Virtually Scanning Jamestown 1607-1610

The Virtual Curation Laboratory, located at Virginia Commonwealth University, has been 3D scanning artifacts in collaboration with Jamestown Rediscovery from a very narrow period of time,1607 to 1610. This short time period includes the founding of the Jamestown colony and the Starving Time, where colonists consumed dogs, their seven horses, and at least one young woman. The intersection of Native Americans and Europeans can also be seen with native-made artifacts found in European contexts or altered by European contact. This poster will feature a butchered dog mandible and a butchered horse tibia from the Starving Time, native-made and European-made pipes and ceramics, a projectile point, and a jeweler’s mold.https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/uresposters/1065/thumbnail.jp

Integrating Anthropology and Biology: Comparing Success Rates and Learning Outcomes for University-Level Human Evolution Courses

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.

Integrating Anthropology and Biology: Comparing Success Rates and Learning Outcomes for University-Level Human Evolution Courses

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.