STUDENTS ABOUT THE RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRACTICE (BASED ON THE FIELD REPORTS OF TRAINEES FROM NOVOSIBIRSK AND TOMSK STATE UNIVERSITIES)

Abstract

Purpose. One of the key rules in the organization of practices is to create conditions for students to have the opportunity to study. The question arises: how much is this understood (accepted) by student interns? The article was prepared on the basis of reports on field archaeological practices submitted by students of Novosibirsk and Tomsk State Universities, which were held on the basis of West Siberian and Toguchin detachments. We chose archaeological practice as the subject matter because archaeological practice completes the first year of studying at university, and it is a unique outcome and an opportunity to get some results and identify an educational route for the future. Archaeological practice has not yet become the subject of close study of researchers, as well as other practices. The main tasks formulated by the head of the archaeological practice to students are reduced to three provisions: 1. To consolidate, deepen, expand knowledge on archeology and history of Siberia learnt at lectures and seminars, show the diversity of archaeological sources; 2. To lay the foundations of professional skills and organization of work in the archaeological expedition, field and financial documentation, primary cameral processing of materials, field restoration and conser vation of findings, preliminary interpretation of the data; 3. To develop professional skills that facilitate the formation of interns as independent researchers. Results. In their practice reports, freshmen indicate the tasks that they faced. All noted that the first task had been successfully accomplished. It can be stressed that students build additional knowledge gained in practice into the system of knowledge that resulted from the training in the first year; and that a backlog for future practices is formed. The success of the second task was also stated. The vast majority of trainees had a field archaeological experience for the first time, and in the shortest possible time they mastered many practical skills that they had not previously had. The implementation of the third task in the reports was not as clear as the first two. Many students either did not reflect the results of its implementation, or limited the description to some general phrases. Conclusion. Bearing in mind that «practice should not only be a place for approbation of abilities, but also a platform for problematizing future professional activity», the latter point requires close attention and further work, as we conclude from the reports of the trainee students.