Academic Program Review SUMMARY*
Department under review _SOCIOLOGY and ARCHAEOLOGY - Archaeology component
Date self-study received in Dean’s office
Dean’s office completed review June 2010
Date of external consultant’s review
Fall 2009
Date APR received report
February 10, 2010
APR’S summary of self-study (first two boxes must be completed)
APR’s summary of how the academic program attempts to reach its goals and objectives
and the extent to which those goals and objectives have been achieved.
The primary objectives of the archaeology studies major are to provide a sound and broad
multi-disciplinary background for students seeking a Liberal Arts degree, to provide
preparation for students planning to enter graduate school in archaeology or
anthropology, to provide professional training for students planning careers in
archaeology, and to provide elective and service courses for other academic programs.
Minors related to archaeology include a 21 credit Archaeology Studies minor and a 21
credit anthropology minor. The Archaeology Studies minor is designed to provide
students with a basic foundational understanding of archaeological method and theory
and world prehistory, and it allows students to pursue more specific interests in the
archaeology of various regions of the world. The anthropology minor serves students
majoring in a variety of disciplines and provides them with the holistic cross-cultural
perspective on the human condition typical of classical anthropology as well as new
perspectives on human culture and how the process of globalization fosters cultural
change.
The goals and objectives have been achieved in the archaeology program. The
department offers an undergraduate program in archaeology that has been described by
the dean as an example of academic excellence. As a consequence, the number of
majors in archaeology has increased sharply in the last few years. In addition, many of
these students have been accepted into some of the best graduate programs in
archaeology and anthropology. This success has created some resource constraints,
both in terms of personnel and physical facilities. In the short-run the department has
maintained the quality in the classroom with teaching loads that are larger than optimal.
However, the department has been diligent in securing resources to sustain quality in the
undergraduate program and keeping the dean and administration informed about their
long-run concerns.
APR’s comments including:
Notable Strengths
1. The Archaeological Studies Major at UW-L is one of the few comprehensive
undergraduate degree programs in archaeology in the United States and the
only one in the Midwest. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it is a
comprehensive, interdisciplinary major that integrates the fields of
Prehistoric Archaeology, Near Eastern Archaeology, Cultural Anthropology,
Geoarchaeology, and Cultural Resources Management.
2. The program emphasizes experiential opportunities for research and
learning. The Archaeological Studies Program currently offers two
opportunities for students to acquire basic field experience in archaeological
excavation; one locally based in the La Crosse area, and an international
field school based in Bolivia.
3. MVAC (Mississippi Valley Archaeology Center) is a non-profit research and
public education institute located on the UW-L campus that supports
undergraduate research experiences and is a source of employment for
students in archaeology. It is a significant asset which offers majors
opportunities similar to what is found at Tier I research universities and
enhances the reputation of the archaeology program.
Notable Weaknesses
1. Physical facilities were a notable weakness highlighted in the self-study.
Two matters that stand out are an adequate undergraduate laboratory
classroom and enhancement of the MVAC facilities. The classroom
laboratory is currently being addressed. Regarding MVAC, the development
of a state and federally approved secure storage space for MVAC for the
current artifact collections is needed. A minor matter, but notable, is an
additional site for the purpose of carrying out research in an appropriate field
school context.
APR comments on any/all of the six specific components of the self-study (if applicable)
Self Study: Purposes
The archaeology program’s mission is to educate high quality undergraduates, facilitate
and participate in research, especially in archaeological field research, and serve as a
resource to the community outside the university.
Self Study: Curriculum
The curriculum is a well-rounded interdisciplinary program in anthropological archaeology
rooted in both the social and natural sciences. An important component of the major is a
required six-credit field school experience taken locally, often in conjunction with MVAC,
or as an international experience. MVAC is largely focused on cultural resource
management and public education. As a direct result of program assessment activities
the core course sequence in the Archaeology Studies major has been improved since the
last self-study. The department has plans for developing a 4-credit lab course which may
move beyond the planning stage if a new teaching laboratory classroom becomes a
reality.
Self Study: Assessment of Student Learning & Degree of Program Success
The program has made substantial progress on program assessment with both direct and
indirect measures. The department has also become engaged in course-embedded
assessment in their general education course and in developing learning outcomes for all
of their core courses. Furthermore, the department has begun to close the loop in
assessment with improvements in curriculum, teaching, and student learning.
Self Study: Previous Academic Program Review and New Program Initiatives
Most of the recommendations of the previous APR report and the outside reviewer
address the sociology program. Two new programs that are in the planning stages are an
anthropology major and a master’s program in archaeology.
Self Study: Personnel
The self-study reported some upcoming retirements. Shortly after completion an
associate director of MVAC was hired. A replacement for Professor Jim Theler was
recently hired starting in the fall of 2011.
Self Study: Support for Achieving Academic Program Goals (Resources)
Physical facilities are a concern, but have been addressed. As with most programs on
campus supplies and equipment are a concern. However, there is a concern for financial
support for the summer Archaeology Field School that incurs extra ordinary expenses that
are not seen in normal summer programs. Concerns were expressed regarding personnel
including heavy workload, replacing retired faculty, and increasing faculty if an
anthropology major or a master’s in archaeology are added to the program.
External Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on External Reviewer (if applicable)
Some of the external reviewer’s recommendations were not especially helpful and
required some filtering. The external reviewer comes from a research institution with a
Ph.D. program in anthropology. Archaeology in the reviewer’s department is a subfield in
the undergraduate anthropology major. The recommendations are overly ambitious and
overly critical for a comprehensive university. The external reviewer recommended lower
student/faculty ratios, an increase of 2 FTE in support staff, an increase in 2 FTE in Ph.D.
archaeologists, the creation of a post-doc archaeologist position and establishing a
separate archaeology/anthropology department. Many of the recommendations would be
appropriate if the department were to pursue a master’s degree in archaeology. Yet the
external reviewer stated that if UWL pursued a master’s in archaeology, “then regrettably
the University of Oklahoma probably won’t be looking at recruiting graduates of UW-La
Crosse’s undergraduate program in archaeology. Yes, I have a vested and biased
perspective of a proposed archaeology graduate program at the University of Wisconsin –
La Crosse.” It was difficult to filter through the external reviewer’s recommendations.
Recommendations that were appropriate are the following:
1. On physical facilities, the reviewer recommended a new teaching lab and more
appropriate quarters for MVAC. Both of these issues have been or are being
addressed. It is anticipated that construction of a new teaching lab will begin in the
summer of 2011.
2. The recommendation for the formal creation of a rotating (every three years) postdoctorate archaeology position for MVAC is intriguing. This position could be selffinancing if there is success in obtaining external grants and contracts.
3. Recommendations for increased collaboration with sociology and anthropology.
The reviewer felt that students have an inadequate background in anthropological
and linguistic theory.
Department’s response to the Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on the Department’s Response (if applicable)
The department’s response to the external reviewer is appropriate. Personnel issues
have been and continue to be addressed. The department is not in agreement that
students need more preparation in cultural anthropology and anthropological linguistics.
This response is appropriate for a comprehensive university. Physical facilities are being
addressed. The department is reviewing a post-doc position for MVAC and opportunities
for collaboration across disciplines.
Dean’s Letter
APR’s Comments on Dean’s Letter (if applicable)
The dean’s letter addressed general issues for the entire department. Specific to
archaeology, the college will be addressing the issues regarding facilities; the classroom
lab and MVAC curation of artifacts. The college is in agreement with the department in
not supporting a new department of archaeology/anthropology separate from sociology.
Finally, the college will support a master’s program only if it does not distract from the
undergraduate program and appropriate resources are available.
APR’s Recommendations (must be completed)
Recommendations:
The undergraduate program in archaeology is an excellent program. The APR committee
makes the following modest recommendations.
1. The program should continue to explore opportunities for increased collaboration
with not only sociology and anthropology, but other disciplines such as history and
geoarchaeology.
2. The program should continue to explore, in conjunction with the dean, workload
issues that allow for more research opportunities while maintaining quality in the
classroom.
3. The committee applauds the significant accomplishments in assessment and
encourages the program to continue with their successful process.
4. Finally, the committee would like the department to consider two separate selfstudy reports on their next review.
x No serious areas to address – review in 7 years
□ Some areas to address – review in 7 years
□ Some areas to address – department should submit short report on progress to Fac
Senate/Provost’s Office in 3 years
* APR’s report to faculty senate will consist of this completed form in electronic form.