IMPAC ANNUAL REPORT
2003-2004
Cluster IV Social and Behavioral: Anthropology
Scott A. Lukas, Lead Discipline Faculty
Lake Tahoe College

Summary of Identified Issues
The Anthropology IMPAC meetings of 2003-2004 represented a continuation of the successful review of the previous year. The introduction of two new CAN courses—Biological/Physical Anthropology Laboratory (CAN ANTH 10) and Introduction to Language and Anthropological Linguistics (CAN ANTH 8)—and the overall positive discussion of curriculum and disciplinary trends in Anthropology has created an important foundation for the 2003-2004 review. Anthropology faculty have met in multiple venues, including IMPAC regional and statewide meetings and those of the California Community Colleges Anthropology Teachers Conference. This core has allowed for continuity in the project as well as renewed professional connections among anthropologists in the state.

Because of the 2002-2003 Anthropology IMPAC review, it was necessary to revise CAN courses in the discipline. It was decided that two new CAN courses would be supported in 2003-2004: Magic, Witchcraft and Religion (CAN ANTH 3) and Native Peoples of North America (CAN ANTH 5). Reviews of CSU, UC and CCC grids indicated that these two courses were the most popular of existing Anthropology courses that were not a part of CAN. At the California Community Colleges Anthropology Teachers Conference in San Luis Obispo, California on January 16 and 17, 2004, subcommittees were formed to discuss descriptor language of the new courses. The descriptors were revised through e-mail and further discussion at regional and statewide IMPAC meetings.

A second concern of the Anthropology IMPAC review involved the continued analysis of disciplinary trends initiated in 2002-2003. An immediate issue that ensued as a result of the University of California at Berkeley’s concern that online Anthropology courses, specifically Cultural Anthropology (CAN ANTH 4), did not meet curricular requirements and thus would not be accepted for transfer. At the California Community Colleges Anthropology Teachers Conference unanimous support for the teaching of all online courses in Anthropology was expressed. The topic soon expanded beyond the Anthropology faculty with the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges taking a position of supporting the teaching of online courses in the discipline. Greater communication among the three segments will hopefully alleviate any future concern of this sort.

A third focus related to the desire to maintain and expand professional networks and connections among anthropologists. The success of the annual California Community Colleges Anthropology Teachers Conference has allowed for better communication about the Anthropology IMPAC review and for renewing faculty members’ interest in the discipline. Broadening the connections of anthropologists in California’s three systems of education to include relationships with the American Anthropological Association and the Society for Anthropology in Community Colleges has also been stated as a desirable goal.

A final goal of this year’s review was to relate the overall IMPAC review in the discipline to the development of successful pedagogical strategies, marketing of the discipline, and the development of opportunities for students in Anthropology. Among anthropologists there is high confidence in IMPAC and a belief that because foundations have been established, future Anthropology IMPAC reviews can be broadened to include these additional important foci.

Identified Trends/Future Directions
One of the immediate concerns that was raised by anthropologists at both at the California Community Colleges Anthropology Teachers Conference and regional and statewide IMPAC meetings is that of SLOs—student learning outcomes. The issue was also considered in a recent article in Anthropology News (“Needed: Best Practices for Academic Program Assessments, Linda Wolfe, Anthropology News 45(2):20), the professional publication of the American Anthropological Association. During this year’s IMPAC review, anthropologists spoke to the need of preparing for SLO implementation mandated by new accreditation standards in the community colleges. Consensus was evident in the desire to develop SLOS for each of the four fields, as opposed to having them developed by administrators or non-anthropologists. There was a lack of consensus as to the approach that should be taken in the implementation of the SLOs in reference to the specific classes of each of the four fields. For example, programs like the Archaeological Technology program at Cabrillo College, which is a vocational archaeology program, already specify standards similar to SLOs. Adapting to the new standards would be easy in this case. Though some members of the field suggested that SLOs in Anthropology could be easily developed—such as “A successful student will be able to create a three-generation kinship chart in Introduction to Cultural Anthropology” (CAN ANTH 4)—others testified that SLOs would be difficult in the cases of ambiguous concepts utilized within the discipline. One illustration focuses on the idea of “culture” in Cultural Anthropology. Though historic understandings of the concept referenced it in unified and homogenous terms, contemporary cultural anthropology often recognizes that “culture” is an ambiguous, fluid and contested idea. Some members of this year’s review process said that quantifying “culture” as a meaningful SLO would be close to impossible. It should be noted that this issue was raised in initial discussions, and that future considerations of the implementation of SLOs in Anthropology will be had. One current strategy is to develop panel discussions at meetings of the American Anthropological Association or other regional Anthropology meetings. As part of this strategy, statewide anthropologists will create subcommittees to address Anthropology SLOs in each of the four fields.

Comments from Statewide Meetings and the General Field
The addition of new CAN courses in the discipline was addressed at regional and statewide IMPAC meetings. It was agreed to forward two new courses, Native Peoples of North America (CAN ANTH 5) and Magic, Witchcraft and Religion (CAN ANTH 3). The decision to forward these courses was based on recommendations detailed in the 2002-2003 report, discussions in the field and review of a grid of all community college Anthropology courses.

At the regional meetings, anthropologists met with faculty from other disciplines to discuss cross-disciplinary issues. Emphasis was given to meeting with disciplines not contacted in the 2002-2003 review. The following is a summary of those discussions.

Child Development
The two disciplines met to consider curricular and disciplinary relationships. A first clear connection was that of cultural diversity. Both disciplines emphasize the appreciation of cultural diversity in their curriculum. In some districts a Culture of the Child class is offered, often cross-listed in Anthropology and Child Development. De Anza College offers ANTH 69, Early Childhood Education Principles and Practices (Cross-Cultural Emphasis). Some interesting ideas emerged regarding service learning opportunities. One example is to involve Anthropology students in conducting observations at Early Childhood Education centers. Another idea is a suggested course on cultural competency and the child.

History
Anthropology and History faculty met for the first time during the 2003-2004 IMPAC review. Initial discussion centered on the relationships between Introduction to Archaeology or World Prehistory and World History courses. Concern was raised about the overlap between such classes. Historians said that their early history classes cover archaeological and prehistory topics, but that these topics act as marketing opportunities for Anthropology. History curriculum is dependent on CSET (California Subject Examinations for Teachers) requirements—a situation not present in Anthropology. It was agreed that further discussion among faculty in the two disciplines would be productive.

Nursing
As was the experience in the 2002-2003 review, the discussion of cross-disciplinary issues with Nursing faculty was valuable. One topic that was considered was the fulfillment of BRN (Board of Registered Nursing) requirements with social science courses. Introduction to Sociology (CAN SOC 2) and Introduction to Cultural Anthropology (CAN ANTH 4) are commonly used to fulfill some of these requirements. Introduction to Cultural Anthropology is an important requirement due to its cross-cultural, applied and problem-solving perspectives. Discussion also centered on the flexibility of course offerings in Anthropology to allow Nursing majors to fit courses in their schedule. In this respect, some Nursing faculty felt that online Anthropology courses would be effective. Nursing faculty expressed interest in cross-cultural connections of the two disciplines. Linguistic Anthropology offers Nursing majors background in language and culture and can assist them in multilingual certification sometimes required in the discipline. Transcultural Nursing, another focus in contemporary Nursing, was also addressed in the discussions. It was suggested that Anthropology and Nursing could collaborate on cross-cultural approaches to medicine and healing. Some Nursing faculty expressed interest in CANing a Medical Anthropology course. A final focus was to develop anthropological cultural enrichment classes at local hospitals. It was argued that such classes would fulfill the missions of both disciplines.

Recommendations for the Discipline
1. For future meetings of anthropologists, faculty should bring copies of college catalogs, course descriptors, and documentation of degrees or certificates in Anthropology. These resources will allow for a review of disciplinary trends in Anthropology.

2. Anthropology certificates, such as the one developed in Applied Anthropology at Lake Tahoe Community College, are one way to market the discipline on college campuses. Further research should be conducted to determine the applicability of such certificates in community college Anthropology programs. Attention should be given to the development of certificates in consultation with four-year programs in the discipline as well as local and regional businesses and agencies that could assist in supporting certificates.

3. Anthropologists should focus on ways of increasing student interest in Anthropology. Examples might include Anthropology clubs, Anthropology scholarships, guest speakers and Anthropology expos, such as that at Sacramento City College. The idea of this event is to market Anthropology by having each anthropologist speak about her or his research and teaching emphases.

4. One method of marketing the Anthropology major, evidenced by L.A. Pierce College’s Anthropology program, is to increase the visibility of Anthropology courses descriptors in the college catalog. Other community college Anthropology programs should consider this and other marketing efforts.

5. A significant portion of the program at the California Community Colleges Anthropology Teachers Conference in San Luis Obispo, California emphasized the need to develop effective pedagogical approaches in the discipline. Roberta Lenkeit and Don Lenkeit have pioneered some important efforts in this regard. Texts like Prentice-Hall’s Strategies in Teaching Anthropology also offer excellent pedagogical resources for the discipline. Future consideration of establishing links between the IMPAC process and pedagogy should be maintained.

6. Anthropologist Pam Lindell expressed interest in forming a Sacramento area Anthropology department consortium that would parallel the Bay Area consortium developed by Rob Edwards—the Central California Consortium for Archaeology Technology. An idea to consider is to form a third, Southern California/Los Angeles consortium to increase professional connections among Anthropology programs in the three systems.

7. The creation of Anthropology museums, such as the one at Merritt College, should be considered as a pedagogical resource for students. The use of the Internet to produce virtual Anthropology museums may be another effective way to increase awareness about the discipline and to improve student learning.

8. At the community college, level anthropologists should gather to discuss the drafting of Student Learning Outcomes in each of the four fields. This should be done prior to their being mandated by groups external to the discipline.

9. Anthropologists from the three California educational systems should share program plans or internal reviews of their Anthropology departments. Such analysis can benefit future work in the IMPAC process.

10. Over the last two revisions of the discipline, cross-discipline discussions have been very productive. In the future, anthropologists should consider meeting with Psychology, Geography, Foreign Language and English in order assess other issues related to Anthropology.

11. The 2004-2005 cycle of review should include considerations of the following potential CAN courses: Peoples of the World, Medical Anthropology, and splitting Introduction to Archaeology to create a World Prehistory course. Continued research as to the placement of current and future CAN courses in the Anthropology major should also be conducted.

12. Efforts should be made to develop better communication between anthropologists in the three systems in California. One strategy is to utilize Internet resources to facilitate effective sharing of ideas about IMPAC, teaching Anthropology, and creating other professional connections among anthropologists in the state.

13. Especially in districts where Anthropology budgets are slim, Internet resources should be analyzed for their use in pedagogical contexts. One example is the prevalence of free Internet videos and films. Frontline World (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/) offers multimedia websites and materials appropriate for Anthropology courses.

Recommendations for Support Courses
1. Previous cross-discipline discussions have indicated overlaps in some areas of curriculum. An example is the topic of prehistory in History and Anthropology (archaeology). Further reviews should assess any overlap in curriculum between Anthropology and other disciplines.

2. Analysis of methods of increasing enrollments in Anthropology should be had, especially as curriculum might be expanded for other disciplines like Nursing and Child Development.

Topics for Further Discussion
Future IMPAC reviews in Anthropology should continue the successful course set in the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 reviews. The establishment of professional connections among anthropologists through IMPAC and the California Community Colleges Anthropology Teachers Conference is an important step in creating continuity among anthropologists in the three educational systems. Continuation of these efforts, and expansion of them, will guarantee greater success of Anthropology students in the three systems. Anthropologists should consider creating Anthropology consortia like the one developed by Rob Edwards at Cabrillo College.

Review of the CSU/UC and CCC Anthropology grids should be maintained. As new CAN courses are proposed and old ones are modified, attention should be given to the state of the discipline as reflected in current curricula. As well, the Anthropology major should be reviewed in each of the three systems to further the ability of Anthropology students to be successful in their educational pursuits. Marketing efforts should also be discussed. The two previous years of review and the discussions at the California Community Colleges Anthropology Teachers Conference have allowed for fruitful ideas about marketing to emerge. These considerations should be a priority in the next cycle of reviews.

The field should address pedagogical trends in the discipline, especially as they relate to the IMPAC review and CAN. A priority for next year’s considerations is the development of SLOs in Anthropology. Additionally, the field has expressed interest in continuing the development of effective teaching strategies in the discipline. Attention should also be given to analyzing new pedagogical trends in the discipline, such as the one raised in 2003-2004 regarding online Anthropology courses.

A final area of concern that is worthy of discussion in the next review is the opportunity to develop Associate degrees and certificates in Anthropology. The field should address the ways in which Anthropology can receive greater attention at the community college level.

Recommendations Forwarded to CAN
Addition of CAN Anthropology Descriptors: See Anthropology Appendix 1.

Outreach Presentations
The use of the Anthropology IMPAC website (http://www.scottlukas.com/impac.htm) has allowed for better communication about the goals of the IMPAC process as well as facilitation of discussion about CAN revisions and review of the annual IMPAC report. The Internet should be continued as a valuable means of outreach in the discipline.

Anthropology Appendix 1

New CAN Anthropology Courses

CAN ANTH 3 Magic, Witchcraft and Religion
This course is an anthropological introduction to forms, functions, origins and expressions of belief systems and rituals within their cultural contexts. Topics include religious symbolism, myth, magic, divination, animism, animatism, shamanism, totemism, ancestor worship, religious specialists, witchcraft, syncretism, millenarian and other religious movements.

CAN ANTH 5 Native Peoples of North America
This course is an introductory survey of the culture areas of native North American peoples. Topics include ecological adaptations, language, social organization, belief systems, artistic representations, post-contact history and cultural changes, and native peoples’ current positions in society.