13GEOGRAPHICAL EDUCATION VOLUME 30, 2017

is the pronounced shortage of teachers with geography backgrounds (it is a problem felt to a greater or lesser degree in many jurisdictions, including Australia). The project, named Powerful Geography (www.powerfulgeography.org), aspires to provide the empirical research basis to facilitate the transfer of powerful geographical knowledge in the form of voluntary national standards into state-level curricula and teacher education programs. In the US, this will require finding more effective ways of engaging non-specialist teachers and helping them first grasp, and then represent, powerful geographical knowledge so that it is understandable by students.

Students across the US often lack access to geography education in schools. In some states, this is a result of the subject’s complete absence in the curriculum. Even in states where geography is a required middle or high school course, it is usually taught by non-specialist teachers. Approximately 1,500,000 teachers may be responsible for teaching geography, either as part of social studies in grades K-6, as a stand- alone or combined course in grades 7-8, or as a stand-alone or combined course in grades 9-12 (Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education, 2015). Allowing for variations in certification requirements across states and by grade level, most teachers will only take one or two geography courses during their teacher education program. Typically, these courses are introductory-level, either aimed at a general education audience or intended as a first course in a major. Because of this inadequate preparation, teachers have long found it difficult to teach the subject in a way that is consistent with the intentions of national and state curriculum standards (Anderson & Leinhardt, 2002; Chiodo, 1993; Diem, 1982; Reinfried, 2006; Segall, 2002; Bednarz, 2003; Schell, Roth, & Mohan, 2013; Segall & Helfenbein, 2008).

The broader impacts of US federal research in geography, especially as they relate to knowledge transfer, education, and workforce preparation, will remain severely curtailed until schools gain greater capacity in the form of teachers who are more fluent in the discipline’s conceptual vocabulary and processes. Over several decades, there have been multiple attempts to upgrade school curricula based on advancements in disciplinary thought, from the spatial scientific approach of the National Science Foundation- funded High School Geography Project in the 1960s (Helburn, 1965) to contemporary national standards including Geography for life: National geography standards (Heffron & Downs, 2012), the Next generation science standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013), the Common core state standards for mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council

of Chief State School Officers, 2010), and The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for inquiry in social studies state standards (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013). All of these documents in their different ways are impressive, and yet in most state jurisdictions the curriculum they envision will never be enacted as intended until non-specialist teachers gain the disciplinary knowledge necessary for their interpretation. Our contention is that the idea of powerful knowledge, possibly supported by tools such a Maude’s typology, may provide a highly productive means to induct non-specialist teachers into the educational potential of geography.

The difficulty of implementing geography standards in schools is underscored by twenty years of contemporaneous data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress in Geography that confirms persistent low levels of student performance and aptitude in the subject, with aggregate test scores for Hispanic students barely scoring above Basic (partial mastery), and African American students as a whole never reaching the Basic level (Government Accountability Office, 2015). In the terms we set out earlier in this paper, this is nothing less than capabilities deprivation on a mass scale and a direct consequence of curriculum thinking mired in F1 and F2 practices.

There are of course many other factors contributing to the United States’ present challenges in providing K-12 geography instruction: pressure to teach other subjects, uneven quality of textbooks and other instructional materials, poor public perceptions of the subject, and a lack of support from the federal government and other important stakeholders (GAO, 2015). The Powerful Geography project is not designed to address all of these issues simultaneously. It does focus, however, on providing the research basis for reforming geography teacher education and standards development that will create the foundation necessary for future systemic change.

Conclusions The GeoCapabilities website (www.geocapabilities. org) is not the place to go for ready-made lesson plans and classroom-ready teaching materials. It is a site designed to support the development of curriculum leadership in geography, a principle that we contend is a legitimate aspiration for all who teach the subject. The four training modules can be adopted and/or adapted by individuals or groups of teachers who wish to deepen and extend their capacities as curriculum leaders. It explicitly asks teachers to resist the strong pressure that exists to roll up their sleeves and immediately get stuck into the technical

http://www.geocapabilities.org

http://www.geocapabilities.org

14 GEOGRAPHICAL EDUCATION VOLUME 30, 2017

challenges of practical teaching. Vital though practical competence is, the GeoCapabilities approach is concerned with the ethical question of what is taught, and with what purpose. Visitors to the site will see that the project advocates a sequence of thought that begins with a serious consideration of who are the children we teach. Following this, the project exhorts us to ask, so why teach them geography? Only after exploring this question can we consider what it is we should teach them.

Readers may argue that it is not for us, as teachers, to address this question of what to teach, because usually it has been decided already – in the official documents, the textbook or examination specification. We have tried to show in this article that taking the curriculum as given, and the teacher’s role as a reduced, technical process aiming for efficient delivery, probably guarantees a Future 1 scenario, or worse, a Future 2 scenario based largely on generic competence. High quality teaching depends on teachers engaging with and interpreting what the standards or curriculum specification sets out for us. Our teaching is driven by bigger, more ambitious goals than simply imparting what we think students need to know for the test. We then, of course, need to think carefully about pedagogic techniques that are fully fit for the purposes we identify.

The premise of the GeoCapabilities approach is that students are more likely to encounter powerful knowledge in geography classrooms when teaching practices – from the selection of learning materials to choices about assessment – are guided by an understanding of geography’s contribution to human capability. The partners on the GeoCapabilities project came to agree that professional questioning that begins with Who and Why reduces the risk that frequently arises when the focus is too quick to practical implementation. The risk is that we rarely get beyond the How. Children get geography lessons, often with adventurous and active pedagogies, but sometimes with questionable epistemic quality.

References Anderson, K. C., & Leinhardt, G. (2002). Maps as

representations: Expert novice comparison of projection understanding. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 283–321.

Bednarz, S. (2003). Nine years on: Examining implementation of the national geography standards. Journal of Geography, 102: 99–109.

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique

(revised edition). London: Rowman & Littlefield.

Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Education Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 33–46.

Biesta, G. (2017). The rediscovery of teaching. Abingdon: Routledge.

Chiodo, J. J. (1993). Mental maps: Preservice teachers’ awareness of the world. Journal of Geography, 92, 110–117.

Diem, R. A. (1982). Measurements of social studies content knowledge in pre-service elementary education majors. Journal of Social Studies Research, 6(1), 8–12.

Firth, R. (2013). What constitutes knowledge in geography? In D. Lambert & M. Jones, (Eds), Debates in geography education. Abingdon: Routledge.

Firth, R. (2017). Recontextualising geography as a school subject. In M. Jones and D. Lambert (Eds), Debates in geography education, 2nd Edition. Abingdon: Routledge.

Friedman, T. (2016). Thank you for being late: an optimist’s guide to thriving in the age of acceleration. London: Penguin.

Geographical Association. (2012). “Thinking Geographically”. Retrieved from Planning with the National Curriculum at KS3 at www.geography.org.uk/ news/2014nationalcurriculum/ks3planning/

Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2015). K-12 education: Most eighth grade students are not proficient in geography. (GAO-16-7). Washington, DC: US General Accountability Office.

Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education. 2015. High school and middle school geography requirements. San Marcos, TX: Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education.

Heffron, S. G., & Downs, R. M. (Eds.) (2012). Geography for life: National geography standards (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Council for Geographic Education.

Helburn, N. (1965). High school geography project. The Professional Geographer, 17(5), 29-30. doi: 10.1111/j.0033- 0124.1965.0029a.x

Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hirsch, E. D. (2007). The knowledge deficit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

http://www.geography.org.uk/news/2014nationalcurriculum/ks3planning/

http://www.geography.org.uk/news/2014nationalcurriculum/ks3planning/

15GEOGRAPHICAL EDUCATION VOLUME 30, 2017

Hudson, B. (2016). Didactics, in D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandya (Eds), The Sage handbook of curriculum pedagogy and assessment. London: Sage.

Lambert, D. (2009). Geography in education: Lost in the post? Professorial Inaugural Lecture. London: Institute of Education.

Lambert, D. (2010). Reframing school geography: a capabilities approach. In G. W. Butt, Geography, education and the future. London: Continuum.

Lambert, D., Solem, M., & Tani, S. (2015). Achieving human potential through geography education: a capabilities approach to curriculum making in schools, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105, 723–735.

Maude, A. (2016). What might powerful geographical knowledge look like? Geography, 101, 70–76.

McDougall, W. A. (2015). Geography, history and true education, Research in Geographic Education, 17, 2, 10–89.

National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Silver Springs, MD: NCSS.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ Math%20Standards.pdf

NGSS Lead States (2013) Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. (1993). The quality of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reinfried, S. (2006). Conceptual change in physical geography and environmental sciences through mental model building: The example of groundwater. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 15, 41–61.

Schell, E. M., Roth, K. J., & Mohan, A. (Eds.). (2013). A road map for 21st century geography education: Instructional materials and professional development. (A report from the Geography Education Research Committee of the Road Map for 21st Century Geography Education Project). Washington, DC: National Council for Geographic Education.

Segall, A. (2002). What do prospective social studies teachers in the U.S. know about Canada? Michigan Journal of Social Studies, 14(1), 7–10.

Segall, A., & Helfenbein, R. J. (2008). Research on K-12 geography education. In L. S. Levstik, & C.A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 259–283). New York: Routledge.

Slater, F., Graves, N., & Lambert, D. (2016). Editorial: Geography and powerful knowledge, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 25, 189–194.

Young, M. (1971) (Ed) Knowledge and control: new directions in the sociology of education. London: Macmillan.

Young, M. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in. London: Routledge.

Young, M., Lambert, D., Roberts, C., & Roberts, M. (2014). Knowledge and the future school: Curriculum and social justice. London: Bloomsbury.

Young, M., & Lambert, D. (2014). What should we teach? SecEd, November 20 2014. Retrieved from www.sec-ed.co.uk/blog/what-should-we- teach/

Interview Guide for N317 Interview Paper

Use the following suggested questions as you conduct your N317 interview. Please see the paper guidelines and rubric for more specific information related to this assignment.

Demographic Information:

What year were you born? • Tell me about your education. Schools attended? Ethnic origin? • What gender is the interviewee? • Tell me about the jobs you’ve had since you first began working until your

retirement. • Are you presently managing your own financial affairs? • Are you having any difficulty in this area? • Do you go to any particular church? • Participate in religious activities?

Health:

Have you had any serious illnesses in the past? • Are you presently seeing a doctor on a regular basis? If so, for what

condition(s)? • What types of medications are you currently taking? (include over the counter). • How do you compare yourself physically and mentally to other adults your age? • What is your definition of health? • Does the client have any obstacles to performing the Instrumental Activities of

Daily Living? • Does the client use any assistive devices?

Self-Concept:

How would you describe yourself? • What things in life are now especially important to you? • What do you consider the most significant events in your life? (Example:

Marriage, first job, birth of children, winning an award). • What have been the pleasant “surprises” in your life? • What have been the unexpected events that had a major impact on who you

are?

Social Support:

About your family, do you have any living children? • Do you have any living brothers or sisters? • Is there anyone whom you can talk to when you have worries or

difficulties? (Determine who and the relationship) • Whom do you rely on for help? (What is the client’s mode of transportation)? • Is there anyone who helps you with grocery shopping, getting to appointments,

getting prescriptions filled?

Home Environment:

Do you live alone or with others? (Describe) • Describe the living facilities, space, satisfaction with living arrangement, actual or

potential safety hazards, exposure to stressors and hazards.

Interpersonal:

Describe for me a typical day for you. • What kinds of things do you do to pass the time? (Example: employed (full or

part time), attend senior activities, gardening, painting, handwork, visit with friends).

Do you have a favorite activity that you like to do most? • How often do you get together with friends? family?

Life Satisfaction:

What do you enjoy most about this stage of life? • Compared with your younger years, how would you rate your present level of

happiness and satisfaction? • What are your future plans or goals?