I LOVE lecturing. I love students, and the way they think, and their love for the topics I teach. I also love exploring these topics with fresh minds who keep me on my toes and allow me to see further into the topics than I could ever have imagined. Over the past few years I have had the privilege to lecture on two topics that I was not too comfortable with in terms of my background and research, yet were hugely insightful in terms of what I learned about students.
Two years ago I designed an introduction to archaeology course. Despite my background being in human evolution and biological anthropology (bones and bodies), I distanced myself from making it too heavy on those topics of the human past. I also wanted to embrace the spirit of a decolonized curriculum that explored the value, as well as the problematic history, of archaeology as a discipline.
This was, in part, inspired by talks I had had with (then) fellow graduate students during the height of the Rhodes Must Fall movement. They felt, coming out of archaeology, that they did not learn concrete skills which they needed for their research. Most shockingly, when I asked these students why they went into archaeology, and why they thought archaeology was important, they found it difficult to answer me. I tried this with senior academics. Of course they mentioned something about knowing the past to inform on the future, but the strength and convictions of their answers were weak.
I asked this of myself: why am I here? Why have I spent my twenties pursuing a career (happily, I might add), of which I fundamentally did not understand the value?
When I was given the role of course convener, I took this a step further. Of the 60-odd students I was lecturing, how many would become archaeologists? How many would think of archaeology as a valuable research area to spend tax money on? How many of them would think of it as something more than just an interesting series of things to know? And how many of them would be empowered by this course, and learn valuable skills?
I cannot say that everything I did was correct or important, but these questions follow me for every course I do. Even when I am invited to give talks to grade 5 learners (11 year olds!), these are the questions I ask myself.
I designed the course with heritage and critical evaluation of our history and discipline in mind. The essay topics I gave were those which required balanced understanding of both the potential, as well as the danger, of archaeology and biases in the understanding of our past. Topics of archaeology in warzones, looting, colonialism and prejudice were covered, and the essays were... fine.
But I am so privileged to know people who are thinking so cleverly and laterally about education. Dr Mark Kissel, a good friend and collaborator, wrote about his use of unessays in his course. In this, the essay prompts could be answered in a myriad of creative ways which were not the standard essay style. I realized that, based on the nature of my own student's essays, I could do the same. They were then to mark each other's work, and I would go through their own evaluations and adjust them if needed. (The full description and prompt is below, but there were additional conversations and parts of lectures which covered the nuance).
Initially the students were apprehensive. Some were enthusiastic, but nervously so. I had many students come to me to brainstorm ideas and thoughts. Some changed their minds several times. I had never given an assignment which had created such discussion and thoughtfulness! The students were not just answering the prompts, they were truly engaging and tackling the problems!
And the results were phenomenal: poems, sculptures, educational videos! (I highly recommend this one by Amy Cunningham for any introductory course). Even those who opted to write essays produced essays of higher quality than I had seen the year before! I realized that, just by being given the option to do something creative, students took to heart the nature of engaging and grappling with topics.
I am currently lecturing a first year course on geology, and my approach is the same. How can I get learners to ENGAGE and answer a question in fullness and with understanding? For their weekly assessments, I give one essay. But I try to get a creative spin on the essay. A few weeks ago, I asked them the following:
"You have been asked to provide a “script” for a local TV show, describing the tectonic cycle, and why it is important in understanding the history of the Earth. The script can have between one and four characters/narrators, and you are welcome to make suggestions on visuals."
Once again, merely by being asked to think in a "back and forth" creative way, I received answers that were far more complete and nuanced than I had ever received from first years. And this is for a science course!
I cannot say that I have done everything correctly in lecturing and course design. But these were two moments of which I was particularly proud, and where students truly shone in terms of their understanding and effort. I hope that, by highlighting this here, that I can inspire others to incorporate greater creativity into their pedagogies.
The unessay prompt:
This year, you will be provided with a choice of four topics, all of which explore the interconnectedness of archaeology and living people. Explore the interconnection between the archaeology, the science, and the living peoples of any given site, place or country. You are encouraged to choose a site or place where there is conflict (political, social, war) which is affecting or being affected by the archaeology. You may choose from the following suggestions, or come up with your own. Own submissions MUST be pre-approved.
Suggested topics:
● Who are the owners of human remains? (Use Kennewick man as an example)
● Policy and antiquities looting (International: use between 2 and 4 examples)
● Whose Heritage is it? (Use the Elgin Marbles as an example)
● Ethics of archaeology in War zones (Use examples in Syria)
An un-essay:
The un-essay accounts for 10% of your final mark. It should showcase the same level of effort and research that would go into a 2500 word essay (5-8 pages) on the topic. To be clear, this CAN be just a normal essay, but needn’t be. While an essay will contain the argument and references (at least three), an un-essay may be more difficult to interpret. Thus it is essential that all un-essays (including written and verbal essays) contain an abstract of approximately one paragraph, which outlines the argument and intention of the piece, as well as a list of references used to inform the piece. Examples of un-essays include (but are not limited to): a music video, series of songs (such as a mini operetta), a short play, a comic book, a website, watercolour/charcoal/painting etc. artwork, embroidery/knitting project, a creative depiction of collated data (eg. as a poster).
You will be assessed as follows by your peers (out of 25):
5 marks for effectiveness: Effectiveness is seen in having the unessay be readable/ watchable/ viewable/ listenable in an easy and attractive way.
5 marks for how compelling it is: Compelling means that the topic is complete, interesting, and honest.
5 marks for effort: Effort and reading and research should be similar to that of producing an essay.
10 marks for accuracy and engagement (and referencing): The content is accurate and showcases engagement in the topic, and either the content, or supplied abstract, contains relevant sources.
For more information on how it has been done previously: https://marckissel.netlify.com/post/on-the-unessay/ .
