Guides for Teaching and

Learning in Archaeology
Number 3

Thomas A Dowson
thomasdowson@yahoo.co.uk

Teamwork and Archaeology:

A Guide to Developing
Teambuilding Skills in
Archaeology Students
Introduction
Common Problems with Group Work
An archaeology degree, it is often said, provides
excellent opportunities for students to learn how to • Students do not like working in groups
work as part of a team. Fieldwork is a prime example • Students complain that the group can not
- it is not an activity that can readily be undertaken work together
alone. For most undergraduate students, taking
• Students complain that a single ‘group’ mark
part in an excavation is a compulsory part of their
training. As a part of the excavation team these for an assignment is not fair because not
students are said to learn essential teamwork skills. everyone in the group works as hard as each
Also, students are increasingly given various forms of other
assignments (mostly seminar presentations, poster • Class, ethnicity, gender and sexuality affect the
presentations, museum displays for example) that
way in which students work together
they are asked to complete as a group. Archaeology
in a variety of ways then is providing those much
needed teambuilding skills employers are looking for
in their employees. Interestingly, however, this is not
how students see it; they dislike working as part of a
group.

It is wrong to assume that simply allocating

students to a group, and giving them an Example Set of Ground Rules for the Group
assignment to complete as a group, will result in
them working effectively or even learning anything • Take responsibility for your own thoughts,
about working as a functional team. While actions and reactions
employers and professional bodies value and rank
• Speak for yourself
very highly the ability to work in a team, it is widely
felt that of today’s graduates poor logistics and • Be honest
personality clashes often dominate the working • Keep an open mind
environment. One of the root causes of this • Listen to everyone’s point of view - and try to
problem is that students have never been taught
understand these
how to work as part of a team. More often than
not, they are suddenly asked to perform as a team • Be constructive and supportive with other
where it counts for marks without having received ideas
instruction on how to do so. • Maintain confidentiality within the group
• When it comes to safety (e.g. fieldwork)
It is assumed that team work is something they will
whoever is in charge has final word
learn intuitively as they go through the process of
completing a joint task. Consequently, there is often a
clash of one sort or another. This results in a negative
experience for the students; they complain about the
activity and the marking of the assignment, and they
never want to do group work again. Not surprisingly
the students’ reactions result in a negative
experience for the lecturer as well - they complain
that using group work in Higher Education is fraught
with difficulties and best left to someone else.

While I agree with those that argue Higher

Education should not be primarily about the
teaching of transferable skills, these can be a
part of our teaching, learning and assessment
methods without compromising the character of
an undergraduate degree programme. Students can
and do enhance their learning by working together
in small groups. And to facilitate this, there are some
things lecturers can do. In this guide I outline one
way of going about this.
2
 Briefing Students on Group Work
Lecturers often feel that they have too little time to cover their topic as it is without
the added pressure of having to teach students how to work as a team. While I have
some sympathy for this view, it is one that is often rooted in an approach to teaching
and learning in which students are passive. In such an approach of course the lecturer
is not going to be able to ‘cover everything’ in a limited series of lectures. If, however,
we accept that students should play an active role in their learning, it is no longer the
lecturer’s responsibility to cover everything.

Also, it is perhaps unfair to expect each student to trawl through an entire field of study
in archaeology independently in the limited number of hours they have to study that
topic/course. This is where getting students to enhance their learning by working in
small groups can be very effective. Working as a group students are able to retrieve
more information than they could alone, and by analysing this information as a group
each student is exposed to a range of points of view, differing beliefs and values, and
different approaches to dealing with issues and questions raised. But the fundamental
key to making this method of learning successful is providing students with the
necessary skills to work as a small group. Not doing so results in students learning
less than they would have done in a passive, lecture setting. And it is not surprising
those students who have had negative experiences of working in small groups prefer
traditional lectures and essays to group work.

Briefing students on group work need not be an onerous undertaking for each
module of a degree programme. Where the briefing of students on group work has
been shown to be particularly effective is where such instruction is incorporated into
induction programmes for first year students. But if this is not possible, a lot can be
achieved in a single lecture. The critical aspect of preparing students for group work is
to get them to begin thinking about behaviours, actions and reactions, and how these
effect peoples’ performance. In an induction programme there will be time to explore
in detail these group processes and behaviours, by repeatedly carrying out a variety of
exercises, stopping after each and reflecting on the activity and planning for the next
activity. Where time is short, one or two quick exercises are all that is needed to get
students thinking about group processes. I have found the following two exercises
useful ones to begin with.

Asking students to participate in group work

without fully briefing them is a recipe for disaster.
Sally Brown, 1998
3
Blindfold Square
A group of five people are asked to stand in front of you. Each member is blindfolded. When you are
satisfied they can not see, place a rope (10-15 meters) in front of them and read them the following brief:

In front of you is a rope. You have 20 minutes to form the rope

into a perfect square with each member of your group holding the
rope and spaced equally around the perimeter. Your task starts now...

There are many ways in which this can be achieved - some simple and some more complicated. But
remember at this stage, you are introducing the students to thinking about group processes.

I specifically choose five very different people: e.g. dominant, shy, etc. I get this one group to
perform the task in front of the rest of the class. While the task is being carried the rest of the
class observes. I find it useful to write down what the group members actually say during the
task. When the 20 minutes is up and the task complete (or not), I initiate a discussion about the
way in which the group worked together by first agreeing with the class a set of ground rules.

Having agreed the ground rules, the task is to get both participants and observers to be
open, honest and frank on the personal dynamics of the group while attempting to carry
out the task. In being honest and open, it is essential that the group (and the observers)
deal with what might be considered negative dynamics as well as positive ones.
I think the following questions are useful in guiding discussions:

• What are your reactions to the exercise

(feelings, behaviours, thoughts)?
• What do you feel you did well?
• What do you feel could be improved?
• What do you think you need to do differently?

What is always obvious in this task is how ‘working in the dark’ highlights and exacerbates poor
communication skills and bad planning. More often than not members of the group (usually the more
dominant ones) issue orders for one way of doing the task; there is little or no discussion about how
effective this method might be, or even if there are other ways of doing it. There is rarely discussion
about how the instructions will be carried out, or if everyone understands or even agrees. That
person often takes it for granted that everyone knows what he/she is thinking. In some instances
individuals issue competing or contradictory instructions. At this early stage the group is talking,
later shouting in many cases, at one another, as well as over one another, usually not stopping to
find out whether what has been said is understood or agreed. This is made worse because they
cannot see, and they are hell-bent on getting the task completed successfully. Because they cannot see
each other, there is no way of seeing how their fellow team mates are reacting to their instructions. The
more dominant people tend to talk to each other, shy people tend to be left out and rarely come forward
themselves - their being blindfolded exacerbating the experiences they have everyday. It is important,
at this stage, to end by discussing how people will behave or do things differently in a future task.

Drawing a Map
Having discussed the Blindfold Square I then divide the whole class into small groups for the next task
- drawing a map. This is the brief:

You have XX minutes to produce your own, original map of _____. At the end of this time, the map
should be ready for public display. You may only use the equipment given to you by the lecturer.
No further information is available from the lecturer.

The area to be drawn depends on where you are, but can be the classroom, the floor on which
the classroom is located, the building, etc., and the number of minutes depends on this area. Give
4
the groups equipment that is both relevant to the task, e.g. paper, a ruler, pen, pencil, coloured
crayons, but also equipment that is not relevant - I add string, paper clips, glue, whatever.

After the first exercise the groups really do try and listen to each other, they watch their behaviour
and bend over backwards to bring everyone in. What they tend not to do is analyse the task and the
resources available to question what is required of them. One or two persons’ notions of what a map
is will prevail - drawing on preconceived ideas about an original map and public display. That person
will say they need to produce a scale diagram and will attempt to make use of all the equipment
provided. And everyone will fall into line. There is little or no questioning of ‘established orders’ or
received wisdom. More often than not, the idea that producing a simple freehand sketch would
meet the task’s brief will not even be discussed. The group will probably run out of time because
they are too busy dividing up their time measuring the area (do not give them too much time).

Once the task is completed (or not as is usually the case) groups need to reflect on how they analysed
the requirements of the task itself as well as their personal dynamics. Did they discuss critically what
was required, what they would need to use to achieve this? Or, did they rush headlong into attempting
to achieve one person’s vision of the task, albeit perhaps making sure everyone feels involved? That
involvement is usually limited to everyone agreeing, uncritically, with what needs to be achieved.

Learning from Group work

These two exercises provide a good starting point As planning for further experiences leads to new
for students to begin thinking about the way experiences, a person’s learning is a constant cycle
groups of people work together as teams - the of experiencing, processing, generalising and
group processes and behaviours. It is not essential applying. Working in a group involves carrying out
that students achieve the tasks successfully. this reflection both independently and as a group.
In fact, it is better that they do not, so use the In the context of an undergraduate education a
time constraints to ensure they do not achieve lecturer can formalise this reflection in the form of
the task. If I think the group is about to figure a journal or a diary.
the blindfold square exercise out, I say ‘time
up’. If they successfully complete the exercise
it is very difficult to get them to think about
group dynamics without them feeling as if all
was well. When you point something out to the
group, an aspect of how some members were
interacting with one another, some often respond
by suggesting it does not matter because they
achieved the task. It is then essential to find out if
everyone feels the same. People can be successful
with a common task, but not successful at all as
far as positive group dynamics are concerned.
In other words, they are successful by default,
not by design. Different people have different
conceptions about what it means to be successful,
particularly in terms of achieving common tasks.
It is therefore very important to get people
thinking about these issues in terms of the four
questions listed above. A useful tool for learning
from this reflection is Kolb’s Learning Cycle. The
learning cycle identifies four stages of learning: Kolb’s Learning Cycle & The Four Stages Of Learning

1 having an experience
2 reviewing the experience
3 concluding from the experience
4 planning for following experiences

5
Marking Group work
One of the most common reasons why (some)
students do not like group work has to do with
marking of the groups assignment. If you are
going to get students to carry out an assignment
as a group it really does follow that each member
of the group gets the same mark - otherwise it
defeats the purpose of the exercise. This upsets
some students, usually those students who are
competitive and who are aiming for high marks.
These students worry about other students’
poor performance lowering their own grades.
This is usually more of a problem when members
of the groups are selected at random by the
lecturer - a self-identified better student could end
up in a group with a person he or she identifies
a ‘poor achiever’. But if students are given the
option of choosing their own groups they either
choose their friends and/or other students who
they also perceive as ‘high achievers’ - and so
defeating the purpose of learning to work with
people they might not like to or people they have
not interacted with before (people from different
cultural backgrounds, genders, ages, etc.).
In a sense this is a real problem, it is not just
a matter of pushy students trying to get the
best marks the easiest way possible. It could be
argued that good students’ grades should not be
penalised as a result of students who do not (or
cannot) cooperate (and we all know these exist).
One solution to this ‘problem’ is not to make the
group assignment the only assignment - but to
include individual, reflective essays/journals where
students reflect on the various aspects of their
learning - both content and process. In these types
of assignments students reflect on how the group
worked together, what went well, what went
wrong, how could they have behaved differently,
what would they do differently in the future? In
this way students are being encouraged to take
active responsibility for their own learning both in
terms of what they learn and how they go about it.
6
Group Work Can Work
I subscribe, unapologetically, to the view that
‘higher’ in Higher Education is concerned with
‘critique’ - enabling students to develop their
ability to make moral and ethical judgements.
The primary goal of Higher Education should not
be about the teaching of so-called ‘transferable
skills’. But, in the context of archaeology as a
university discipline, if we cannot get students
to reflect on their learning, I very much doubt
we can expect them to think critically about the
relationship between the past and the present,
the consumption of the past in the present, and
how the past may be marshalled to challenge
social order in the present. So the way in which
transferable skills are employed in the HE curricula
is of immense importance. I should like to conclude
this Guide by briefly outlining how I believe using
group work in undergraduate archaeology degrees
can get people to learn more than I could cover in
the prescribed number of lectures. Through getting
students to think critically about their learning
together they are also enabled to think critically
about what it is they are learning in an active
manner.
I taught a third year course entitled The Art of
Prehistoric Europe. Rather than dividing the
various topics this would entail into the allotted
24 lectures, I decided to get groups of students (4
or 5 students in each) to research 10 topics (these
included, for example, the origins and evolution
of art, art and social complexity, the physical and
social production of art). They were required to
present a two hour seminar on the topic, write
it up in the form of an essay, and to produce a
reflective journal about their experiences. Two
hours at the start was devoted to briefing them
about the course (the expectations) and group
work, and a final two hours was used to review the
course.
At the start, before saying anything else, I asked
each student to write down three answers to
the following question: why study the art of
prehistoric Europe? Without referring to this again,
I made the same request at the start of the final
review session. The accompanying graph shows
the responses for one year of this exercise.
This was an informal exercise, initially for my own curiosity. But I believe it does allow for a significant
observation. At the start of the course there was a noticeable view that studying the art of prehistoric
Europe was first and foremost something that would be interesting and less boring than other courses
on offer, although there does seem to be some intellectual merit to the course. The responses at the end
of the course are qualitatively different. The subject was still an interesting one, but the overall interest
in the course now had to do with epistemological issues and the relationship of the past to the present
in terms of understanding prehistoric art vis-à-vis contemporary art. And this difference was something
they achieved themselves.

I believe quite strongly that it was forcing students to reflect on their learning throughout that course
that also made them more reflective about the archaeology they were learning in the libraries and
the seminar room. As a group, listening to different points of view, witnessing different approaches to
similar questions and debates, these students started to make critical judgements not just about the
interpretation of prehistoric art, but about the way in which prehistoric art is constructed in the present.
Taking this approach out of the library and the classroom as it were, I have also used group work exercises
when introducing students to rock art fieldwork. I have noticed similar positive changes in the way in
which students relate to each other and what they are researching.

Responses to “Why Study the

Art of Prehistoric Europe?”,
Before And After The Course
Number of Responses

Type of Response

Responses:
1 I thought it would be an interesting course
2 studying prehistoric art develops an
understanding of the past
3 develops a sense of academic freedom
4 the course seemed like a less boring option
5 I like art
6 relates to contemporary attitudes about art
of the past
7 relates to attitudes about contemporary art
8 an alternative form of archaeology
9 gives us information about how people in the
past represented themselves
10 a good course to take
11 preservation of art
12 develops an understanding of ritual and symbolism
13 enhances our theory base
14 allows us to think about roots of today’s art
15 further develops the disciplinary history of
archaeology
16 a good way of challenging stereotypes of past peoples

7
 Thomas A Dowson is an independent
archaeologist. He has held posts at the University
of the Witwatersrand (South Africa), and the
Universities of Southampton and Manchester
(England). He was the Archaeology Subject Director
for the Higher Education Academy’s Subject Centre
for History, Classics and Archaeology.

His research includes shamanism and the

interpretation of rock art, theory and methodology
of archaeological approaches to art, the popular
representation of prehistoric and ancient artistic
traditions, as well as the sexual politics of
archaeology.

His publications include Rock Engravings of

Southern Africa (1992, Witwatersrand University
Press) and, with David Lewis-Williams, Images of
Power: understanding San rock art (1989, Second
edition 2000, Struik). He also edited the Queer
Archaeologies volume of World Archaeology (32:2,
2000) and Archaeological Pedagogies (36:2, 2004)

Edited by: Karina Croucher, Archaeology, HE Academy

Design: Andy Fairhurst, Gten, University of Manchester

www.hca.HEAcademy.ac.uk/archaeology