In particular, Ferguson focuses on scaffolding as a means of skill acquisition, in which a novice will work closely with a skilled craftsperson to lean the steps involved in the creation of a tool while only performing the steps that he or she can successfully complete. By providing scaffolding, a group can effectively train novices while producing functional tools. The implementation of a scaffolding instructive technique will therefore be influenced by the access to and value of raw material, recyclability of raw material, dangers of craft production, the individual’s physical and mental development, and social or cultural factors.
Ferguson then describes an experiment in which he compares two methods of instruction in stone tool manufacture. Two groups of four adult volunteers, randomized for sex and previous tool experience, were brought into the lab and taught how to flintknap. One group was given a visual demonstration and verbal instruction, the other was taught using scaffolding to minimize loss of raw material. Each volunteer produced 30 projectile points, with every fifth point being sampled and shown in sequence. In the case of the scaffolding group, these six points were completed without any scaffolding assistance so that they could be compared to the verbal instruction group. The final five points of each volunteer were completed with no assistance to assess the effectiveness of each teaching method. (See table 1)
| Instructional Method | Knapper(s) | Points Created |
|---|---|---|
| Skilled Knapper | Ferguson | 29 points |
| Scaffolding | 4 volunteers | o Each created 30 points o Most points were created with Ferguson performing all steps that the volunteers could not complete successfully o Every fifth point was created without manual assistance |
| Verbal instruction and visual demonstration | 4 volunteers | o Each created 30 points o All created without manual assistance |
The results showed that verbal instruction and demonstration was less effective at creating functional points during the learning process and produced only two out of four competent knappers. Scaffolding on the other hand, almost always produced functional points (except every fifth point that was sampled) and produced three out of four competent knappers. Ferguson used the maximum width to thickness ratio (W/T), which measures a knapper’s ability to thin a biface, to show efficacy of teaching methods and conservation of raw material.
When instructed to cover the entire surface of the points with pressure flake scars, the volunteers fell in to two categories depending on their experience with tools, with the frequent tool users being much more proficient in this regard. Ferguson suggests that because children have even less forearm strength and precision in hand movements than the non-tool users, they are likely to be even less proficient. If this were the case, no amount of scaffolding would have been sufficient to teach knapping, and instruction would not have begun until early puberty. Ferguson concludes that archaeologists cannot assume that artefacts demonstrating unskilled production were made by children.
Ferguson defines three situations in which archaeologists should look to find evidence of children and their participation in craft production (1) formal apprenticeships (2) scaffolding, which will appear as the absence of other methods of teaching, and (3) individual experimentation, the most obvious sign of child participation. It is important for archaeologists to note that an increase in scaffolding will cause a decrease in archaeological visibility of novices.
Finally, Ferguson discusses the variability among stone tools as a measure of proficiency. It is generally assumed that the more uniform a lithic assemblage is, the greater the expertise of the individual or group that produced it. This theory was corroborated by Ferguson’s own experiment in which his points had the greatest standardization and the verbal instruction groups had the greatest variability. However he cautions that this may not always be the case, referencing examples in which expert craftspeople strived to produce variability in their work.
Ferguson’s discussion of the differing methods acquiring craft production skills is a necessary one given that this will have considerable consequences on the form of the archaeological record. The majority of the factors he discusses are accessible to archaeologists such as the avaialability of raw material, the recyclability of material and dangers associated in production. Given these factors, deviations from the expected pattern may be due to the less understood variables of individual development or social/cultural factors.
Both in the introduction and before introducing the experiment, Ferguson highlights the inaccuracy of conflating the terms “novice” and “child” when dealing with the products of unskilled craftspeople. He states that, “Unless unskilled work can be shown to be the work of children, it should not be assumed to be the work of children.” Although this is an important concern, Ferguson himself repeatedly makes this mistake, conflating the terms “novice” and “child” throughout his discussion on instructional methods. When making statements such as, “There are numerous examples in which the general access to and value of raw material influenced the specific access of novices to raw material….In cases where raw material is relatively abundant and low in value, children may be permitted to experiment, either on their own,” Ferguson conflates these two terms which he previously goes to lengths to disentangle.
However, the most significant criticism of this paper can be leveled against the experimental methods and conclusions that demonstrate differences between instructional techniques. In this study, two out of the four volunteers taught by verbal instruction and demonstration became competent knappers, while three out of four taught by scaffolding became competent. This is a difference of a single individual, yet Ferguson concludes that “While this is a small sample size, the scaffolding method was more successful at producing knappers skilled at small point pressure flaking while at the same time conserving raw material.” It is difficult to tell whether this statement is incorrect or simply misleading, its exact meaning depending heavily on how it is interpreted. In any case, it is not possible to conclude that scaffolding is a more successful method of producing knappers with a difference of a single volunteer.
To support the claim that scaffolding is a superior method of instruction, Ferguson turns to the W/T ratio, a calculation that is “useful in demonstrating the utility of scaffolding in both teaching novices to knap and in conservation of raw material.” He compares these measurements in his own points, the 25 points of each volunteer taught using scaffolding, and the first 25 points of each volunteer taught through verbal instruction. The points selected introduce significant bias into this comparison of efficacy of teaching methods. First, by selecting the points from the scaffolding group that he in fact helped to produce, Ferguson is elevating the apparent ability of these volunteers who did not complete the majority of the flake removals until the 15th-20th points. A better method of comparison may have been to use every fifth point from the scaffolding group, which was entirely made by the volunteers, as these would have best represented what they had learned. Secondly, Ferguson does not include the final five points of the group that received verbal instruction, removing what was most likely their best work.
Finally, although Ferguson discusses the merits and drawbacks of scaffolding and experimentation as methods of instruction, he only refers to the effects on the immediate act of instruction, and not in the wider context of daily activities. For example, scaffolding may have advantages in that the points produced will be functional, however this teaching method may involve a greater participation on the part of the expert, time that would be taken from other necessary activities. A log of the time spent actively assisting each of the two groups would have provided a simple yet useful addition to the study.
Despite the problems in the design and conclusions in his study, Ferguson raises a very important theoretical point. The evidence of novice craft production in the archaeological record will show significant variation depending on how instruction was carried out, and in the case of scaffolding, there may be little or no evidence at all.
Reference:
Ferguson, Jeffrey R. 2008. The When, Where, and How of Novices in Craft Production. J Archaeol Method Theory 15:51-67.
No comments:
Post a Comment