Conducta asertiva antisocial

Carried out over three academic years, the participants in the evaluation process were all undergraduate students at the University of St Andrews, educated to at least GCE A-Level or Scottish Highers level. All participants were in either their second or third year of an undergraduate programme of study and had volunteered to take part. Most participants were enrolled in a degree programme which paired archaeology with either ancient or medieval history, with only one student enrolled in a programme with no archaeology weighting. The majority of participants had not previously been exposed to either MMS or LAVA and for those students participating in evaluations conducted in years 2 and 3 of the trials, none had participated in any previous years.

At the start of each evaluation session, prior to any activities being undertaken, all participants were asked to complete a pre-session questionnaire which included questions relating to education, background experiences and IT competency. An example pre-session questionnaire is included in Appendix C. A summary of the responses obtained during the evaluation of LAVA is presented in Table 13. As can be seen, the age distribution of participants in the three evaluation sessions undertaken falls firmly within the 19-21 age range, as expected given their status as undergraduate students. Nearly 70% of the participants, in either their 3rd _{or 4}th _{year of a 4 year course of} undergraduate study, evaluated themselves to have an intermediate level of IT competency as shown in Figure 70, with 23% assessing their skills to be at a novice level and just under 8% assessing their skills to be advanced.

As shown in Figure 71, of those who participated in the evaluation process, just over 23% had gained some form of fieldwork experience, with approximately 35% of the sample having undertaken some form of organised fieldwork training. Of the participants with fieldwork experience, 66% also reported that they had undertaken some fieldwork training. As expected, this result is far higher than for those participants without fieldwork experience, with only 1 in 4 subjects in this category reporting that they had undertaken any fieldwork training. This could be indicative of a general trend, with opportunities to undertake fieldwork training nearly as difficult to come by as opportunities to undertake fieldwork. Alternatively, it could be that those who secured the opportunity for fieldwork experience were more likely to actively engage in preparatory work prior to attending an excavation site. Either way, this difference is noteworthy and should be subject to more detailed investigation, albeit outwith the scope of this work.

Age Range Number of Participants (%)

<17 0 18 0 19 15% 20 61% 21 12% 22 8% 23 0 24 0 25+ 4%

Table 13 – Evaluation Exercise Age Distribution

Self Assessed IT Competency

Advanced Intermediate Novice 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 % of Par ticip an ts

Figure 70 – Self-Assessed IT Competency of Participants

Relationship between Fieldwork Experience and Expedition Training 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Field Work Experience No Field Work Experience

% o f Pa rt ic ip an ts

No Field Work Training Field Work Training

The properties of the sample used in this evaluation process seems to broadly support the lack of opportunity to engage in fieldwork training and onsite excavation work that others have previously discussed [161, 277], with the low take up rates possibly indicating a lack of available training and fieldwork opportunities amongst the sample population. Certainly given the educational background of the sample and the relatively high levels of IT competency reported (with 3 out of 4 participants reporting either intermediate or advanced IT skills) it seems reasonable to suggest that the sample were reasonably self-motivated and keen to further their education. Given this, one could reasonably expect the sample population to report higher levels of fieldwork and fieldwork training experience were opportunities to engage with fieldwork projects and training sessions more widely available.

Rather interestingly, of those participants who reported being involved in some form of fieldwork, 33% had, by their own admission, received no periods of formalised fieldwork training prior to joining an excavation team. This result is surprising and seems to indicate that there are a significant number of fieldwork participants who are ill equipped to benefit from their own site excavation experiences. This could indicate that participants deemed formalised training to be of only limited value, or could otherwise indicate that few opportunities were available for them to undertake any training prior to their involvement on site.

Previously, it has been suggested that prior knowledge and training in the field improves an applicant’s chance of being involved in an excavation project [161]. This view is supported by the findings in this sample population, with significantly higher numbers of students who reported fieldwork experience also reporting fieldwork training than those who reported no fieldwork experience. Given this, it seems surprising that nearly 1/3 of those who were able to gain fieldwork experience were given their opportunities without any prior training activities.