UMASS Boston Anthropology Outreach

The American Biology Teacher, 1987

is an associate professor of anthropology at Illinois State Univ., Normal, IL 61761. He earned his Ph.D. in Physical Anthropology at the Univ. of Kansas in 1975 and has taught at Illinois State since 1974. He coauthored with David Hunter and Phillip Whitten a college-level textbook entitled The Study of Physical Anthropology and Archaeology (1979, Harper and Row). He also has published in The Sciences (The New York Academy of Sciences) and various other journals. He is especially interested in human evolution, the biological bases of human behavior, the history of the study of human evolution and the creationism controversy.

Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2022

Comprehensive understanding of evolution is essential to full and meaningful engagement with issues facing societies today. Yet this understanding is challenged by lack of acceptance of evolution as well as misconceptions about how evolution works that persist even after student completion of college-level life science courses. Recent research has suggested that active learning strategies, a focus on science as process, and directly addressing misconceptions can improve students' understanding of evolution. This paper describes an innovative, inquiry-based laboratory curriculum for introductory biological anthropology employing these strategies that was implemented at West Chester University (WCU) in 2013-2016. The key objectives were to help students understand how biological anthropologists think about and explore problems using scientific approaches and to improve student understanding of evolution. Lab activities centered on scenarios that challenged students to solve problems using the scientific method in a process of guided inquiry. Some of these activities involved application of DNA techniques. Formative and summative learning assessments were implemented to measure progress toward the objectives. One of these, a pre-and postcourse evolution concepts survey, was administered at WCU (both before and after the implementation of the new curriculum) and at three other universities with more standard introductory biological anthropology curricula. Evolution survey results showed greater improvement in understanding from pre-to post-course scores for WCU students compared with students at the comparison universities (p < .001). WCU students who took the inquiry-based curriculum also had better understanding of evolution at the post-course period than WCU students who took the course prior to implementation of the new curriculum (p < .05). In-class clicker assessments demonstrated improved understanding of evolution concepts (p < .001) and scientific method (p < .05) over the course of individual labs. Two labs that involved applying DNA methods received the highest percentage ratings by students as 'very useful' to understanding important concepts of evolution and human variation. WCU student ratings of their confidence in using the scientific method showed greater improvement pre-to post-course during the study period as compared with the earlier, pre-implementation period (p < .05). The student-centered biological anthropology laboratory curriculum

Debates and discussions are among of the most fruitful means of development of science, although their value considerably has decreased because of the academic devolution and placing at the seats of teachers-scientists career makers dedicated to a sort of reproduction which secure their positions. Unfortunately, this is the riverbed of the discussion opened by Sharon N. DeWitte who wrote a text (even published in an “academic” journal), which attempted to have defended the bioanthropologists blamed by an author that they were “grave-robbing scientists”. Although the author presumes a metaphoric use of the term, there is a fear in Sh. N. DeWitte that the external stakeholders of bioarnthropology may understand wrongly the published article and will stop sponsor bioanthropology. It is strange that being an employee of a university, Sh. N. DeWitte very extensively uses funds of National Science Foundation (NSF), without any fundamental contribution to science. Such activities is one of the reasons NSF to cut with 45% the funds for social sciences. But is bioanthropology a real social science?

The University of Montana's Paleo Exploration Project (PEP) was a professional development program for K-12 Montana teachers, which also provided authentic, field-based, residential summer research experiences for over 80 Montana middle school students. The program's scientific focus was the ancient environments and fossils of eastern Montana, which to leveraged student's innate interest in dinosaurs to build a deeper understanding of "doing science" and encouraged future pursuit of STEM coursework and careers. Two week-long summer institutes were held in 2007 and in 2008, with the second year's program being modified based on lessons learned during the first year. In this article, we present qualitative results from students' pre-and post-program surveys and exit interviews, which suggest that the program helped them gain insights into what science is, what scientists do, and how technology is employed in science. Students showed a significant increase in enthusiasm for their upcoming science classes, increased self-efficacy in science and technology, and increased interest in STEM careers. Challenges, insights, and recommendations for implementing residential, field-based science programs for middle-school aged students are presented.

Teaching and Learning Anthropology, 2021

A Companion to Biological Anthropology, 2nd Edition, 2023

While biological anthropology intersects with science education via numerous topics, and many practicing biological anthropologists are college or university faculty members, studies of biological anthropology pedagogical best practices at the undergraduate level are scarce. The purpose of this chapter is to (1) outline obstacles and opportunities in teaching two content areas in biological anthropology perceived as "controversial": human evolution and human variation (sometimes understood as "race") and (2) present evidence-based recommendations for pedagogical best practices and approaches that US college and university faculty members can use when teaching these topics in undergraduate classrooms.

Teaching and Learning Anthropology, 2018

Curriculum development in biological anthropology requires instructors to generate learning outcomes for both anthropology and biology majors. However, these students have substantially different backgrounds. Anthropology curricula do not always require biology prerequisites, and many instructors are concerned that anthropology majors may not be as prepared to learn biology content. As bioanthropological research increasingly relies on genetics and phylogenomics, a strong emphasis needs to be put on integrating biological content into anthropology courses. The core-level "Human Evolution" course at Virginia Commonwealth University is taught under an anthropology rubric. The course is divided into four primary units: two units cover topics that are also explored in lower-level biology courses (e.g., DNA inheritance) and two units focus on paleoanthropological topics (e.g., hominin taxonomy). Here, we compare results of course assessments between anthropology and biology majors across four semesters to determine whether students in the two majors performed differently on units with "biology" content versus "anthropology" content. A series of statistical tests reveal that overall, anthropology and biology majors are earning comparable final grades in the course. Additionally, when assessment results for units with differing content are contrasted, anthropology and biology majors scored comparably on "anthropology" content units. However, in some semesters, biology majors scored statistically significantly better in the "biology" units than in "anthropology" units, and in one semester, anthropology majors scored statistically significantly better than biology majors in "biology" content. These results suggest that it is biology majors, rather than anthropology majors, who are deficient in an integrated bioanthropological perspective. We recommend that anthropology and biology departments consider introducing an integrated curriculum that is interdisciplinary rather than multidisciplinary by design.