Help me make decisions!

[brigdh]

This summer, I'm teaching the 'Introduction to Archaeology' course at my university. I am super excited! I've TA'd this class four times (TA'ing in the sense of actually lecturing, not just being a grader), so I'm excessively familiar with it, but this is the first time I've gotten to be completely in charge: picking out the textbook, deciding what topics to cover, writing the syllabus, everything! I LOVE IT.

However, the actual process of writing a syllabus has made me realize what an enormously broad topic "Introduction to Archaeology" is. It's basically four courses in one: 1) the entirety of human history, including pre-human ancestors (quite a broad topic by itself); 2) how to do archaeology (field techniques, dating methods, etc); 3) archaeological theories that can be used in interpretation (gender, Marxism, structuralism, environmental archaeology, etc); 4) the history of archaeology as a subject, including modern consequences of archaeology (topics like NAGPRA, for example). That is way too much for 24 sessions, especially once you subtract sessions for the midterm, final, and introduction. Thankfully, having TA'd this course with four different professors, I know that we're allowed to basically pick whatever we think is the most interesting and focus on that. But sometimes decisions are really hard to make! Which is why I come to you, o LJ. For reference, most of the students who take this course tend not to be archaeology majors, but come from all departments- music, acting, biology, math, law, pre-med- you name it, I've had a student in it. In addition, they're letting some pre-college (i.e., high school) students sign up for the summer semesters.


[Poll #1740795]

Also, yes, I know the problems with the term 'civilization', but LJ polls do not allow enough characters to get into the whole thing about urbanization vs increased political complexity vs population increase vs writing as information storage vs the possibility of heterarchy as deliberate resistance to hierarchy, ETC ETC ETC, so basically I just mean the 'big name' cultures people think of when they think of archaeology.

Comments

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

I vote for three in depth, because (1) in-depth allows you to present what's interesting about each one, while overviews are often too shallow by necessity to show what's really cool about the discipline and the subject; (2) I personally have always hated having to write papers with a passion for which I have no adequate words; and (3) doing in-depth looks gives you room to present the various analytical tools like Marxism in context, and with immediate illustrations of how they work in practice.

If I had a choice, I'd also vote for the civilizations being one American, one East Asian, and one West Asian/Northern African, but that's just me. I do realize you probably have no alternative to covering Egypt, even if Indus/Harappan might be more interesting.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, brief summaries really tend to reduce archaeology to the boring 'names and dates' stereotype, as opposed to the fun 'human sacrifice!!! 2012 Apocalypse!!!' type stuff.

I never would have guessed that you didn't like writing papers! You're such a good writer. But I'm actually leaning more towards oral presentations in front of the rest of the class, maybe with notes also handed in to make sure they don't make it up as they go along. Oral presentations are the big thing in universities these days, at least in my experience; all of my classes with less than 20 people required them.

Organizing by area, no matter how many I cover, really seems to be the best way to go about it. If just because it makes it easier: Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indus share a lot of similarities, as do the Maya and the Aztecs. Whereas even if there are advantages to comparing, say, the Indus and the Maya, it tends to be advantages that are not obvious at a 101-level context.

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

As always, you're too kind. The thing about papers is, they're so horribly fixed, and they offer the illusion of perfectibility. No matter what, there is always something in a paper that could have been expressed better, or more thoroughly; that reveals a lacuna in your reasoning that really ought to be addressed; that needs a footnote you have no source for even though you sort of thought you had one. And it requires so much sitting still and being organized and eeeeeeeeekkk. It's like, all the disadvantages of fiction writing, and without the emotional payoff; and you know my dreadful record when it comes to finishing stories.

But oral presentations are relatively easy and fun! For those you need only to do the reading, which is normally a pleasure, have an idea you want to present, and be able to talk from your notes. It eliminates both the awful sitting down and writing part and the ability to look over your own work and despair because it's still not any good. It's so much easier that I wonder at it being such a big thing in universities these days. Is it because no one can write, do you think, and having oral presentations means that you aren't faced with any dilemmas about awarding low marks to students who can't manage a paper?

I wish I could sit in on your classes, no matter what you decide. I remember almost nothing about Mesopotamia and Egypt, and I never knew anything at all about the Maya or Shang China. I bet it's going to be really fun, whatever you wind up doing.

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I also hate writing papers, but in the same way that I hate a lot of chores: it's boring, it takes forever, it's really difficult to stop procrastinating, I'll just have to do it again in a little while, etc. On the other hand, years of writing fanfiction (and even LJ posts) means that once I have finally forced myself to sit down and do it, it's not all that hard. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I do seem to struggle a lot less with things like grammar, vocabulary, and basic fluidity of writing than the people around me. I really do think it's just a matter of how much practice actually writing a person has. Or so I tell myself to justify time spent on LJ.

I was told several times as an undergrad that the purpose of so many oral presentations was to get people over their fear of public speaking. I don't know if that's actually true, though, or if it's a matter of being quicker to grade than papers and/or providing the professor a break from lecturing. Or who knows, maybe it is a reluctance to give low grades.

Ha, well, if you're in NYC in July or August, feel free to come to a class. But it probably won't be as much fun as you expect; the course has to be such a broad overview there probably won't be much new information for you.