My goals and methods are consciously designed to be consistent with the tenets of anthropology.

A critical attribute of anthropology is participatory fieldwork, and this must be communicated to students effectively. I feel that the traditional dichotomy of teaching and research is an unfortunate one that tends to undermine this aspect of our discipline's image to students. Teachers who desire to impart useful knowledge to students must be willing to participate in theoretical debates with other members of their discipline, and stay on top of issues. A teacher cannot rely on a textbook (often out of date before publication) to maintain that current edge to their lectures, but must attend conferences and be invested in their research. This is especially true in anthropology, a discipline whose Boasian roots insist upon fieldwork in order to even call one's self a member. Students respond to a teacher who can incorporate their own research into the course, letting them in on behind the scenes aspects of data gathering and analysis, or even incorporating them into the class if possible. This not only enlivens the classroom experience, but I believe it shows the student the utility of our discipline and increases retention. I want those students who do not stay in this field to respect the work of those who do. Although research supports teaching, the reverse is equally true. Teaching a course, especially one somewhat outside my research range, has invariably improved my work. I have always struggled to maintain a broad perspective, geographically and theoretically, in my work, and every course I teach reinforces my convictions in this regard.

I am committed to the four field approach in anthropology, and completely eschew attempts to break along subdisciplinary or mere paradigmatic lines. This very directly translates itself into my teaching, as no class that I teach is entirely archaeological. Even the Archaeological Theory and Method course that I taught made the students read a full length ethnography and then write their primary paper on how they would study that same topic and society through archaeological methods and theory. Not only did this require them to deal with standard archaeological methodological issues relating to artifacts and materials, but they were also forced to evaluate archaeology's strengths and weaknesses in relation to the rest of the discipline. The students responded with a gratifying degree of creativity, and they finally learned what I had been talking about when I had said that the topic under investigation largely determines the methodological and conceptual tools we need to use.

I teach in a manner consistent with anthropology's approach to diversity. I of course welcome diversity in the classroom and attempt to get a grasp of this the very first day by asking students to provide information about their majors, past anthropology courses, travel experiences, and possible career goals. Tolerance and understanding of cultural diversity is a core element of anthropology, and I try to maintain this position when dealing with scientific explanation. I try not to stop at the established knowledge of the discipline, but I specifically target those issues open to debate, in order to help expose the issues that drive research today, and keep the discussion relevant. Students in my classes should base their own position not on what I tell them, but on how the evidence and arguments of those involved stack up. We had a saying when teaching people computer courses - "Talk them through it, be specific, lead them by the nose if necessary, but never touch their keyboard for them-". This is equally true in the classroom - maturity and intellectual independence develop through the exercise of those faculties.

My student evaluations to date indicate to me that they respond favorably to my personal style, and that specifically anthropology majors enjoyed the breadth of learning that I deliver. Where I would like to improve is in the diversity of my classroom teaching methods. Although I have been very open to classroom discussion when it occurred, I have been overly dependent on lecture as a method of delivery. I have tried to develop a number of new approaches, especially since I held the position of Academic Computer Support Specialist in an Information Technology department. I am much better prepared now to incorporate web materials into the classroom experience, and for those courses amenable to it, I would like to use computer simulations to improve the hands-on element in my courses. An archaeological field course would be the next step, and I welcome the opportunity to involve students in that environment. Although committed to a theoretical archaeology, I feel that our models and concepts must be capable of being operationalized in the field or on the computer if we are to maintain a rigorous discipline.

Comments to Chris Beekman