AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE OF ARCHAEOLOGY IN CANADIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULA

by

ERIN AURORE HOGG

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF ARTS (HONOURS)

in

THE FACULTY OF ARTS

(Anthropology)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

(Vancouver)

April 2012

©Erin Aurore Hogg 2012

Abstract

This honours thesis examines the nature and extent to which archaeology is covered in

the Canadian public school curricula. I argue that the best way for the public to

understand the importance of archaeology and heritage conservation is through school-

aged education. To determine if this teaching opportunity is indeed occurring, I

examined the current coverage of archaeology in each province and territory’s Social

Studies curriculum by searching for key words such as archaeology, anthropology,

antiquity, prehistory, aboriginal, First Nations, and culture in each Prescribed Learning

Outcome (PLO). Through this search I determined that 90 PLOs possibly pertain to

archaeology, and to examine them further I created 13 variables to describe them.

Through an analysis of these 13 variables, I determined that archaeology is specifically

mentioned in only 6.7% of the PLOs, and heritage conservation in relation to archaeology

is never once mentioned. To further examine the 90 PLOs , I compared them to the

curriculum guide developed by the Canadian Archaeological Association (CAA) in the

early 2000s. Through a second variable description, I determined that the guide is not

used in the curricula, even though it is a well-crafted and relevant document. Finally, I

analyzed and discussed the applicable PLOs, determining that although some provinces

do manage to teach archaeology well, no province or territory teaches archaeology with

either a Canadian perspective or heritage conservation.

ii

Table of ContentsAbstract..............................................................................................................................ii

List of Figures...................................................................................................................iv

List of Tables......................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................vi

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................1

2. Methodology...................................................................................................................2

3. Data Description............................................................................................................53.1 Demographics.........................................................................................................................53.2 Variables.................................................................................................................................7

4. Canadian Archaeological Association Data..............................................................16

5. Discussion.....................................................................................................................245.1 Teaching strategies...............................................................................................................245.2 Canadian content..................................................................................................................255.3 Two good cases....................................................................................................................295.4 A not-so-good case...............................................................................................................305.6 CAA variables......................................................................................................................31

6. Conclusion....................................................................................................................32

References Cited..............................................................................................................34

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Cumulative percent of PLOs for each province and territory by grade level7

iv

List of Tables

Table 1. Distribution of PLOs applicable to archaeology by province and territory

5

Table 2. Distribution of PLOs applicable to archaeology by grade level 6

Table 3. Data described by initial variables 8

Table 4. Data described by CAA variables 17

Table 5. Expression of relevant PLOs through several CAA variables 22

Table 6. Crosstabulation of teaching strategies and ‘Useful’ in teaching archaeology

variables 24

Table 7. Crosstabulation of teaching strategies and ‘Archaeology’ variables 25

Table 8. Crosstabulation of teaching strategies and ‘Indigenous Populations’ variables

26

Table 9. Crosstabulation of ‘Archaeology’ and ‘Indigenous Populations’ (as a proxy of

Canadian content) variables 27

Table 10. Crosstabulation of ‘Archaeology’ and ‘Classical Periods’ variables 28

v

Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. David Pokotylo for his help and

support with this thesis. Dr. Pokotylo provided me with the initial interest in public

archaeology and cultural resource management when I took his Applied Archaeology

course in 2010. He encouraged me to further research my initial paper on this subject,

which led to me winning the Canadian Archaeological Association’s Daniel Weetaluktuk

Award for best undergraduate research paper in 2010. Without his support, I would not

have entered the honours program or considered taking on a research project of this size.

Dr. Pokotylo provided help and support during the research stages of this thesis and

provided invaluable comments on the drafts of this manuscript, which improved the final

project greatly.

I would also like to thank the Department of Anthropology and the Lab of

Archaeology for awarding me the Moira Irvine Archaeological Research Fund, which

allowed me to present this research at the 65th Annual Northwest Anthropological

Conference in March 2012, where I won the undergraduate student paper competition.

Last but not least, many thanks to my family for their help and support during my

undergraduate career. Their successes inspire me every day. A special thanks to my

mother for her help in editing the final draft.

vi

1. Introduction

Archaeologists have long known that public support of archaeology is key to

effective heritage legislation and the prevention of site vandalism and looting (Smardz

Frost 2004). For such support to be provided, the public must have a basic knowledge of

archaeology. Through a Canada-wide survey of the public’s opinion of archaeology, we

know that Canadians are interested in archaeology but do not know much about its role in

Canada or who is involved (Pokotylo 2002). As well, a 1996 public opinion study

discovered that British Columbians get most of their information about archaeology

through museum programs, television, and travel (Pokotylo and Guppy 1999). Although

Pokotylo and Guppy (1999:415) state that they “expect academic sources to be more

important in the future as archaeological content in school curricula continues to increase

and the ‘baby-boom echo’ … comes to age,” a survey of introductory archaeology

students at a Canadian University (Pokotylo 2007) showed that these students had little to

no archaeology background and did not understand the discipline, let alone its role in

heritage conservation. Academics might assume that school curricula provide

archaeology education, but as undergraduate students entering the field do not have a

basic knowledge of archaeology, this does not seem to be the case. To address this issue

I chose to look directly at the school curricula to determine if and how archaeology is

being taught in Canadian public schools and the extent to which the discipline is

providing support.

1

2. Methodology

To determine the extent to which archaeology is being taught in Canadian public

schools, I reviewed the curriculum guides for each province and territory. Within these

guides are Prescribed Learning Outcomes (PLOs)—specific outcomes that students need

to master. Depending on the province or territory, there can be many implicit PLOs in a

specific course’s grade level or just a few detailed ones. However, as they are the exact

description of the objectives that a student must reach, they are the best way to determine

if Canadian students are learning about archaeology. My first task was to determine what

PLOs could be used to teach archaeology.

As each province and territory creates and manages its own school curricula, I had

to examine each province and territory’s curriculum documents. There are three

exceptions to this—Yukon uses British Columbia’s curricula; the Atlantic Provinces

(New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland) use a shared

curriculum framework; and Nunavut uses the Common Curriculum Framework within

the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education (WNCP).

This latter curriculum was created with the collaboration of all the Western and Northern

provinces and territories but is specifically used only by Nunavut.

To determine what PLOs could be used to teach archaeology, I looked at

mandatory grade levels of Social Studies. Social Studies is a mandatory course up until

grade 9, 10, or 11 (depending on the province or territory). It replaces history and is

defined as:

…a multidisciplinary subject that draws from the social sciences and humanities to study human interaction and natural and social environments. The

2

overarching goal of Social Studies is to develop thoughtful, responsible, active citizens who are able to acquire the requisite information to consider multiple perspectives and to make reasoned judgments. The [curriculum] provides students with opportunities as future citizens to critically reflect upon past events and issues in order to examine the present, make connections with the past, and consider the future [BC Ministry of Education 1997:1].

Social Studies curricula are the best option for looking at archaeology. Although other

subjects might briefly discuss the subject, Social Studies has the most potentially relevant

material. As I have previously explained, Social Studies is mandatory in all provinces

and territories until senior high school grades, at which point students have the choice of

taking several courses within Social Studies including law, civics, history, and

geography, among others. Some provinces require students to take at least one elective

within the Social Studies branch, but others do not have such a requirement. To be

certain that all students had access to the same material, I decided to look at the

curriculum guides for mandatory grades of Social Studies only. The point of elective

courses is that students are able to select them. Therefore, if a student chose an elective

that pertained to archaeology, he or she likely already had an interest in the subject and

knew something about it. Obviously that is not always the case, but by focusing solely

on mandatory grade levels and courses I could be assured that everyone would be

learning the material, not just a specific sub-population.

To determine what PLOs could be used to teach archaeology, I first had to

discover which PLOs were archaeology-specific. As archaeology is not a common word

used in PLOs, I created a list of search terms that could possibly relate to archaeology:

archaeology, anthropology, antiquity, prehistory, aboriginal, First Nations, and culture.

These terms yielded 90 PLOs that could include some aspect of archaeology. My next

3

step was to describe these outcomes and determine which of them were useful in teaching

archaeology.

4

3. Data Description

3.1 Demographics

I first examined the demographic information about the 90 applicable PLOs: what

province or territory and what grade level they were from (Tables 1 and 2). As noted

above, Social Studies curricula are divided between nine provinces and territories: BC,

Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic Provinces (ATP), the

Northwest Territories, and Nunavut (through the Western and Northern Canadian

Protocol for Collaboration in Education, or WNCP).

Table 1. Distribution of PLOs applicable to archaeology by province and territory.

Province / Territory n %BC 14 15.6Alberta 3 3.3Saskatchewan 12 13.3Manitoba 23 25.6Ontario 2. 2.2Quebec 2 2.2ATP 16 17.8Northwest Territories

3 3.3

Nunavut 15 16.7Total 90 100

Table 1 shows a large difference between provinces and territories in the number

of applicable PLOs. What is important to remember is that even though some provinces

and territories do not have many PLOs relating to archaeology, some have only a few

PLOs for the whole grade level. For example, Quebec uses a different grade system, with

one PLO for the entire grade. Therefore, the number of PLOs per province or territory is

5

not always the best indicator of what province or territory is doing the best job of

teaching archaeology.

I next analyzed the grade levels of the applicable PLOs (Table 2), from

kindergarten to the highest grade of mandatory Social Studies (between grades 9 and 11).

As grades have different themes, and not all themes relate to archaeology, I did not

expect every grade to have relevant PLOs.

Table 2. Distribution of PLOs applicable to archaeology by grade level.

Grade Level

n %

K 0 01 0 02 6 6.73 0 04 18 20.05 24 26.76 5 5.67 0 08 14 15.69 8 8.910 14 15.611 1 1.1Total 90 100

To resolve the issue of PLO variation between provinces and territories, I created

an ogive (Figure 1) that shows the cumulative percent of PLOs over time (grade level).

By expressing the demographic information in this manner, it is easier to determine at

what grade levels students are learning about archaeology in each province and territory.

Three streams of graphed data can be identified in Figure 1. The first stream (Northwest

Territories, Alberta, and Ontario) teaches most archaeological information in the early

grades. The second stream, characterized by BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Nunavut

(WNCP framework), starts teaching archaeology early and continues teaching it through

6

senior grades. The third stream (Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces) teaches the majority

of the archaeological information in more senior grades only.

Figure 1. Cumulative percent of PLOs for each province and territory by grade level.

3.2 Variables

To determine how appropriate the applicable PLOs were in teaching archaeology,

I created a set of 13 variables to describe the PLOs, their purpose in teaching

archaeology, and their usefulness. These variables are all ranked from no mention,

somewhat mentions, and mentions with respect to the content of the PLO (see Table 3). I

7

chose this simple ordinal scale as most PLOs fit somewhere between the no mention and

mentions levels.

Table 3. Data described by initial variables.

Variables No Mention Somewhat Mentions Mentions

Total

n % n % n % n %Explicit 45 50.0 19 21.1 26 28.9 90 100Past 5 5.6 81 90.0 4 4.4 90 100Heritage 3 3.3 85 94.5 2 2.2 90 100Indigenous 33 36.7 23 25.5 34 37.8 90 100Classical 80 88.9 7 7.8 3 3.3 90 100Settler 78 86.7 12 13.3 0 0 90 100Contact 77 85.6 7 7.8 6 6.6 90 100Archaeology 45 50.0 39 43.3 6 6.7 90 100Appreciate 75 83.3 11 12.3 4 4.4 90 100Preservation 86 95.6 3 3.3 1 1.1 90 100Process - Method

83 92.2 5 5.6 2 2.2 90 100

Artifacts 60 66.7 28 31.1 2 2.2 90 100Useful 24 26.6 42 46.8 24 26.6 90 100

As previously noted, there is a large difference in the PLOs between provinces

and territories. Some provinces’ and territories’ PLOs are very explicit, with specific

examples that students need to master within the curriculum. Other province’s and

territories’ PLOs are much more vague, with no specific examples. Therefore, my first

variable, ‘Explicit’, describes these differences in PLOs (Table 3).

The no mention category includes vague statements with no specific examples,

such as “distinguish characteristics of various Aboriginal cultures in BC and Canada”

(BC Ministry of Education 2006:34). As 50% of the PLOs fall into this category, clearly

many provinces and territories do not have explicit PLOs. The somewhat explicit

(somewhat mentions) category includes PLOs that use some examples but no explicit

8

directives. The explicit (mentions) category includes statements that have specific

directives and examples to follow (Table 3). These results give assurance that half of the

applicable PLOs are at least somewhat specific in their expectations.

I next wanted to describe the PLOs in relation to the past and heritage (Table 3).

As prehistory and antiquity were search terms originally used to find applicable PLOs, I

assumed that the past and heritage would be important factors in these PLOs. However, I

wanted to differentiate between past and heritage. ‘Past’ has to do with before the

present, whereas ‘Heritage’ has more to do with the culture or definition of a group or

population. Basically, ‘Past’ refers to a specific time, whereas ‘Heritage’ refers to

something specific within a specific time.

For the variable ‘Past’, the no mention category includes PLOs grounded in the

present, such as “use maps and globes to locate the world’s hemispheres” (BC Ministry

of Education 2006:34). As this constitutes only 5% of the PLOs, clearly the vast majority

have to at least somewhat involve the past (Table 3). The somewhat mentions category

includes PLOs that imply the past but do not specifically mention it, such as “describe the

origins of cultural diversity in Saskatchewan communities” (Saskatchewan Ministry of

Education 2010b:19). The mentions category includes PLOs that specifically mention the

past or time, including the phrase “over time.”

For ‘Heritage’, the no mention category includes PLOs that do not mention

heritage whatsoever, such as the example for past. Again, as this constitutes a small

percentage of the PLOs (Table 3), clearly the vast majority at least somewhat involve

heritage. The somewhat mentions category includes PLOs that implicitly involve

heritage, such as “locate on a map of North America the traditional territories of the First

9

Peoples” (Manitoba Ministry of Education 2005b:76). The mentions category includes

PLOs that explicitly involve heritage, such as “share stories of the heritage of the

community” (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education 2010a:22). From the description of

these two variables, it is obvious that the past and heritage are both somewhat mentioned

in most of the PLOs but are rarely explicitly mentioned.

I next wanted to describe the populations and interactions that are mentioned in

the PLOs. As some of my original search terms pertained to aboriginal groups, I knew

that many of the PLOs would be indigenous specific. I chose to use the term

‘Indigenous’ to describe these groups, as wording is very different depending on the

provinces’ or territories’ curricula and includes terms like First Peoples, First Nations,

Aboriginal, Métis, and Inuit. ‘Indigenous’ seemed to encompass all the terms used by

different provinces and territories.

However, I also wanted to determine which PLOs, if any, dealt specifically with

classical archaeology. I defined the variable as involving a classical location in space and

time, such as Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Greece, or Rome.

Finally, I wanted to determine which PLOs were settler population specific. I

defined this variable as involving any non-indigenous early immigrant groups, but most

of the time the PLO actually mentioned the word ‘settler’. Within this category I also

wanted to determine which PLOs involved contact interaction, that is, referencing first

contact between indigenous groups and European explorers, settlers, or early

government. I decided to create this as a separate variable, as these two variables are not

dealing with the same thing.

10

For the variable ‘Indigenous’, the no mention category includes PLOs that do not

mention indigenous populations, such as “explain the importance of knowing the past and

understanding history” (Manitoba Ministry of Education 2006:110). This makes up just

36.7% of all the PLOs (Table 3). The somewhat mentions category includes PLOs that

implicitly mention indigenous groups or a topic somewhat involving indigenous groups,

such as “describe the origins of the cultural diversity in Saskatchewan communities”

(Saskatchewan Ministry of Education 2010b:19). The mentions category includes PLOs

that explicitly mention indigenous groups around a topic central to indigenous groups

only, such as “distinguish characteristics of various Aboriginal cultures in BC and

Canada” (BC Ministry of Education 2006:34). As 63.3% of the PLOs at least somewhat

discuss indigenous groups, it seems that archaeology and indigenous populations are

closely connected in Canada (Table 3).

For the variable ‘Classical’, the no mention category includes PLOs that are not

about classical locations. As this makes up the vast majority of the PLOs at 88.9%,

classics do not play a large role in teaching archaeology in Canada (Table 3). The

somewhat mentions category includes PLOs that implicitly involve classical periods, such

as “use primary and secondary sources to locate information about early civilizations”

(Ontario Ministry of Education 2004:30). The mentions category includes PLOs that

explicitly note classical locations.

For the variable ‘Settler’, the no mention category includes PLOs that are not

about settler populations. Like ‘Classical’, this makes up the vast majority (86.7% )of the

PLOs (Table 3). The somewhat mentions category includes PLOs that implicitly describe

settler populations, such as “identify effects of early contact between Aboriginal societies

11

and European explorers and settlers” (BC Ministry of Education 2006:34). The mentions

category identifies PLOs that explicitly reference settlers, without involving other

population groups, but none exist in my data set (Table 3).

For the variable ‘Contact’, the no mention category includes PLOs do not

reference contact interactions. Like the last two variables, this makes up the vast

majority of the PLOs at 85.6% (Table 3). The somewhat mentions category includes

PLOs that implicitly reference contact, including exchanges or interactions between

indigenous people and non-indigenous people, such as “describe economic and

technological exchanges between explorers and aboriginal people” (BC Ministry of

Education 2006:34). The mentions category includes PLOs that reference contact

interactions, such as “ identify effects of early contact between Aboriginal societies and

European explorers and settlers” (BC Ministry of Education 2006:34). As the majority of

PLOs do not mention contact interactions (at 6.6%), clearly it is not an important part of

teaching archaeology in Canada (Table 3).

I next wanted to determine how often archaeology was explicitly addressed. As

very few PLOs contain the word archaeology, I knew that not many of the PLOs

explicitly addressed archaeology. Therefore, by using an ordinal variable I hoped to find

a few more involving archaeology.

For the variable ‘Archaeology’, the no mention category includes PLOs that are

not about archaeology, and with 50% of the PLOs falling into this category (Table 3), it

seems that many of the PLOs I found through my search terms do not actually involve

archaeology. The somewhat mentions category includes PLOs that implicitly reference

archaeology; that is, by discussing the subject archaeology would have to be addressed.

12

This includes PLOs such as “identify the characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages

of a hunter-gatherer way of life” (New Brunswick Ministry of Education 1997:16). The

mentions category includes PLOs that explicitly note archaeology, which contributed to

6.7% of the data set (Table 3).

I next wanted to determine if any PLOs involve heritage conservation. However,

I noticed early on that a definite difference exists between an appreciation of cultural

heritage and a preservation of cultural heritage within the PLOs. Therefore, I decided to

construct two variables, one determining appreciating cultural heritage and another

describing preserving cultural heritage.

For an appreciation of cultural heritage (‘Appreciate’), the no mention category

includes PLOs that do not involve cultural heritage. The somewhat mentions category

includes PLOs that implicitly mention an appreciation of the past, such as “Demonstrate

interest in the shared experiences and stories of members of Aboriginal communities in

Canada” (Manitoba Ministry of Education 2005a:47). The mentions category includes

PLOs that explicitly reference an appreciation of the past, such as “appreciate the

technologies of early societies” (Manitoba Ministry of Education 2006:111). As only

16.7% of the PLOs at least somewhat mention an appreciation for the past (i.e., cultural

heritage), this subject is clearly not very present in teaching archaeology in Canada

(Table 3).

For a preservation of cultural heritage (‘Preservation’), the no mention category

includes PLOs that do not involve preservation of and/or respect for cultural heritage.

The somewhat mentions category includes PLOs that implicitly reference preservation

and/or respect, such as “demonstrate awareness of the role of archaeology in providing

13

information about past societies” (Western Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Basic

Education 2002:84). The mentions category includes PLOs that explicitly describe

preservation and/or respect, such as “respect artifacts and places of historical

significance” (Western Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Basic Education 2002:84).

As the somewhat mentions and mentions categories comprise only 4.4% of the data set,

preservation of cultural heritage is clearly not important in the teaching of archaeology in

Canada (Table 3).

I then wanted to determine if any PLOs describe the process and objects of

archaeology. Therefore, I created two variables: one to determine if any PLOs describe

the archaeological process or method and another to determine if any PLOs mention

archaeological artifacts (Table 3).

For ‘Process - Method’, the no mention category includes PLOs that are not about

the archaeological process or method. As this includes 92.2% of the PLOs, it does not

often occur in the teaching of archaeology in Canada (Table 3). The somewhat mentions

category includes PLOs that implicitly mention the process or method, such as

“demonstrate awareness of the role of archaeology in providing information about past

societies” (Western Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Basic Education 2002:84).

The mentions category includes PLOs that explicitly mention the process or method, such

as “identify the methods used by archaeologists to reconstruct the past” (New Brunswick

Ministry of Education 1997:23).

For ‘Artifacts’, the no mention category includes PLOs that do not relate to

archaeological artifacts. The somewhat mentions category includes PLOs that implicitly

reference artifacts, such as “appreciate the technologies of early societies” (Manitoba

14

Ministry of Education 2006:111). The mentions category includes PLOs that explicitly

reference artifacts, such as “respect artifacts and places of historical significance”

(Western Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Basic Education 2002:84).

Finally, I wanted to determine what PLOs are actually useful for teaching

archaeology, and used my own judgment to determine what PLOs are useful. I defined

useful as relating to the subject of archaeology or heritage conservation, or PLOs that

could easily include archaeology. The not useful (no mention) category includes PLOs

that I considered not at all relevant or useful for teaching archaeology. These PLOs are

irrelevant for the teaching of archaeology but got into the data set with the original search

criteria. They include PLOs such as “compare governance in Aboriginal cultures with

governance in early European settlements in BC and Canada” (BC Ministry of Education

2006:34). Although not many PLOs specifically refer to archaeology, only 26.6% of the

data fall under the not useful category (Table 3). The somewhat useful (somewhat

mentions) category includes PLOs that are somewhat relevant for the teaching of

archaeology, especially in a province or territory with a curriculum that does not

specifically mention archaeology. They include PLOs such as “describe technologies

used by Aboriginal people in BC and Canada” and make up 46.8% of the data set (BC

Ministry of Education 2006:34)(Table 3). The useful (mentions) category includes PLOs

that are relevant and useful for teaching archaeology, and constitute 26.6% of the data

(Table 3). Although these PLOs are useful for teaching archaeology, not all of them

explicitly mention archaeology.

15

4. Canadian Archaeological Association Data

One goal of my research was to determine the amount of support the discipline is

providing to archaeological education. Therefore, I next compared my data set of PLOs

to the curriculum guide created by the Canadian Archaeological Association (CAA) in

2001. The Archaeology Canada curriculum was “developed through consultation with

the educational and archaeological communities to share archaeological content with

Canada's educators and students” (Lea 2001). The 10 chapters are designed as lessons

for students in three ranges of abilities: junior (grades 4-6), intermediate (grades 7-10),

and extension (senior students who want a challenge)(Canadian Archaeological

Association 2001). Each chapter includes information about archaeology, lesson goals,

defined vocabulary, resources, suggested lessons for each ability, evaluative strategies,

discussion topics, and resources. The ten chapters are:

What is Archaeology?

Archaeology as a Resource Process

Surveying the Site and the Soil

The Archaeological Process

Keeping a Record

How Old Is It?

Classification and Analysis

Caring for the Past – Conservation

What Does It All Mean? – Interpretation

Sharing the Past – Publication and Exhibition

16

These detailed and well-documented lesson plans were promoted to teacher

groups across Ontario and at CAA conferences, and were one of the bases of an

archaeology program taught in the Durham area in Ontario (email communication with

Joanne Lea, October 7, 2011). However, this curriculum guide is in little use today and

does not have prominence on the CAA website.

I wanted to determine if this curriculum framework has had any effect on the

various provinces’ and territories’ curricula. Therefore, I created a set of variables from

the outcomes of the 10 chapters and used them to describe my data set (Table 4).

Table 4. Data described by CAA variables.

Variables No Mention Somewhat Mentions Mentions Totaln % n % n % n %

Archaeology Mentioned 45 50.0 39 43.3 6 6.6 90

100

Archaeology Defined 90 100 0 0 0 0 90

100

Archaeology vs. Paleontology 90 100 0 0 0 0 90

100

Pseudonyms 51 56.7 26 28.9 13 14.4 90

100

Types of Archaeology 88 97.8 2 2.2 0 0 90

100

Laws or Ethics 90 100 0 0 0 0 90

100

Heritage 86 95.5 3 3.4 1 1.1 90

100

Conservation 90 100 0 0 0 0 90

100

Method or Process 87 96.7 2 2.2 1 1.1 90

100

Tools or Instruments 88 97.8 1 1.1 1 1.1 90

100

Record 88 97.8 2 2.2 0 0 90

100

Explanation 88 97.8 2 2.2 0 0 90

100

Interpretation 88 97.8 2 2.2 0 0 90

100

17

Classification 90 100 0 0 0 0 90

100

Sites 88 97.8 1 1.1 1 1.1 90

100

Publications 90 100 0 0 0 0 90

100

The first chapter discusses archaeology as a discipline, explaining what

archaeology is and what archaeologists do. Therefore, I created variables from the

objectives and goals of the chapter. The first variable was a crossover from originally

describing the PLOs: if archaeology is mentioned (‘Archaeology Mentioned’). As

previously discussed, archaeology is at least somewhat mentioned 50% of the time but is

only addressed directly (i.e., mentioned) in 6.6% of the PLOs. Given that somewhat

mentioned was prominent, I wanted to determine if archaeology was ever defined as a

term in any of the PLOs (‘Archaeology Defined’). It is never defined (see Table 4).

I next created a variable to determine if archaeology was ever compared to

paleontology, as the first chapter highlights it as one of the misconceptions about

archaeology (‘Archaeology vs. Paleontology’). None of the PLOs mention the difference

between archaeology and paleontology (Table 4), although if I looked for PLOs about

paleontology those should define what that discipline was, and therefore show the

difference.

I also created a variable to see if any PLOs ever used pseudonyms instead of

explicitly stating the term archaeology (‘Pseudonyms’). I found that 56.7% of the PLOs

do not use pseudonyms or do not mention archaeology at all (Table 4). Further, 28.9% of

the PLOs use concepts that partially relate to archaeology, such as “examine various

theories about the origins of First Nation and Inuit peoples in North America” (Ontario

18

Ministry of Education 2004:31) and 14.4% of the PLOs use a pseudonym that directly

relates to archaeology, such as “use primary and secondary sources to locate information

about early civilizations” (Ontario Ministry of Education 2004:30). Thus, the subject of

archaeology is often addressed without using the term “archaeology” itself.

Finally for chapter one I wanted to examine if the PLOs ever mention different

types of archaeology, especially the difference between classical archaeology and other

types (‘Types of Archaeology’). Two PLOs somewhat note the difference, specifically

mentioning classical archaeology with no mention of Indigenous studies or any other type

of archaeology (Table 4).

As the Archaeology Canada curriculum guide details laws and ethics involving

archaeology and the importance of these laws, especially within cultural resource

management (CRM) work, I wanted to find the extent that laws or ethics are mentioned

in PLOs. However, ‘Laws or Ethics’ are never referenced (Table 4).

The guideline emphasizes the importance of archaeological heritage in many

chapters, but the majority (95.5%) of the PLOs do not mention the importance of

archaeological heritage (Table 4). Three somewhat mention it, such as “appreciate the

technologies of early societies” (Manitoba Ministry of Education 2006:111). Only one

specifically mentions it, “respect artifacts and places of historical significance” (Western

Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Basic Education 2002:84); however, it is a vague

statement at best.

As the guideline commits an entire chapter to artifact conservation, I wanted to

assess if it was ever mentioned in the PLOs. ‘Conservation’ of artifacts is never

referenced in the PLOs (Table 4).

19

Obviously, the guideline explains the method and process of archaeology

throughout several chapters. Therefore, I analyzed the PLOs to see if the archaeological

method or process was ever noted (‘Method or Process’). Two PLOs somewhat mention

it (Table 4), such as “use items in school garbage can to illustrate the archaeological

technique of reconstructing of society” (New Brunswick Ministry of Education 1997:23).

One PLO does mention the archaeological process or method, “identify the methods used

by archaeologists to reconstruct the past” (New Brunswick Ministry of Education

1997:23); however, it does not detail what the methods are.

I also wanted to determine if the PLOs ever discussed the tools or instruments

used by archaeologists, as this was a large part of the chapters (‘Tools or Instruments’).

Table 4 shows that one PLO somewhat mentions them, “identify the methods used by

archaeologists to reconstruct the past” (New Brunswick Ministry of Education 1997:23),

and another does note them, “explain various technologies used in archaeology (e.g.,

shovels, brushes, carbon dating, GPS cartography, satellite imagery)” (Saskatchewan

Ministry of Education 2009b:21).

I wanted to identify if the archaeological record was ever discussed, as it

warranted a chapter in the guideline (‘Record’). Two PLOs somewhat mention it, (Table

4) as they wanted students to participate in the archaeological method, which is difficult

to do without discussion of the archaeological record. I also wanted to see if the PLOs

ever explained what was a part of the archaeological record (‘Explanation’; Table 4),

which also gave the same results (2 cases) as the variable ‘Record’.

As interpretation of artifacts was a chapter within the guideline, I wanted to see if

this topic was referenced within the PLOs (‘Interpretation’). Two PLOs somewhat

20

mention the interpretation of artifacts (Table 4), including “use items in school garbage

can to illustrate the archaeological technique of reconstructing of society” (New

Brunswick Ministry of Education 1997:23). As well, I wanted to determine if any

classification systems were mentioned, which never occurred (‘Classification’; Table 4).

The last chapter of the guideline outlines various ways that archaeological

findings are shown to the public. Firstly, I wanted to examine if archaeological

exhibitions or interpretive sites were ever mentioned (‘Sites’; Table 4). One PLO, “use

items in school garbage can to illustrate the archaeological technique of reconstructing of

society” (New Brunswick Ministry of Education 1997:23), somewhat mentions sites,

whereas another specifically mentions them, “Present results obtained and techniques

used in ongoing archaeological digs (e.g., Wanuskewin, Eagle Creek; Point-à Callières,

Montréal; Pompéi, Italy; Dufferine Terrace, Québec City; Fort Temiscaming, Québec;

Ahu o rongo, Easter Island)” (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education 2009b:21). Lastly, I

wanted to determine if any journals or other archaeology-related publications were

mentioned (even National Geographic). As is visible in Table 4 (‘Publications’), none

are ever mentioned.

Several variables only had a few PLOs that somewhat mentioned or mentioned

the CAA data variables, Table 5 examines these PLOs directly. Two PLOs address all

the variables, one from the Atlantic Provinces (ATP) grade 10 curriculum, and one from

the Saskatchewan grade 9 curriculum.

21

Table 5. Expression of relevant PLOs through several CAA variables.

PLO

Type

s of

Arc

haeo

logy

Her

itage

Met

hod

or

Proc

ess

Tool

s or

Inst

rum

ents

Rec

ord

Inte

rpre

tatio

n

Site

s

Reg

ion

Gra

de

Examine the challenges involved in obtaining information about societies of the past.a. Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of oral accounts as sources of information about historical events.b. Describe the role of archaeology in obtaining information about societies of the past.c. Explain various technologies used in archaeology (e.g., shovels, brushes, carbon dating, GPS cartography, satellite imagery).d. Present results obtained and techniques used in ongoing archaeological digs (e.g., Wanuskewin, Eagle Creek; Point-à Callières, Montréal; Pompéi, Italy; Dufferine Terrace, Québec City; Fort Temiscaming, Québec; Ahu o rongo, Easter Island).e. Investigate the role of literature, visual arts, music, newspapers, photographs, and other artifacts in obtaining information about past societies.f. Recognize the dynamic nature of historical knowledge by identifying examples of changes occurring in the interpretation of history as a result of new information uncovered or acknowledged. So

mew

hat

Som

ewha

t

Som

ewha

t

Men

tions

Som

ewha

t

Som

ewha

t

Men

tions

Sask

atch

ewan

9

Identify the contribution to civilizations of the Mesopotamians and Egyptians. • Develop a chart which illustrates our debt to the early river-valley civilizations. • use items in school garbage can to illustrate the archaeological technique of reconstructing of society So

mew

hat

No

Som

ewha

t

No

Som

ewha

t

Som

ewha

t

Som

ewha

t

Atla

ntic

10

Appreciate the technologies of early societies

No

Som

ewha

t

No

No

No

No

No

Man

itoba

8

demonstrate awareness of the role of archaeologyin providing information about past societies

No

Som

ewha

t

No

No

No

No

No

Nun

avut

8

respect artifacts and places of historicalsignificance

No

Men

tions

No

No

No

No

No

Nun

avut

8

22

Identify the methods used by archaeologists to reconstruct the past

No

No

Men

tions

Som

ewha

t

No

No

No

ATP

10

23

The grade 10 Social Studies curriculum in the ATP has the largest archaeological

focus of any grade and has some excellent PLOs. However, none of them relate to

Canadian archaeology, but instead focus on “paleoarchaeology” and classical

archaeology.

The Saskatchewan curriculum is by far the best for an archaeological focus.

However, from my research into their curriculum development, it appears their

archaeological focus in the curriculum came well before the CAA curriculum guide was

established (Rollans 1990). Therefore, from my data description it is evident that the

CAA curriculum guide has not had much (if any) effect on the curriculum. The CAA

guide may have had an effect on the WNCP curriculum, as it was created at the same

time as the guide, and does contain some PLOs with an archaeological focus (the

curriculum document is from 2002, the foundation document from 2000). However, the

foundation document for the curriculum mentions neither archaeology nor the CAA

(Western Canadian Framework for Collaboration in Basic Education 2000).

24

5. Discussion

5.1 Teaching strategies

As noted in the demographic description, the provinces and territories are split

into three different groups of teaching archaeology based on the distribution of PLOs

through grade levels. To determine if there were differences in the content of the

learning outcomes depending on these three groups, I first looked at the amount of useful

learning outcomes that each group contained (Table 6).

Table 6. Crosstabulation of teaching strategies and ‘Useful’ in teaching archaeology variables.

‘Useful’Teach Early

Teach Throughout

Teach Late

Total

Is Not Useful in Teaching Archaeology 0 (0.0%) 23 (35.9%) 1 (5.6%) 24 (26.7%)Is Somewhat Useful in Teaching Archaeology 5 (62.5%) 30 (46.9%) 7 (38.9%) 42 (46.7%)Is Useful in Teaching Archaeology 3 (37.5%) 11 (17.2%) 10 (55.6%) 24 (26.6%)Total 8 (100%) 64 (100%) 18 (100%) 90 (100%)

Table 6 shows that the percentage of useful information is different between the

three groups. Both the teach early and teach throughout groups have the somewhat

useful category as their top rank (at 62.5% and 46.9% respectively), whereas teach late

has useful as its top rank (at 55.6%). Looking at the useful in teaching archaeology,

teach late has a much higher percentage (55.6%)of PLOs in this category than either

teach throughout or teach early. This indicates that only one of these teaching strategies

—teaching archaeology in later grades—has a high amount of useful outcomes, and that

perhaps this group better succeeds in teaching archaeological material.

25

I also examined the number of specific archaeology outcomes each teaching

strategy contained (Table 7). Again, there is a difference between the three methods,

with teach late containing many more archaeology specific outcomes than the other two

groups (83.3% in comparison to 62.5% and 39.1%). Again, this comparison outlines that

archaeology is perhaps better taught at later grades.

Table 7. Crosstabulation of teaching strategies and ‘Archaeology’ variables.

‘Archaeology’Teach Early

Teach Throughout Teach Late Total

Does Not Mention Archaeology 3 (37.5%) 39 (60.9%) 3 (16.7%) 45 (50%)Mentions Archaeology 5 (62.5%) 25 (39.1%) 15 (83.3%) 45 (50%)Total 8 (100%) 64 (100%) 18 (100%) 90 (100%)

5.2 Canadian content

Although more archaeological information is taught in provinces that give it a

more senior focus, it is important to look at the Canadian content of the material. It is

important that we have a Canadian perspective in archaeology education so that students

learn about their national heritage and the importance of preserving archaeological

material. For the sake of simplicity I propose that Canadian content equates to the

amount of indigenous specific material presented, as that is what is the predominant

practice of Canadian archaeology. Table 8 shows a stark difference between the teach

late group and the other groups. However, it is the teach late grouping that is lacking,

with only 16.7% of its material having an indigenous content, vs. 75% of the material for

each of the other groups. This comparison shows that although the teach late group may

have a better archaeological focus, it is not succeeding at providing Canadian content,

something that is essential to teaching archaeology, especially in terms of heritage

26

conservation. Although it is quite possible to give students a good grasp of archaeology

without ever mentioning Canada’s relation to the field, promoting heritage conservation

in Canada cannot occur without making a Canadian connection to the field. Within these

regional groupings in terms of student age, it appears that no area is successful in

teaching Canadian archaeology. Either students are not gaining much archaeological

knowledge but are learning about indigenous groups, or they are gaining archaeological

knowledge but are not learning about local indigeneity.

Table 8. Crosstabulation of teaching strategies and ‘Indigenous Populations’ variables.

‘Indigenous Populations’Teach Early

Teach Throughout Teach Late Total

Does Not Mention Indigenous Populations 2 (25.0%)

16 (25.0%)

15 (83.3%) 33 (36.7%)

Mentions Indigenous Populations 6 (75.0%)

48 (75.0%) 3 (16.7%) 57 (63.3%)

Total 8 (100%) 64 (100%) 18 (100%) 90 (100%)

I also wanted to investigate the amount of overall Canadian content. Firstly, it is

obvious that there is not a large archaeological content in Social Studies curricula

throughout the country (remember that 50% of the PLOs do not mention archaeology). I

wanted to determine if the PLOs that did at least somewhat mention archaeology

contained some Canadian content. As I previously discussed, we want students to learn

about archaeology so that they understand the importance of heritage conservation, most

importantly, in their own regions and country. To explain the importance of heritage

conservation, it is essential that archaeology being taught in schools has a Canadian

focus.

A crosstabulation between ‘Indigenous Specific’ and ‘Archaeology’, shows the

27

lack of archaeology-specific PLOs that contain indigenous-specific information (Table

9). Only one PLO out of the 90 actually discusses both indigenous-focused and

archaeological-focused material. Although two-thirds of the PLOs are at least somewhat

indigenous specific, only one is both indigenous and archaeology specific. Looking at the

somewhat mentions archaeology, more of them tie together with indigenous specific,

with 11 being somewhat Indigenous specific, and 10 being Indigenous specific. Overall,

over half of the somewhat mentions archaeology group at least somewhat mention

indigeneity. Although 57 PLOs at least somewhat mention indigenous populations, less

than half (22) at least somewhat mention archaeology. It is important to realize that only

1% of the PLOs specifically mention indigenous groups and archaeology, showing a very

low percentage of true Canadian archaeological content.

Table 9. Crosstabulation of ‘Archaeology’ and ‘Indigenous Populations’ (as a proxy of Canadian content) variable.

‘Indigenous Populations’

Does Not Mention Archaeology

Somewhat Mentions Archaeology

Mentions Archaeology Total

Does Not Mention Indigenous Populations 10 (22.2%) 18 (46.2%) 5 (83.3%) 33 (36.7%)Somewhat Mentions Indigenous Populations 12 (26.7%) 11 (28.2%) 0 (.0%) 23 (25.6%)Mentions Indigenous Populations 23 (51.1%) 10 (25.6%) 1 (16.7%) 34 (37.8%)Total 45 (100%) 39 (100%) 6 (100%) 90 (100%)

If the archaeology-specific PLOs do not have a Canadian content, what are they

about? Table 10 shows that 90% of the PLOs do not have a classical focus, and of the six

PLOs that specifically mention archaeology, only one somewhat mentions classical

periods. Also, out of the 39 PLOs that somewhat mention archaeology, only three

28

mention classical periods, and only four of them somewhat mention classical periods.

Therefore, there is little relationship between classics and archaeology within the school

curricula. Clearly, the archaeology-specific PLOs have neither a Canadian content nor a

classical content.

Table 10. Crosstabulation of ‘Archaeology’ and ‘Classical Periods’ variables.

‘Classical Periods’

Does Not Mention Archaeology

Somewhat Mentions Archaeology

Mentions Archaeology Total

Does Not Mention Classical Periods 43 (95.6%) 32 (82.1%) 5 (83.3%) 80 (88.9%)Somewhat Mentions Classical Periods 2 (4.4%) 4 (10.3%) 1 (16.7%) 7 (7.8%)Mentions ClassicalPeriods 0 (.0%) 3 (7.7%) 0 (.0%) 3 (3.3%)Total 45 (100%) 39 (100%) 6 (100%) 90 (100%)

To look more closely into these six PLOs, I analyzed them on their own. Only one

mentions indigenous populations and only one mentions classical periods. All six

somewhat mention heritage, and all at least somewhat mention the past. Two somewhat

mention an appreciation for cultural heritage, and two somewhat mention a preservation

of cultural heritage. Five at least somewhat mention the archaeological process and

record, and five at least somewhat mention artifacts. None of these six PLOs are from

lower grades—one is from grade 5, two from grade 8, one from grade 9, and two from

grade 10.

Looking at these six specific PLOs, it is clear that provinces and territories are not

succeeding at teaching archaeology to students, and when they do, the outcomes relate

more to vague facts about the practice of archaeology in general than to a specific time

29

period or region.

5.3 Two good cases

I wanted to review cases where archaeology was taught well in a Canadian

province or territory. The first example is Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has 12 PLOs in

my data set, from grades 2 to 9. However, none are archaeology and indigenous specific.

Although 10 PLOs at least somewhat mention indigenous groups, only one somewhat

mentions archaeology and mentions indigenous groups. Within the 12 PLOs, only one

somewhat mentions archaeology, and only one mentions archaeology. You might well

ask why then, is this province considered a “good case”? It gets such a distinction

because of one PLO:

Examine the challenges involved in obtaining information about societies of the past.a. Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of oral accounts as sources of information about historical events.b. Describe the role of archaeology in obtaining information about societies of the past.c. Explain various technologies used in archaeology (e.g., shovels, brushes, carbon dating, GPS cartography, satellite imagery).d. Present results obtained and techniques used in ongoing archaeological digs (e.g., Wanuskewin, Eagle Creek; Point-à Callières, Montréal; Pompéi, Italy; Dufferine Terrace, Québec City; Fort Temiscaming, Québec; Ahu o rongo, Easter Island).e. Investigate the role of literature, visual arts, music, newspapers, photographs, and other artifacts in obtaining information about past societies.f. Recognize the dynamic nature of historical knowledge by identifying examples of changes occurring in the interpretation of history as a result of new information uncovered or acknowledged. [Saskatchewan Ministry of Education 2009b:21]

This grade 9 PLO not only asks students to discuss the role of archaeology, but also it

relates to past societies, specific techniques (such as carbon dating!), and specific

archaeological sites (including Canadian ones). This PLO is an outstanding example of

what archaeology education should be. It ties together the methodology of archaeology

30

as well as current technologies and practices, all in relation to important sites. However,

it does not have a heritage conservation content. In fact, none of the Saskatchewan PLOs

specifically mention heritage conservation.

Another good case is the Atlantic Provinces. The grade 10 curriculum has an

entire chapter relating to archaeology, including method and process and the

archaeological record. However, these PLOs lack any Canadian focus and do not even

give examples of any sites, neither Canadian or worldwide. Although two PLOs mention

archaeology, neither of them mention indigenous groups. Although the archaeology-

specific PLOs do not relate the methods of archaeology to specific sites or regions, they

do at least have an archaeological focus and therefore remain a good example overall.

5.4 A not-so-good case

I also wanted to compare these good examples to a province that does not teach

archaeology nearly as well. British Columbia warrants such a distinction. Although BC

has 14 PLOs from grades 4, 9, 10, and 11, none of them mention archaeology, an

appreciation for cultural heritage, or conservation of cultural heritage. Three PLOs

somewhat mention artifacts, but only five were somewhat useful for teaching

archaeology. However, 13 out of the 14 PLOs mention indigenous populations.

Although BC does not ever discuss archaeology in its Social Studies curriculum, it does

an excellent job of detailing Indigenous groups within the province and their role within

the province today. Although BC does a great job teaching indigenous culture and

history, this teaching needs to relate to archaeology, a very important part of the

province’s cultural heritage and an important part of ongoing land claims cases.

31

5.6 CAA variables

Finally, I wanted to analyze the variables I created from the CAA curriculum

guide. Given there was a very low level of positive results from these variables, I want to

point out the lack of information about heritage conservation in this data set. Only four

PLOs at least somewhat mention heritage, and only two of these somewhat mention

archaeology. None of the PLOs that mention archaeology mention heritage, basically

showing that heritage conservation is not discussed in Canadian classrooms in relation to

archaeology. None of the PLOs mention laws or ethics relating to archaeology. Only

one PLO (the PLO from Saskatchewan previously discussed) mentions sites. These

results point out the very sorry state of archaeology education in the Canadian school

system. The CAA curriculum guide was designed for public school classrooms and was

lobbied for in Ontario (email communication with Joanne Lea, October 7, 2011).

However, it has absolutely no presence in the curriculum of any province or territory, and

even within the WNCP curriculum, which was created shortly after the CAA guide was

released, there is no observable presence. Although the WNCP curriculum does have one

PLO that mentions heritage, “respect artifacts and places of historical significance”

(Western Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Basic Education 2002:84), it does not

mention archaeology. As well, this one PLO is insufficient to show that the CAA guide

improved the Canadian curricula. Significant change is needed if we want students to

learn about archaeology and, more importantly, heritage conservation.

32

6. Conclusion

My goal for this research was to assess the nature and extent that archaeology is

being taught in Canadian public schools and the extent to which the discipline is

providing support. Given my research, I am confident in stating that archaeology is not

taught well and not taught much in Canadian schools and the support that the discipline

offers is not always well received. I searched every Social Studies curriculum document

in the country and identified 90 prescribed learning outcomes (PLOs) that could relate to

archaeology out of the 1000s of PLOs in Social Studies. Out of these 90 PLOs, only

6.7% specifically related to archaeology. I also discovered that provinces have different

teaching strategies, whether they teach the information in early grades, throughout, or in

later grades. The latter strategy has a much better success rate for archaeological

material, although this material does not have a Canadian content. I also determined that

the archaeological material that Canadian students are learning is not specific to classical

periods, settler populations, or contact interactions. Very little of it is even Canadian

specific. The excellent curriculum guide created by the Canadian Archaeological

Association is not reflected in the curricula, even though it was advertised to schools only

in select parts of the country. Worst of all, students are not learning about heritage

conservation, one of the main reasons why public education in archaeology is so

important.

Basically, the very little archaeology-relevant information that is being taught

Canadian public schools does not provide a Canadian content, nor does it teach heritage

conservation. Although provinces that teach archaeological content in later grades have

more relevant information, local content is lacking. As I have noted it is possible to teach

33

archaeology in Canada without a Canadian perspective, but it is impossible to teach

heritage conservation within archaeology without a Canadian perspective. We want

students to learn about archaeology so that they understand the importance of heritage

conservation, most importantly in their own regions and country. Students need to

understand that archaeology happens in their own backyards.

Although my research presents a bleak picture of archaeology education in the

Canadian classroom, it is not all bad news. Provinces and territories are succeeding in

teaching indigenous material, especially the idea that indigenous culture is both thriving

and an important part of the Canadian identity. This topic is highly relevant within

cultural heritage and will hopefully help to inspire a generation of Canadians. It would

be fruitful to work with indigenous groups to promote education in local communities

and to tie education about their culture and heritage with archaeology.

The future for archaeology education lies within a bottom-up approach. As we

can see with the lack of success of the Archaeology Canada guide, trying to influence

curricula does not have much of an effect. Instead, we need to consider archaeology

programming at museums and other interpretive sites to allow students and teachers? to

engage in the material outside of the designated curriculum. Future research into these

endeavors, and how to engage the general public in the importance of archaeology, is

essential to create interest in the subject and in heritage conservation in general.

Hopefully with further research we can more successfully engage and educate the

Canadian public in the near future.

34

References Cited

British Columbia Ministry of Education 1997 British Columbia Social Studies Grades 8 – 10 Full Curriculum. Electronic

Document, http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/pdfs/social_studies/2006ss_10.pdf, accessed November 26, 2010.

2006 British Columbia Social Studies K – Grade 7 Full Curriculum. Electronic Document, http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/pdfs/social_studies/2006ssk7.pdf, accessed November 26, 2010.

Canadian Archaeological Association 2001 Archaeology Canada. Electronic Document,

http://canadianarchaeology.com/caa/archcanada/, accessed March 21, 2012.

Lea, Joanne 2001 The CAA’s Archaeology Canada Curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Banff. Electronic Document, http://canadianarchaeology.com/caa/node/2493, accessed March 21, 2012.

Manitoba Ministry of Education 2005aManitoba Social Studies Grade 2 Full Curriculum. Electronic Document

http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr2/gr2_fulldoc.pdf, accessed March 21, 2012.

2005bManitoba Social Studies Grade 5 Full Curriculum. Electronic Document, http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr5/gr5_fulldoc.pdf, accessed March 21, 2012.

2006 Manitoba Social Studies Grade 8 Full Curriculum. Electronic Document, http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/foundation_gr8/document.pdf, accessed March 21, 2012.

New Brunswick Ministry of Education 1997 Ancient Medieval History Grade 10 Full Curriculum. Electronic Document,

http://www.gnb.ca/0000/publications/curric/AncientMedievalHistoryGr10.pdf, accessed March 4, 2011.

Ontario Ministry of Education 2004 Ontario Social Studies Grades 1 – 6 and History and Geography Grades 7 and 8

Full Curriculum. Electronic Document, http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/sstudies18curr.pdf, accessed March 21, 2012.

35

Pokotylo, David 2002 Public Opinion and Canadian Archaeological Heritage: A national perspective.

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 26: 88–129. 2007 Archaeology and the “Educated Public”: A perspective from the university. The

Society for American Archaeology Archaeological Record 7(3): 14–18.

Pokotylo, David and Guppy, Neil 1999 Public Opinion and Archaeological Heritage: Views from outside the profession.

American Antiquity 64(3): 400–416.

Rollans, Maureen 1990 A Handbook For Teaching Archaeology in Saskatchewan Schools. SSTA

Research Centre Report #90-08. Electronic Document, http://saskschoolboards.ca/research/curriculum/90-08.htm, accessed March 21, 2012.

Saskatchewan Ministry of Education 2009aSaskatchewan Social Studies Grade 8 Full Curriculum. Electronic Document,

http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/CURR/social-studies-8, accessed March 21, 2012. 2009bSaskatchewan Social Studies Grade 9 Full Curriculum. Electronic Document,

http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/CURR/social-studies-9, accessed March 21, 2012. 2010aSaskatchewan Social Studies Grade 2 Full Curriculum. Electronic Document,

http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/CURR/social-studies-2, accessed March 21, 2012. 2010bSaskatchewan Social Studies Grade 4 Full Curriculum. Electronic Document,

http://www.education.gov.sk.ca/CURR/social-studies-4, accessed March 21, 2012.

Smardz Frost, Karoyn 2004 Archaeology and public education in North America, view from the beginning of

the millennium. In Public Archaeology, edited by N. Merriman, pp. 59–84. Routledge, London.

Western Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Basic Education 2000 Foundation Document for the Development of The Common Curriculum

Framework for Social Studies K to Grade 12. Electronic Document, http://www.wncp.ca/media/38753/ssfoundation.pdf, accessed March 21, 2012.

2002 The Common Curriculum Framework for Social Studies K to Grade 9. Electronic Document, http://www.wncp.ca/media/38750/social.pdf, accessed March 21, 2012.

36

37