Teaching Philosophy
My approach to teaching is based fundamentally on interest and enjoyment. I find archaeology a fascinating subject both to learn and to teach and I think that bringing this enthusiasm into the classroom and passing it on to students is the best way to teach effectively. However, enthusiasm alone is not enough. Successful teaching combines this with appropriate knowledge about the subject and the use of a variety of educational techniques from old fashioned lecturing to the use of multimedia and group activities.
Archaeology is a subject that uses a variety of methodologies, both practical and theoretical to interrogate the world, whether that be nineteenth century industrial landscapes or prehistoric lithic scatters. My perspective on teaching at a university level focuses on transformative learning; students should not only acquire new information and skills but also new, often radical, approaches to learning and thinking (McGonigal 2005). My main goal is to provide students with the skills to negotiate their own learning.
As a discipline archaeology is incredibly diverse both theoretically and methodologically. My particular perspective, which informs all of my teaching, is empirically based and heavily influenced by the methodologies of processual archaeology (see Binford 1962, 1965) but theoretically my focus is on the human, the personal and the particular of post-processualist theory (e.g. Frazer and Tyrell 2000, Cooney and Grogan 1994). Practically speaking my approaches to teaching are based to a large extent on my very recent experiences as a student at both undergraduate and graduate levels. These experiences drive an approach that attempts to be innovative, interesting and engaging (e.g. Gibbs 1995) while at the same time practical in its use of online resources, structuring of slides and use of other teaching aids.
The relationship between a teacher and each individual student is variable and each student will require different levels of interaction, guidance and help. Students are entitled to have the respect and enthusiasm of their teacher and clear guidelines as to when, how and where they will be assessed and critiqued. However, in return students must take responsibility for their learning and use the guidance they are given to engage, to ask for help and to challenge their teacher.
Archaeology is a subject that uses a variety of methodologies, both practical and theoretical to interrogate the world, whether that be nineteenth century industrial landscapes or prehistoric lithic scatters. My perspective on teaching at a university level focuses on transformative learning; students should not only acquire new information and skills but also new, often radical, approaches to learning and thinking (McGonigal 2005). My main goal is to provide students with the skills to negotiate their own learning.
As a discipline archaeology is incredibly diverse both theoretically and methodologically. My particular perspective, which informs all of my teaching, is empirically based and heavily influenced by the methodologies of processual archaeology (see Binford 1962, 1965) but theoretically my focus is on the human, the personal and the particular of post-processualist theory (e.g. Frazer and Tyrell 2000, Cooney and Grogan 1994). Practically speaking my approaches to teaching are based to a large extent on my very recent experiences as a student at both undergraduate and graduate levels. These experiences drive an approach that attempts to be innovative, interesting and engaging (e.g. Gibbs 1995) while at the same time practical in its use of online resources, structuring of slides and use of other teaching aids.
The relationship between a teacher and each individual student is variable and each student will require different levels of interaction, guidance and help. Students are entitled to have the respect and enthusiasm of their teacher and clear guidelines as to when, how and where they will be assessed and critiqued. However, in return students must take responsibility for their learning and use the guidance they are given to engage, to ask for help and to challenge their teacher.
Bibliography
McGonigal, K. 2005 Teaching for transformation: from learning theory to teaching strategies. Speaking of Teaching, Vol. 14 (2)
Binford, L.R. 1962 Archaeology as anthropology. In Leone, M. (ed) Contemporary Archaeology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 93-101.
Binford, L.R. 1965 Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. In Leone, M. (ed) Contemporary Archaeology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 125-132.
Gibbs et al (1995) 53 Interesting Things to do in your Lectures. Technical & Educational Services Ltd.
Binford, L.R. 1962 Archaeology as anthropology. In Leone, M. (ed) Contemporary Archaeology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 93-101.
Binford, L.R. 1965 Archaeological systematics and the study of culture process. In Leone, M. (ed) Contemporary Archaeology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 125-132.
Gibbs et al (1995) 53 Interesting Things to do in your Lectures. Technical & Educational Services Ltd.
