Geography Scrapbook: 2013

In this article I identify a unique educational benefit, from the study of geography, and consider its implications for the content of geographical study.

The literature puts forward four key arguments for studying geography. These are: its role as an integrating subject; its ability to provide a sense making ‘frame’ on the world; its capacity to equip students with life skills; and its perspective on time and space. I will test the strength of these arguments by assessing whether they address a current educational challenge, and whether geography provides a unique solution to that challenge.

Ofsted (2011, 2) state that “geography has a distinctive role in the curriculum in linking the disciplines of science and humanities.” This certainly tallies with my own experience during cross subject classroom observations. Globalisation in geography links directly to economics; development geography links to history; and soil formation to chemistry. I have also been called on, in an English lesson studying American road movies, to provide a locational context for students. The scope of geography, therefore, transcends subject boundaries. Is that justification enough for its study? I would argue not. Whilst subject integration is a benefit accruing from the study of geography, a role, as multi-disciplinary glue, is too passive to be the primary reason for its study.

Jackson (2006, 199) sees a more assertive role, for geography. It provides “a unique way of seeing the world, of understanding complex problems and thinking about interconnections at a variety of scales.” He terms this “thinking geographically.” Lambert (2009, 119-125) supports his viewpoint. For both writers, the integrating role of geography is bent to a sense making purpose. This defines an outcome from the study of geography. Whether that outcome provides sufficient reason, to study geography, depends on whether it provides a unique solution to a current educational challenge.

Lambert and Morgan (2010) identify such a challenge. The world is changing at an exponentially faster rate; reskilling is a critical ability, in today’s job market; globalisation means that sudden change is the norm; technical innovation is rapid and knowledge has a short shelf life. The challenge for education has therefore become to equip children to deal with change and uncertainty. To “solve problems that we do not even know exist using technologies that have not yet been invented.” (Lambert & Morgan, 2010, 21). Does “thinking geographically” (Jackson, 2006, 199) provide a unique solution to this challenge?

I would argue that it does. Geography combines a unique and powerful cocktail of skills, knowledge and attitudes. These are catalysed to provide a means by which students can be equipped to meet the reality set out by Lambert and Morgan (2010). Which, though, is the catalyst ingredient, unique to geography? The subject integration and sense making roles, of geography, have already been discussed, as ingredients. Alone they did not make geography’s solution unique. Neither does “fieldwork – that is, learning directly in the untidy real world outside the classroom (Geographical Association, 2008, 30). Real world field enquiry, and application of knowledge, certainly connects geography to life beyond the classroom. However, fieldwork is not unique to geography. It is, therefore, an ingredient, not a catalyst.

For me, geography’s treatment of time and space provides the catalyst. Rawding (2013, 46) reminds us that “notions of time must be central to the teaching of geography.” Geography is not alone, as a subject, in considering time; but it is alone in considering past, present and future with equal weight. This imbues geographers with the skills and behaviour of weighing future consequences; as opposed to solely reviewing the past (history), the present (science), or both (politics). Massey (2006, 50) explains that “a real spatial awareness…… implies an ‘outwardlookingness,’ a willingness to give full recognition to the existence of autonomous others.” (That is, others with different value systems or beliefs, to our own). I would argue that the seeking out, and valuing of, difference and consequence, across time and space, is a truly unique geographical perspective – and the catalyst in the cocktail. This is a perspective with the power to equip geography students to “solve problems that we do not even know exist using technologies that have not yet been invented.” (Lambert & Morgan, 2010, 21)

‘Outwardlookingness’ (Massey, 2006,50) across time and space provides the compelling reason to study geography. Geography simultaneously tackles: historical context; the diversity of our current reality; and the breadth of possible futures. It does so in a spirit of practical enquiry, across disciplines. It enables us to understand past and present, and so actively manage our future. The very nature of this definition of geographical purpose, however, presents some challenges in defining the content of geography. If the purpose of geography is open enquiry across boundaries, its subject matter cannot be defined by drawing neat boundaries around certain information and claiming it as “geographical.” How then, are we to decide what geography to study?

Peter Jackson (2006, 199) suggests a way forward. He caricatures attempts to identify lists of geographical “stuff” as “trivial pursuit” geography; citing, as an example, the learning of lists of capital cities. He goes on to reason that, if geography provides “a unique way of seeing the world, of understanding complex problems and thinking about interconnections” (Jackson, 2006, 199); then it must necessarily be defined in terms of its “unifying concepts.” He proposes four: “space and place; scale and connection; proximity and distance; relational thinking.”(Jackson, 2006, 199). Defining what geography to study in terms of such concepts certainly frees us from disciplinary boundaries and “trivial pursuit”(Jackson, 2006, 199) geography. Does it also sever the connection to space and time? Rawding (2013, 27-52) argues that it may. He critiques both 1970’s theoretical geography and today’s case study based geography for being fragmented, because of a failure to include location. A lack of locational grounding, I would argue, severs critical geographical ties to the real world (space) and to current reality (time). How then to define geographical content, without subject defined boundaries; yet anchored, in an outward looking manner, within time and space?

Lofthouse (2011, 20-21) provides us with a potential answer. She reframes Jackson’s idea of unifying concepts (Jackson, 2006, 199), and puts forward, in their place, the idea of ‘big geographical questions;’ such as “why do people live where they do?” and “how and why does climate change from place to place and time to time?” (Lofthouse, 2011, 21). Framing geographical content as a series of ‘big questions’ (Massey, 2006, 50) certainly models outward enquiry and dodges subject boundaries, for the student. It also links enquiry to the real world, without prescribing whether that be past, present or future. To me it’s an instinctively attractive way forward. Reflecting on the source of my attraction to it, I find that it centres on a double win. There’s a quick win for the student, which brings engagement. By discovering the answer to a big question, the student has immediate personal gratification - in the form of new understanding of their relationship with the world around them. There is also a longer term win for student and teacher. Skills and attitudes, applicable to life beyond the classroom, have been internalised during the process of answering the ‘big question’ (Massey, 2006, 50). Despite this double win, I am, left with a nagging concern. That is - how does the student gain a sufficient sense of context, in order to answer the big questions?

My concern is that the student of geography, as an outward looking explorer, needs a large scale mental map, of the territory in which they are to seek their answers - if they are to succeed in their quest. This concern is partly based on neuroscience, which tells us that we learn by adding to our existing mental maps. (Muijs & Reynolds, 2005, 23-25); and partly based on practical experience. To find my way around a new town, I require landmarks, in order to navigate. I am anxious, at all costs, to avoid descending into the “trivial pursuit” geography (Jackson, 2006, 199) of rote learned lists. Equally, however, I am convinced that, before a student can set out to explore ‘big questions’ (Massey, 2006, 50), geography teaching must enable them to create a mental map of territory (space); and to annotate it with landmarks, processes (human and physical) and key events (time).

The student’s mental map can itself be built up through scaffolded enquiry into ‘big questions’ (Massey, 2006, 50). The way that I see this working is for early years’ geography to focus on locally occurring processes and events. (Local to link with existing mental maps of student experience.) Mid years’ geography then asks questions which broaden the mental map, in space and time, such as: where can the early years’ local map be applied; where does it not apply; why the difference? This line of questioning gradually shifts the focus of the question away from location, process and event, towards an exploration of Jackson’s (2006, 199) ‘unifying concepts’. In later years geographical study, the ‘big questions’ (Massey, 2006, 50) wholly concern the exploration of unifying concepts across a student’s, by now, detailed and well-thumbed mental map of our world; human and physical; past, present and future.

REFERENCES

Geographical Association. (2008) Geographical Association. Available from http://www.geography.org.uk/download/GA_ADV-summary.pdf [Accessed 04 October 2013]

Jackson, P. (2006). ‘Thinking Geographically’, Geography, 91:3, 199

Lambert, D. (2009). ‘A Different View’, Geography, 94:2, 119-125

Lambert, D. and Morgan, J. (2010) Teaching Geography 11-18. A Conceptual Approach.(pp21-35). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Lofthouse, R. (2011) ‘Is this Big Enough? Using Big Geographical Questions to Develop Subject Pedagogy’, Teaching Geography, Spring 2011, 20-21.

Massey, D (2006)’The Geographical Mind’ in Balderstone, D. (2006) Secondary Geography Handbook. (p 50). Sheffield: Geographical Association.

Muijs, D and Reynolds, D. (2005) Effective Teaching. (pp 23-25) 2^nd ed . London:Sage

Ofsted (2011) Ofsted. Available from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/geography-learning-make-world-of-difference [Accessed 05 October 2013]

Rawding, C. (2013) Effective Innovation in the Secondary Geography Curriculum. A Practical Guide. (pp 27-52)Oxon: Routledge.

Geography Scrapbook

Sunday, 27 October 2013

GLACIATION - KEY THEMES MIND MAP

IRAN - A MENTAL MAP

WHY STUDY GEOGRAPHY?

About Me