for [Classroom
Archaeology]{.underline} users.

**Phase One Implementation**

While the planning of the educational programs in Louisiana followed
this general sequence, implementation did not always flow steadily and
logically. The enabling legislation of the state archaeological agency
stated that the program would include \"promulgation\...of historic and
prehistoric findings\" (La. R.S. 41:1607). This directive guided early
educational programs which were oriented toward creating and making
available information about the results of excavations.

A booklet series was already underway before the formal educational
effort began. Continuation of this seemed to be the most cost effective
single step that could be taken to provide information to both \"the
general public\" and to teachers.

Before beginning any new projects, the outreach coordinator for the
Louisiana Division of Archaeology consulted with the social studies
supervisor for the Louisiana Department of Education and with teachers.
They pointed out that teachers have more than enough to cover in one
year and are barraged with worthwhile supplementary materials. The
social studies supervisor also discussed learning techniques and social
studies skills, and said that any creative activities that develop these
skills would be more important contributions than those that simply
cover content in a traditional manner.

The Division of Archaeology\'s next step was to develop kits, which are
referred to as classroom exhibits. These provide actual artifacts that
students can handle, illustrations, maps, overhead transparencies, and
an accompanying slide/tape show. Included in the kits are sheets for an
inquiry learning activity with the artifacts and illustrations. This is
a technique to engage students in active, rather than passive learning
(Beyer 1979). The self-contained kits require minimal teacher
preparation and elicit enthusiastic comments from teachers.
Approximately 5000 students use them annually.

Additionally, a slide/tape show about Louisiana archaeology was
developed and placed on deposit with the state Department of
Education\'s slide lending library. This agency duplicates slide
programs and lends them to teachers around the state. The side/tape
show, the classroom exhibits, and the booklets were all oriented toward
promulgating findings of prehistoric and historic archaeology.

Several shortcomings in these programs were identified. First, access to
the audiovisual programs and exhibits was limited by number of copies
available and required advanced planning. Second, the booklets and slide
shows were clearly non-innovative in the method of instruction. Third,
the activities were brief, so no additional programs were available to
teachers who were interested in spending more time on archaeology.
Finally, and most importantly, was the concern that the materials might
not encourage site preservation, because they emphasize the findings of
archaeology, rather than the process of archaeology.

**Phase Two Implementation**

It was decided to develop a collection of self-contained,
self-explanatory activities to be taught in non-expository style. These
activities include the messages identified as possibly important in
developing a greater appreciation for archaeology and archaeological
sites.

The guide, called [Classroom Archaeology]{.underline}, is divided into
six sections. The first includes background material for teachers:
vocabulary, outline of Louisiana prehistory, recommended books for
various ages, magazines and journals, other materials available from the
Division of Archaeology, materials available from other sources, and
places to visit.

The second part is composed of 17 short activities, each of which can be
used alone and can be completed in one class period. The remaining
sections require more than one class period. The third part is a series
of card games students can play with cards they make showing culture
traits of various prehistoric Indian groups, and the fourth part is a
class activity recording a site. The fifth provides printed information
about archaeological findings at a historic contact site. The students
interpret the site based on the artifacts, features, and historic maps.

The sixth activity is a simulated excavation in which either students
(long version) or teachers (short version) create a site, then students
excavate and interpret it. This activity was developed in response to a
review of DIG 2 (Lipetzky 1982), a commercially produced simulated
excavation activity that is very well received by students and teachers.
DIG 2 does a good job of teaching social studies skills and excavation
techniques, but it is weak in analysis and interpretation techniques.
Its emphasis on the most exciting and exotic aspects of classical
archaeology might foster an image of archaeology as being primarily
concerned with digging up exotic and wonderful artifacts.

The [Classroom Archaeology]{.underline} simulation was designed to
encourage creation of a site more likely to reflect those found in
Louisiana, to show that archaeology is not continuous fun, that context
is important, and that analysis, interpretation, and reporting are also
part of archaeology.

[Classroom Archaeology]{.underline} was first published in July 1984 and
was originally targeted for eighth grade Louisiana Studies classes.
Interest from teachers of other subjects and grades showed that the
activities were also useful for other classes. A second edition of the
guide, printed in 1987, included coded symbols to suggest activities to
be used in language arts, science, and art, as well as social studies.

More than 2600 copies were distributed between July 1984 and January
1990, with approximately 200 sent out of state. During the five years
since the guide was printed, conversations with users of the guide and
other educators raised several questions. Are the Louisiana state
curriculum requirements too demanding to allow enough flexibility to use
the guide? Are the guides going to people who actually use them, and is
the distribution network adequate to ensure that potentially interested
teachers are receiving them? The high cost of reproducing the 179-page
guide led to consideration of its content. Are the activities useful?
Should some be eliminated? The simulated excavation was considered to be
too complex for teachers to conduct successfully. Teachers might
simplify the project and develop a substitute that failed to teach the
processes involved in archaeology.

In an effort to evaluate use of [Classroom Archaeology]{.underline}, a
questionnaire was sent to Louisiana residents who had requested the
guide in writing or by telephone from July 1984 through October 1989.
This excludes those who received the guide at workshops, conventions, or
via a supervisor or curriculum specialist. Twenty-five percent returned
the questionnaire. While this represents only a small percentage of
respondents, the results are useful in showing activities that are used
relatively more often than others.

The brief questionnaire had a series of six multiple choice questions
followed by three open ended questions. The questions in the first
section were accessing who requested the guide, what happened to it, how
many teachers used it, whether the respondent personally had used it
with students, which activities were used, and how many activities the
respondent used annually. The short answer section asked with what grade
level and subject area the activities were used, which activity the
respondent considers best and why, and which activity is considered
least useful and why.

The results showed that approximately 80% were teachers, other education
supervisors or specialists, education students, librarians, museum
docents, scout leaders, and other persons likely to use the guide.
Although 12% of the non-teachers used the activities with young people
or in teaching demonstrations, the results relating to teacher use will
be described here.

Of the respondents who know how many teachers used the guides they
received, 36% said one teacher used it, 32% said two teachers used it,
12% said three teachers used it, 4% said more than three used it, and
16% said none used it.

Teachers using the guide taught in kindergarten through college, with
elementary teachers and middle school teachers using it equally,
followed by high school, college, and kindergarten. The teachers had
used the activities three times as often with social studies classes as
with science classes. Approximately 20% of the teachers reported using
the guide with gifted/talented students.

The questionnaire included a listing of the table of contents of the
guide and respondents were asked to check which activities they had
personally used. Of the teachers who used any part of the guide, 100%
reported using the Resources section of background material, with a mean
of four resources used. The most used parts were the lists of
recommended books, places to visit, and the outline of Louisiana
prehistory. The least used were lists of suggested magazines and
journals and materials that may be purchased from other sources.

Of the teachers using the guide, 89% used one or more short activities,
with a mean of four activities. The three most frequently used ones
(used by more than 40%) were: Newspaper Archaeology (students compile
for-sale ads that could have been placed by an imaginary family,
exchange sets of ads, then analyze a family\'s \"artifacts\"), Today\'s
Artifacts (students pretend to be archaeologists in the future who must
describe and assign a function to 20th century artifacts), Time Line
(from 10,000 B.C. until today), and Archaeology Words (a vocabulary
activity).

Four were used by no more than 10%: Pottery Reconstruction (students
reconstruct simulated ceramics), Archaeology in the Library (students
read and report about an archaeology article), Special Techniques
(students identify scientific techniques used in analysis of a
shipwreck), and Stratigraphy and Chronology (students place in order, by
age, letters representing strata at sites).

Twenty-one percent of the teachers using the guides used the games
activity, 10% used the recording a site activity, 16% used the
interpreting a site activity, and 16% used the excavating a site
simulation.

Concern about the usefulness of the simulated excavation activity was
heightened after reading a questionnaire from a college student who said
he used the simulated excavation instructions to conduct an actual
excavation, seeing a newspaper article about a teacher-led \"dig,\" and
reading the following teacher\'s questionnaire statement: \"We carried
out three digs in DeSoto Parish during the month of May 1986. This guide
was our \'Bible\'\....\" The hope is that these sites were simulated,
but the fear is that they were actual sites.

In the short answer section of the questionnaire, teachers expressed no
consensus about the best or worst activities in the guide. The other
added comments were complementary, regarding both content and format of
the guide.

The results of the questionnaire have led to several future plans. The
guide, now out of print, will be reprinted. The simulated excavation
activity will be omitted from future editions of the guide because of
ethical concerns, and consideration will be given to omitting the four
rarely used short activities. A smaller percentage of science teachers
are using activities than expected. Consultation with science educators
will be undertaken to explore the possibility of adding short activities
for science classes.

Teachers in a wider range of grades are using the guide than expected.
Use might be increased further by keying all activities to the specific
objectives and content of various courses, as outlined by the state
Department of Education. This would make it easy to identify places in
the school year to use various activities. It is still expected that any
one teacher will be able to use only a few activities each year, but it
is more efficient to provide one guide to be used in a wide range of
grades than to provide separate packets for various classes.

Distribution of [Classroom Archaeology]{.underline} could be improved.
When it is reprinted, effort will be made to get more copies to science
teachers and to gifted and talented teachers. Science teachers are an
important avenue to students because of the current emphasis in science
education on conservation issues and because of the frequent use of
discovery learning techniques in science classes. Teachers of gifted and
talented students are expected to provide enrichment activities that
supplement the basic content of courses, and therefore have more
flexibility than many teachers. While exceptional students are not
targeted as the primary school group for whom [Classroom
Archaeology]{.underline} was designed, they are a part of the school
population, and they certainly can be expected to be among the decision
makers of the future.

Within the education program of the Division of Archaeology, several
additional future activities have been identified. The outreach
coordinator is working with the state Department of Education to include
in the Louisiana Studies course outline information gained through
archaeology and to explore how information about archaeological
techniques or site preservation could be included. This provides a way
to get information about archaeology to every Louisiana Studies teacher
in the state.

Additionally, the need has been identified to conduct more half-day or
one-day in-service training sessions for teachers. The more familiar
teachers are with a topic, the more accurately they can present it.
While the goal is not to reach all teachers, or to expect in-service
training before use of the materials, it would provide a core of
teachers more aware of materials and techniques that can be used to
teach archaeology. A final, long-range goal is to provide an intensive
one-week workshop for selected teachers within the state during the
summer. Perhaps this could be modeled on the South Carolina program
(Judge 1989) which offers this training to prepare teachers for using
the guide, [Can You Dig It]{.underline} (Hawkins et al. 1989), a South
Carolina adaptation of Louisiana\'s [Classroom Archaeology]{.underline}.

**Conclusion and Recommendations**

Archaeologists have at least four motives for working with educators to
include archaeology in schools: to communicate results of archaeological
research, to increase appreciation for other cultures, to improve
awareness of archaeological methods, and to increase site preservation.
Educational programs, such as those in Louisiana, clearly accomplish the
first three goals. The unanswered question is whether these lead to
increased site preservation.

This is probably the most critical issue facing those involved in
research in archaeology and education today. More than 25 collections of
classroom activities have now been developed (Smith 1990). The need now
is not for more activities to be developed, but instead for existing
activities to be evaluated for effectiveness in discouraging
unscientific investigation of sites, and in encouraging site
preservation. One program, [Project Archeology: Saving
Traditions]{.underline} (McNutt 1988, also see McNutt this volume), has
been evaluated, and has demonstrated through student testing that it is
effective in teaching 10 principles of archaeology, including
\"archaeological sites are a non-renewable resource whose conservation
is essential if we are to learn of the unwritten past\" (McNutt 1988:4).

Not only must programs as a whole be evaluated, but the components of
these programs must be studied. Archaeologists need to determine exactly
which activities enhance development of preservation interests, how many
activities it takes to communicate the message, how much class time is
needed to teach them, and whether they can be taught by teachers with no
previous training in archaeology.

Archaeologists must recognize that most teachers will never have the
opportunity to attend an in-depth workshop, will never be able to
purchase a set of classroom materials, and cannot spend weeks teaching
the subject. Excellent programs that require one of these elements are
extremely rewarding to students fortunate enough to benefit from them,
and are likely to promote site preservation. The unanswered question is
whether inexpensive, self-contained activities requiring no previous
teacher training also can be effective in promoting site preservation.

**References Cited**

Abell, R. P. (1985) Inference-Making and Testing in a High School
Archeology Course. In [Archeology and Education: A Successful
Combination for Precollegiate Students]{.underline}. Eds K. A. Holm and
Higgins, P. J., Anthropology Curriculum Project, University of Georgia,
Athens.

Anderson, D. C. (1979) Iowa\'s P.A.S.T. (Programming Archaeology for
School Teachers). Final Grant Report. The University of Iowa, Office of
the State Archaeologist, Iowa City.

Beyer, B. K. (1979) [Teaching Thinking in Social Studies: Using Inquiry
in the Classroom]{.underline}, rev. ed. Charles E. Merrill, Columbus,
Ohio.

Carroll, R. F. (1987) Schoolyard Archaeology. [The Social
Studies]{.underline} [78]{.underline}:69.

Chu, J. (1982) [Kidigger: Exercises in Critical and Creative Thinking
through Archaeology]{.underline}. Hanson, Silver, and Associates,
Moorestown, N. J.

Cook, T. G. (1985) Using Students in Research: The Lagoon Site. In
[Archeology and Education: A Successful Combination for Precollegiate
Students]{.underline}. Eds K. A. Holm and Higgins, P. J., Anthropology
Curriculum Project, University of Georgia, Athens.

Corbin, D. (1985) Introduction to Archeology: A Unit for Middle Schools.
In [Archeology and Education: A Successful Combination for Precollegiate
Students]{.underline}. Eds K. A. Holm and Higgins, P. J., Anthropology
Curriculum Project, University of Georgia, Athens.

Cotter, J. L. (1979) Archaeologists of the Future: High Schools Discover
Archaeology. [Archaeology]{.underline} [32]{.underline}:29.

Dyche, B. (1985) Why Archeology When Your Curriculum is Thinking Skills?
Developing a Sequential Archeological Curriculum for Grades 6 to 12. In
[Archeology and Education: A Successful Combination for Precollegiate
Students]{.underline}. Eds K. A. Holm and Higgins, P. J., Anthropology
Curriculum Project, University of Georgia, Athens.

Gettings, D. (1970) Unearthing an Indian Culture: A Total Involvement
Program. [The Science Teacher]{.underline} [37]{.underline}:59.

Harrison, M. (1984) [Archaeology Walney]{.underline}. Fairfax County
Park Authority, Fairfax, Va.

Hartman, D. W. (1985) Understanding Science through Anthropological
Inquiry: Two Cases. In [Archeology and Education: A Successful
Combination for Precollegiate Students]{.underline}. Eds K. A. Holm and
Higgins, P. J., Anthropology Curriculum Project, University of Georgia,
Athens.

Hawkins, N. W. (1987) [Classroom Archaeology: An Archaeology Activity
Guide for Teachers]{.underline}, 2nd ed. Division of Archaeology, Office
of Cultural Development, Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism,
State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge.

Hawkins, N. W., South, S., Charles, T. and Walden, M. B. (1989) [Can You
Dig It? A Classroom Guide to South Carolina Archaeology]{.underline}.
South Carolina Department of Education and South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.

Higgins, P. J. and Holm, K. A. (1985) Introduction. In [Archeology and
Education: A Successful Combination for Precollegiate
Students]{.underline}. Eds K. A. Holm and Higgins, P. J., Anthropology
Curriculum Project, University of Georgia, Athens.

Holm, K. A. (1985) Preparing Teachers to Introduce Archeology into the
Curriculum. In [Archeology and Education: A Successful Combination for
Precollegiate Students]{.underline}. Eds K. A. Holm and Higgins, P. J.,
Anthropology Curriculum Project, University of Georgia, Athens.

Judge, C. (1989) South Carolina Classroom Archaeology Syllabus. On file
with Margaret Walden, Social Studies Consultant, Department of
Education, State of South Carolina, Columbia.

Lipetzky, J. (1982) [Dig 2]{.underline}. Interact, Lakeside, Ca.

McNutt, N. (1988) [Project Archeology: Saving Traditions]{.underline}.
Sopris West, Denver.

Parren, L. K. (1987) [A Teacher\'s Guide to 12,000 Years of Vermont\'s
Past]{.underline}. Vermont State Archaeologist\'s Office, Montpelier.

Rogge, A. E. and Bell, P. (1989) Archeology in the Classroom: A Case
Study from Arizona. [Archeological Assistance Program Technical Brief
4]{.underline}. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Washington D.C.

Smith, K. C., ed. (1990) [Pathways to the Past: Educator\'s Guide to
Resources in Archaeology]{.underline}. Museum of Florida History,
Tallahassee.

Thomas, G. (1967) [Archeological Methods: A Programmed
Text]{.underline}. Anthropology Curriculum Project, University of
Georgia, Athens.

Tirrell, P. B. (1983) Archaeology for Elementary and Secondary Students.
In [Anthropology and Multicultural Education: Classroom
Applications]{.underline}. Eds Y. T. Moses and Higgins, P. J.,
Anthropology Curriculum Project, University of Georgia, Athens.