Colorado’s Geography Standards: An Analysis of Preservice Teacher Preparation

Kris Wilson, Kay E. Welleu, and David B. Cole

The introduction of content standards in geography both at the national and state levels is having an impact on the preparation of K-12 teachers throughout the country. Preservice programs are acknowledg- ing the need for preservice students to be well-versed in the content standards of the fields that they will be teaching, especially at the sec- ondary level. The standards are, therefore, being introduced into the preservice curriculum so that students will be familiar with them.

A survey conducted by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) found that some collaboration is taking place in most states between schools, colleges, and departments of edu- cation and P-12 schools in preservice and continuing professional devel- opment (Yff 1996). The AACTE survey found that only one state, California, includes academic departments in its mandated collabora- tive efforts (Yff 1996). Yet it is usually the responsibility of the disci- plined-based departments in colleges of arts and sciences to insure that students have the content knowledge necessary to address the stan- dards. And strong arguments are made that sufficient content knowl- edge is required to guide student learning (Danielson 1996). This is par- ticularly true as standards call for a shift from an emphasis on input to an emphasis on performance assessment-what a teacher candidate knows and how he or she can use it (Elliott 1997). Several calls to address this topic have been issued, including an address to the American Historical Association. Winkler (1994) calls for historians and teachers in the schools to examine together what is being taught and why it is being taught.

When students major in a particular discipline, adequacy of content knowledge is assumed. However, in some licensure areas, such as social studies, students may take a course of study that is distributed among several content areas where only one or two courses in a discipline are relied upon to prepare the student for teaching that subject. Students preparing to teach geography as part of their social studies licensure are often faced with such a dilemma.

one course in geography, an introductory course, at the University of Northern Colorado receive the breadth of content that they need to address the Colorado Model Content Standards in Geography when the students become licensed to teach social studies. The study reports on a model of research and implementation that could be useful for other geography programs that have a responsibility for preparing teachers.

This study addresses the issue of whether students who take only

ABSTRACT As content standards are adopted

in grades K-12, preservice programs must insure that students are prepared to address standards in their teaching, especially where programs include only one introductory course. Faculty who teach introductory courses were interviewed, and preservice students enrolled in them were surveyed to determine if one course at the University of Northern Colorado was adequate for the task. The results of the study were used to pilot two introduc- tory courses incorporating changes that strengthened both skills and content. Indeed, students received much of what they need to know from the intro- ductory course. However, geography faculty need a greater awareness of the content standards. In addjtion, physical geography needs to b&&grafed better with human geography, and more emphasis should be placed on the skills of analysis and application. The pilot courses accomplished both of these goals.

Key Words: standards, preservice, intro- ductory courses, content knowledge

Kris Wilson is Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712 USA.

Kay E. Weller is Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa 50613 USA.

David B. Cole is Professor in the Department of Geography, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 80639 USA.

Journal of Geography 97:269-280 01998 National Council for Geographic Education

270 Wilson, Weller, and Cole

BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY

In 1993 the Colorado General Assembly enacted legislation aimed at bringing about coordinated improvement in the performance and accountabili- ty of the state’s K-12 education system. House Bill 93-1313 required school districts to redesign cur- riculum, instruction, testing, and teacher develop- ment around academic standards that spell out what students should know and be able to do in 11 areas, including geography.

student results at three thresholds in student schooling-fourth grade, eighth grade, and approaching graduation from high school. Standards define what it takes to know or do some- thing well. They are oriented not to the lowest com- mon denominator, but rather to mastery, excellence, and proficiency (Colorado Department of Education 1994). Standards are clearly defined, spe- cific expectations against which individual perfor- mance and progress can be judged, not broad, gen- eral goals or outcomes. The aim is to raise the ceil- ing for those who are currently above average, and to lift the floor for those who now experience the least success in school (Colorado Department of Education 1994). Implied in the standards is that preparation for citizenship is as important as read- ing and writing (Geography Education Standards Project 1994). Each school district in Colorado was required to establish its own standards, but House Bill 93-1313 required that they be at least as rigor- ous as a set of model standards published by the State Board of Education (Colorado Department of Education 1994).

The Colorado Model Content Standards for geography (Colorado Department of Education 1995) were part of the first-wave of standards intro- duced in Colorado. The Colorado Model Content Standards are closely aligned with the National Geography Standards published in Geography for Life (Geography Education Standards Project 1994), which culminated 10 years of change in geography (Bednarz and Bednarz 1995). The Colorado model standards share many characteristics with Geogruphyfor Life in terms of major goals, but take a different approach in identifying the standards and essential elements. Colorado has identified six con- tent standards and 18 essential elements (Table l), while the national standards classify six essential elements and 18 content standards. Despite these format differences, the Colorado model standards and the national standards parallel each other quite

Content standards define performance-based

\

closely. For example, the essential element, Physical Systems, in Geography for Life, is Colorado’s stan- dard three. Essential elements, 3.1 and 3.2, under standard three in Colorado are virtually the same as standards eight and nine in Geography for Life. Colorado adopted this reversed format because the state had limited geography to a maximum of six standards.

Both the national standards and the Colorado model standards were designed as expectations against which individual student performance and progress can be judged. They provide guidance for curriculum shifts so that K-12 student learning will be geared toward such performances and progress. Educators at all levels, including preservice prepar- ers of geography teachers, become obliged to address the standards in their own teaching. If con- tent standards represent the geography that U.S. students need to become successful citizens in a complex world (Bednarz and Bednarz 1994), then preservice teacher preparation should include con- tent that will help future teachers present that mate- rial. Content preparation flows from the depart- ments of geography at most institutions of higher learning.

RESEARCH GOAL

As part of the development and implementa- tion of the Colorado Model Content Standards, the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) was asked to assist in the development of a model social stud- ies preservice program. Funding for the program was provided by a grant from the Colorado Department of Education. The project’s goal was to insure that content coursework of preservice stu- dents adequately prepared them to address Colorado’s Model Content Standards in Geography and History and the proposed civics standards.

Colorado has no requirement for geography in the preparation of K-6 teachers but does require that geography be included in the preparation of grades 7-12 (secondary) social studies teachers. Each institution of higher learning determines its own preservice program to meet the state statutes. At UNC students seeking K-6 licensure may choose either World Geography (GEOG 100) or Geography of the United States and Canada (GEOG 110) as a general education course. Neither is required. At the time of this study, students seeking secondary licensure in social studies were required to take only World Geography. Therefore, at the time of this study it was possible that GEOG 100 or GEOG 110

Colorado's Geography Standards 271

Table 1. Colorado Geography Model Content Standards and Essential Elements (Colorado Department of Education 1995).

Standard One: Students know how to use and construct maps, globes, and other geographic tools to locate and derive information about people, places, and environments.

1.1 Students know how to use maps, globes, and other geographic tools to acquire, process, and report information

1.2 Students develop knowledge of Earth to locate people, places, and environments. 1.3 Students know how to analyze the dynamic spatial organization of people, places, and environments.

from a spatial perspective.

Standard Two: Students know the physical and human characteristics of places, and use this knowledge to define and study regions and their patterns of change.

2.1 Students know the physical and human characteristics of places. 2.2 Students know how and why people define regions. 2.3 Students know how culture and experience influence people's perceptions of places and regions.

Standard Three: Students understand how physical processes shape Earth's surface patterns and systems. 3.1 Students know the physical processes that shape Earth's surface patterns. 3.2 Students know the characteristics and distributions of physical systems of land, air, water, plants, and animals.

Standard Four: Students understand how economic, political, cultural, and social processes interact to shape patterns of human populations, interdependence, cooperation, and conflict.

4.1 Students know the characteristics, location, distribution, and migration of human populations. 4.2 Students know the nature and spatial distribution of cultural patterns. 4.3 Students know the patterns and networks of economic interdependence. 4.4 Students know the processes, patterns, and functions of human settlement. 4.5 Students know how cooperation and conflict among people influence the division and control of Earth's surface.

Standard Five: Students understand the effects of interactions between human and physical systems and the changes in meaning, use, distribution, and importance of resources.

5.1 Students know how human actions modify the physical environment. 5.2 Students know how physical systems affect human systems. 5.3 Students know the changes that occur in the meaning, use, location, distribution, and importance of resources.

Standard Six: Students apply knowledge of people, places, and environments to understand the past and present and to plan for the future.

6.1 Students know how to apply geography to understand the past. 6.2 Students know how to apply geography to understand the present and plan for the future.

may have been the only exposure to geography a preservice student would have in preparation for teaching in Colorado public schools.'

whether one such course could address the Model Content Standards in Geography and prepare a pre- service student to address effectively K-12 geogra- phy standards in their teaching. The Proposed Content Standards of April 1995 were used as the basis for this study? The research reported in this article was limited to an analysis of the two geogra- phy courses (GEOG 100 and GEOG 110) taken by most preservice teachers. The goal was to deter- mine course congruency with the Colorado Model Content Standards and whether preservice students were prepared in appropriate content areas to teach to the geography standards.

Results from the study were then used to restructure and reorganize GEOG 100 and GEOG

The scope of this study was to measure

110 in one pilot section of each course to insure bet- ter congruence with the model content standards.

METHODOLOGY

The research was designed to determine whether the content of GEOG 100 or GEOG 110 adequately prepared preservice students to address Colorado's geography standards and to generate primary data for that analysis. Data came from two sources: a survey of preservice students enrolled in either of the two classes and an analysis of faculty instruction of the same courses. Both methods relied heavily on self-reporting. Students were asked to evaluate, on a scale of 1 to 5, their own knowledge in the essential elements, and faculty were asked to evaluate their own content teaching. The study was conducted during the 1995 spring semester.

272

2. Students know the physical and human characteristics of places and use this knowledge to define and study regions and their patterns of change.

Earth’s surface patterns and svstems. 3. Students understand how physical processes shape

Wilson, Weller, and Cole

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H

A c, G B, D, E, F, H

Student Self-Evaluation

5. Students understand the effects of interactions between human and physical systems and the changes in meaning, use, distribution, and importance of resources.

6. Students apply knowledge of people, places, and environments to understand the past and present and to plan for the future.

A survey of students who listed K-12 licensure or secondary social studies licensure as their goal was conducted in all sections of GEOG 100 and GEOG 110. The survey was distributed in the last week of classes to 75 students who had indicated their preservice status. Since both courses are gen- erally first-year classes, this survey would not have identified many students who might later choose to seek licensure. Fifty students returned the surveys by the last day of final examinations for a response rate of 67%.

A, B, C, G, H E D, F

C D, G A, B, E, F, H

Faculty Self-Evaluation

Unlike the student data, the faculty data are highly qualitative in nature. Instructors were first asked to provide a copy of their course syllabus. While this was helpful in providing some basic information about the classes, it was not very illu- minating about the alignment of course content to the standards?

sonal interviews with each instructor. Faculty were asked to evaluate their own teaching in an attempt to determine whether students in their classes would acquire adequate content to address the con-

The most informative faculty data were the per-

tent standards in their future teaching. Each faculty member was asked a series of questions, beginning with an assessment of their own familiarity with the Colorado Model Content Standards in Geography and whether the content of the standards was presently incorporated into their course structure. This was followed by an identical series of ques- tions about each of the 18 essential elements. The structured format was used to inswe that each interview covered the same content material in the same manner.

themselves were highly variable. Eight faculty members who teach either World Geography or Geography of the United States and Canada were interviewed. The personal interviews ranged from 30 minutes to two hours each. The faculty self-eval- uation was a highly subjective process. In most cases, faculty comments were recorded verbatim. Interpreting the responses involved the creation of a matrix of the UNC teaching emphases with regards to the standards (Table 2). Only alphabetic letters are used to identify and evaluate the eight UNC faculty members teaching the two courses.

The analysis also involved the choice of text- book by each instructor as well as representative examinations for each class. These were included to supplement the substance of the interview.

While the format was structured, the interviews

Table 2. Matrix of faculty teaching to the model content standards. Letters in matrix are surrogates for individual faculty members in U N C s geography department.

I I I Standards High Emphasis Moderate Emphasis Low Emphasis

by Faculty by Faculty by Faculty ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~

1. Students know how to use and construct maps, globes and other geographic tools to locate and derive information about people, places, and environments.

C

~ ~

4. Students understand how economic, political, cultural, and social processes interact to shape patterns of human populations, interdependence, cooperation, and conflict.

B

Colorado's Geography Standards 273

Although this research methodology was appropriate for our study, it is not an example of authentic assessment of student knowledge or an objective measurement of faculty content instruc- tion and should not be interpreted in those con- texts. The research design is an example of the kind of geographic education research called for by Gerber (1995) that combines elements of both quan- titative and qualitative inquiry that can be translat- ed into improved theory and practice.

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

Student Self-Evaluations

Table 3 presents the data from the student sur- vey in both raw numbers and percentage responses to each content statement. This is a modified ver- sion of the survey that students completed at the end of the semester. Changes include the addition of essential element numbers corresponding to the

Table 3. Student responses to corresponding essential element statements as to what they have learned in their GEOG 100 and GEOG 110 courses. First is the number of students choosing each particular response to the essential element statement. In paren- theses is that raw number converted to a percentage of students choosing that response. Mean = the score for each statement (the lower the number the stronger the student agreement to the statement).

Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Mean

1.1

1.3

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

5.1

5.2

5.3

6.1

6.2

I know how to use maps and globes to acquire, process, and report information from a spatial perspective. I know how to analyze the spatial organization of people, places, and environments on Earths surface. I know about physical and human characteristics of places. I know how to define regions to interpret Earth's changing complexity. I know how culture and experience influence people's perceptions of places and regions. I know about physical processes that shape Earth's surface patterns. I know about characteristics and distributions of natural systems of land, air, and water. I know about characteristics, location, distribution and migration of human populations. I know about the nature and spatial distribution of cultural patterns. I know about patterns and networks of economic interdependence. I know about processes, patterns, and functions of human settlement. I know how human actions m o w the physical environment. I know how physical systems affect human systems. I know about changes that occur in the meaning, use, location, distribution and importance of resources. I know how geography can be applied to understand the past. I know how geography can be applied to understand the present and plan for the future.

21 (42%)

8 (16%)

15 (30%)

4 (So/,)

28 (56%)

15 (30%)

11 (22%)

15 (30%)

11 (22%)

4 @Yo)

12 (24%)

22 (44%)

19 (38%)

8 (16%)

19 (38%)

18 (36%)

21 (42%)

28 (56%)

30 (60%)

31 (62%)

18 (35%)

30 (40%)

24 (48%)

25 (50%)

25 (500/,)

27 (54%)

21 (42%)

22 (44%)

25 (50%)

32 (64%)

22 (44%)

23 (46%)

8 (16%)

11 (22%)

5 (loo/)

12 (24%)

4 (8%)

9 (18%)

8 (16%)

8 (16%)

10 (20%)

16 (32%)

15 (30%)

5 (10%)

6 (12%)

7 (14%)

6 (12%)

5 (loo/,)

0

3 (6%)

0

3 (6%)

0

6 (12%)

7 (14%)

2 (4%)

4 (8%)

3 (6%)

2 (4%)

1 (2%)

0

3 (6%)

3 (6%)

4 (So/,)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.74

2.18

1.80

2.28

1.52

2.12

2.22

1.94

2.18

2.36

2.14

1.70

1.74

2.10

1.86

1.92

274 Wilson, Weller, and Cole

Colorado Model Content Standards at the begin- ning of each statement, the number of responses and percentage of students who strongly agreed, agreed, were neutral, or disagreed with each of the essential element statements, and finally the mean (n) for each statement. The mean was computed by assigning the numerical value 1 to strongly agree, 2 to agree, 3 to neutral, and 4 to disagree. The lower the mean score the stronger the student agreement with the statement.

to a particular instructor. The students were guar- anteed anonymity, and they were asked to return the completed surveys to the researcher's mailbox, not to their instructor. This may have encouraged the high response rate and also may have allowed students to make a more honest appraisal of their learning without fear that their instructor would read their responses. Students were asked to circle the class that they were taking, either GEOG 100 or GEOG 110, but only 60% of the respondents did so.

In reviewing the student survey findings the first thing that stands out is the generally high level of agreement among preservice teachers that they know geography content as measured by the select- ed essential elements. Not one student chose strongly disagree with any of the 16 essential ele- ment4 statements pertaining to their geography knowledge. Only a small number of students dis- agreed with any of the essential element statements, and in four cases no students disagreed with the statements at all. It is important to remember that this is a student self-evaluation of geography knowledge.

No attempt was made to link student responses

Faculty Interviews

Only three faculty members expressed familiar- ity with the Colorado Model Content Standards. One of the three was actually incorporating the national standards in a teaching methods class. Other faculty were vaguely aware of the standards. One mentioned that he had seen them in his mail- box but did not read them, and another searched to find them in his office but could not. Expressing a minority opinion, one faculty member expressed no familiarity with the standards and had "frankly no interest in geography education matters-I'll leave that to my colleagues." Recommendations to address such dissent must be considered as one necessary factor to overcome possible impediments to standards implementation in geography courses at the college and university level.

The general lack of familiarity with the stan-

dards affected their usage in the classroom. At the time of the interviews no faculty member was using the standards as a basis for teaching content in their GEOG 100 or GEOG 110 course. One instructor, however, said that he used the National Geography Standards in the first week of the course as a model of how geographers work. In his syllabus he urged students to organize their reading, note taking, and studying around the national standards as a system for learning geography as opposed to memorizing unassociated facts.

One of the most common faculty comments during the interview process was the revelation about individual course material and in what ways it was compatible with the standards. Many faculty members underestimated their content teaching to the standards and when prompted about some geo- graphic concept (such as mental maps) were able to identify their course content specific to the essential elements. In general, however, there was a low level of awareness of the geography standards and no implementation of those stand-ards in their courses.

Specifically asking instructors to identify ways in which geography content was addressed in their courses comprised the bulk of the interview process. Table 2 represents the combined analysis of the faculty self-evaluation and the researchers' analysis of the faculty responses to each of the 18 essential elements. As with the student data, there was no attempt to identify individual faculty mem- bers to their responses in the reporting of the data.

Faculty were asked only to rank their emphasis at the scale of the six standards and not the 18 essential elements. Preservice students, however, were surveyed in 16 of the 18 essential elements and not just on the broader goals of the six stan- dards.

Data Analysis

Interpretation of the results occurred by synthe- sizing the two data sets (Table 2 and Table 3) under each of the six model content standards.

Standard One-Students know how to use and construct maps, globes, and other geographic tools to locate and derive information about people, places, and environments.

Only one faculty member was self-identified in the high category of emphasis in standard one course content. One explanation for the moderate or low emphasis may be the common comment among faculty about "the assumption that students have

Colorado’s Geography Standards 275

knowledge in this area because they have had pre- vious exposure to maps and uses of maps before this class.” Given the inconsistent level of high school geography instruction in Colorado, any kind of assumption such as this could be problematic. As a major foundation in the study of geography, a low-level emphasis in this standard could easily hinder further study in the remaining five content areas.

Most faculty identified basics such as latitude and longitude and general map information in their teaching, but only a few discuss map projections, how maps are made, and how maps are used. One faculty member said he avoids any discussion of map projections saying that, ”I hate it.”

The inconsistency in content shows up in the student data. The students gave high marks for their knowledge in essential element 1.1, using maps and globes to acquire and report information from a spatial perspective. The level of agreement among the students dropped significantly though with essential element 1.3, which asks their knowl- edge about the analysis of the spatial organization of people, places, and environments of the Earth’s surface. The mean score for essential element 1.3 is in the lower quartile among the 16 essential ele- ments tested (n = 2.18), and only eight students strongly agreed with essential element 1.3 versus the 21 students who strongly agreed with essential element 1 .l.

In general, students did not rank themselves as high with regards to matters of analysis and the higher levels of the cognitive domain in all content areas. This is especially apparent here. One poten- tial reason for this in standard one is that much of the important foundations about maps are not dis- cussed to facilitate analysis using maps. One instructor remarked that analysis of spatial organi- zation is ”better left to upper division courses.” This is a dangerous attitude if this is the one geog- raphy course prospective geography teachers take, particularly because they are expected to teach across all the essential elements.

Standard Two-Students know the physical and human characteristics of places, and use this knowledge to define and study regions and their patterns of change.

Table 2 reveals that this is an area of very strong focus for the UNC geography department. All eight faculty members evaluated their emphasis as high in this content area, and this was corroborated in the interviews. Despite faculty unanimity on the

importance and priority of standard two, students indicated highly variable knowledge from the per- spective of the essential elements within the stan- dard.

Essential element 2.1, knowing about the physi- cal and human characteristics of places, received high agreement from the students (45) and the third highest ranking among the students (n = 1.80). This was not surprising given the high level of attention the faculty said that they gave to this area. But with essential element 2.2, knowing how to define regions to interpret Earth‘s changing complexity, the mean score is 2.28 (the second lowest ranking of all 16 elements). Only four students strongly agreed about their knowledge in this essential element, which was the lowest of all statements. Interpretation of regions (element 2.2), like map interpretation (element 1.3), is in the higher levels of the cognitive domain and ranked significantly lower in the student evaluation than the character- istics of places (element 2.1). Finally, within the same standard, essential element 2.3 had by far the most students strongly agreeing that they know about how culture and experience influence peo- ple’s perceptions of places and regions. This essen- tial element also had the strongest level of agree- ment by far among the 16 elements (n = 1.52).

Since the faculty were only scoring themselves in the larger content areas, their assessments may be masking some of the discrepancies noted in the essential elements used in the student analysis. Another possible explanation is the previous dis- cussion about the differences in the processes of learning-identification, recall, and the lower levels of cognition relative to analysis, interpretation, and evaluation at the higher levels of the cognitive domain (Bloom 1956). Perhaps students themselves were unable to make the links between these three essential elements.

phy it may be taken for granted that students understand how the regions are created in the first place and, importantly, how they change over time. Instructor D, who still scored in the high-content- emphasis category, candidly admitted that only one lecture was devoted to the concept of regional orga- nization. The basic concept of being able to define regions to interpret Earth‘s changing complexity (element 2.2) was elusive to the students. The cre- ation of regions and using them to interpret the Earth involves more than just knowing the charac- teristics of places (element 2.1) or even the consider- able progress made to understand multiple per- spectives and points of view (element 2.3). At its

Because these are courses in regional geogra-

276 Wilson, Weller, and Cole

core, regions, as a broader concept of place that includes physical and human characteristics, and regional interpretation involve an integration of the human and physical components of our discipline.

Standard Three-Students understand how physi- cal processes shape Earth’s surface patterns and systems.

The faculty distribution in content standard three is in striking contrast to standards two, four, and five (Table 2). Only one instructor emphasized standard three in teaching GEOG 100. Most of the faculty assessed their emphasis as low in this con- tent area and reinforced this evaluation in their interviews. One faculty member said frankly, “I’m not crazy about physical geography,” and another said, ”It’s an area of weakness for me.” These responses had an impact on student perception of their knowledge about physical geography. Large numbers of students still agreed that they were knowledgeable about the physical processes that shape Earth’s surface patterns (element 3.1) and the characteristics and distribution of natural systems of land, air, and water (element 3.2). However, these two essential elements also had larger numbers of students who were neutral in their response as well as the highest number of students of all 16 elements who disagreed that they were knowledgeable in these areas. The rankings for both essential ele- ments are also low (n = 2.12 and n = 2.22). Collectively the mean score for content standard three (n = 2.17) is ranked lowest of all six standards.

If preservice teachers are prepared to teach K-12 geography they must be proficient in both human and physical geography to be effective. The analysis of both the faculty and student assessments indicate that the nexus between physical and human geog- raphy is weak and needs improvement to achieve the expectations of the content standards.

What the student numbers may be masking is the high confidence students in instructor A’s course have of their knowledge of physical process- es, while those students who do not feel knowl- edgeable could all be with the other instructors who indicated low emphasis of physical processes. If this is the only geography course these preservice teachers take, then their ability to teach about phys- ical processes may be entirely predicated on who teaches their section of the course, which could sim- ply be a scheduling decision. This is a risk given that the standards identify knowledge that all stu- dents should acquire and apply in physical geogra-

phy, especially if that application is to teach that content themselves. Students who elect to take an earth science, geology, or meteorology course for their general education science credit will undoubt- edly have their knowledge of physical processes enhanced, but courses from those disciplines are not required for social studies licensure.

Standard Four-Students understand how econom- ic, political, cultural, and social processes interact to shape patterns of human populations, interde- pendence, cooperation, and conflict.

Faculty placed a strong emphasis on standard four, but not unanimously. Reflecting the strong human geographical component, five of the eight faculty said that standard four was an area of high emphasis. Even though faculty identified this con- tent area as particularly strong, results from the stu- dent responses indicate that the essential elements are treated unequally. In essential element 4.3 only four students, the lowest of all 16 statements, strongly agreed with this essential element state- ment. The mean score (n = 2.36) for this element also ranked the lowest of all 16.

evaluated their content teaching in this area as high because of their emphasis on population, migration, cultural patterns, and human settlement (elements 4.1,4.2, and 4.4) and not economic processes (ele- ment 4.3). Standard four, however, stipulates that economic issues must be addressed as part of human geographic processes, just as culture, popu- lation, and social processes area addressed.

The interviews made it clear that most faculty

Standard Five-Students understand the effects of interactions between human and physical systems and the changes in meaning, use, distribution, and importance of resources.

Results of the student self-assessment identify another split among the essential elements within this standard. Essential elements 5.1 and 5.2 have the second highest ranking in terms of student agreement about their knowledge. This high level of student knowledge may reflect the large amount of emphasis the faculty said that they give to this standard. However, a closer inspection of the stu- dent data within the standard again reveals uneven- ly acquired knowledge. Only eight students strong- ly agreed about their knowledge in essential ele- ment 5.3, compared to 22 and 19 students who strongly agreed with 5.1 and 5.2.

Colorado’s Geography Standards 277

Faculty interviews explicitly demonstrated that much more attention was given to the first two essential elements than to 5.3. This is perhaps one reason why student evaluation of 5.3 was signifi- cantly lower than the other two essential elements contained in standard five.

Only two instructors indicated that they gave this standard low emphasis, and both of them indi- cated a big part of that assessment was because of essential element 5.3. The overall high emphasis in standard five could be reflective of the growing human-environment interaction tradition in geogra- phy.

Standard Six-Students apply knowledge of peo- ple, places, and environments to understand the past and present and to plan for the future.

Standard six represents the apex of student geo- graphic knowledge-the ability to apply geography to life. This has been identified as the ultimate goal of good geography education (Helburn 1991), and is now an integral aspect of both the national and state geography standards. This is the arena in which geography demonstrates the usefulness of content from the five previous standards to stu- dents and society, and truly distinguishes itself from a litany of memorized facts.

as having a low level of emphasis. The distribution of faculty members in standard six is identical to that of standard three b u t not necessarily the same instructors are in each category). This evaluation is symptomatic of some of the inconsistencies demon- strated in the previous content areas.

Faculty comments about standard six included, ”Ha, this is not something that can be accomplished in this class”; “One would hope that students understand the applicability of geography, but I don’t really ever address the topic”; to a frank, ”No, I don’t discuss applying geography as part of the course.” At the other end of the continuum, one instructor detailed small-group and critical-thinking projects that required students to predict the future course of the regions they had studied, which seems to fit precisely the specifications for standard six.

While student evaluations in the previous con- tent areas fluctuated dramatically in relationship to faculty teaching emphases, their evaluations for essential elements 6.1 and 6.2 are generally high and imply that they feel confident in their knowl- edge in applying geography. Since this assessment

Standard six, however, is identified by faculty

is not consistent with the faculty self-evaluation, a performance-based assessment of students’ ability to apply geography to better understand the past, present, and future might be a truer measure of their competence on this standard.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

One goal of this study was to.use the results of the research to develop pilot courses in GEOG 100 and GEOG 110 in which the conclusions of the research are transformed into recommendations which would insure that preservice students taking either course would be adequately prepared to address Colorado’s Model Content Standards in Geography. Therefore, this section is a transitional section between the research study and the piloted courses.

Over all, the generally positive student feed- back should be interpreted as confirmation that stu- dents in both courses perceive that they are receiv- ing much of what they need to address the geogra- phy standards in their own teaching. As indicted by both faculty and student responses, however, underlying processes need to be addressed to strengthen the curriculum. What has not been answered is whether it is reasonable to expect that one class in geography can prepare preservice stu- dents to teach to the standards in K-12 classrooms. That is beyond the scope of this study, but is cer- tainly an area of concern.

Results from this study do not suggest that a new introductory course needs to be developed to address standards for preservice students, rather a concerted effort to modify existing course content is indicated. First, a greater awareness of the content standards among geography faculty must be devel- oped. Since there were low levels of faculty famil- iarity with the standards, this is a relatively easy place to start. The interview process enlightened several faculty members about their content teach- ing and ways that they might adapt their instruc- tion. A fuller exposure to the standards and a justi- fication for teaching particular geography content could create significant change in the congruence of the courses and the content of the standards.

Associated with such an analysis is the admit- ted Lnd evident cultural geographic imprint of this department in course content. This focus is seen in the faculty emphasis in both standards two and four, and to a lesser degree in the student analysis of their own knowledge in these areas. It was also clear in the faculty interviews, where creative ideas

278 Wilson, Weller, and Cole

and lessons were easily and excitedly shared about human and cultural geographic issues. That enthu- siasm was not shared for the content of standards three and six.

Therefore, the most important finding and rec- ommendation from this study involves the success- ful integration of physical and human geography content. The often imbalanced approaches to geo- graphic content by individual faculty has led to the uneven student learning identified in all six stan- dards. This was especially apparent in essential ele- ments 2.2,3.1,3.2,4.3,5.3,6.1, and 6.2. A deliberate and purposeful attempt to increase the physical component of geography content in these two courses is absolutely necessary.

Finally, a premium should be placed on the skills of analysis and application in geography identified in standard six. The lack of student ana- lytical ability was demonstrated in several of the essential elements (especially 1.3) and argues for a greater emphasis on critical-thinking skills and higher levels of the cognitive domain. Because stan- dard six helps to identify the role of geography in society and prepares students to be good citizens, it is crucial that preservice students gain such experi- ence and practice.

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the study and its recommenda- tions were used by one instructor to modify one section of each course, to be taught as pilots during the summer session of 1995. The following section describes examples of both changes in the course content and in instructional practices that might better prepare the preservice students to address the standards.

edge of essential elements 1.3 and 5.3, the National Atlas of Canada (Energy, Mines and Resources Canada 1993) was used as the chief analytical tool in an extensive map analysis project in GEOG 110. Students working in pairs chose the thematic map of natural resources to research data about where a natural resource is located, how it is utilized, and if there have been changes in the use of that resource. Essential element 6.2 was integrated into the project by requiring students to make oral class presenta- tions in which they evaluated the data and predict- ed the future of the resource. One student reported that, ”If one of your objectives was to get me over my fear of maps, then you succeeded.” She explained that prior to this project she was terrified of maps. A year later she reported that she had

To address issues raised by low student knowl-

learned more from that project than from anything else in the class.

additional physical geography in the introductory classes, two faculty members worked to create activities for the pilot classes that would do so. The adiabatic process and orographic effect in Colorado ski country was selected as a local example having regional interest to students for GEOG 110. Students became part of the learning process by constructing a topographic profile of the Interstate 70 corridor from Grand Junction to Denver. Additionally, they created a climograph and mapped the location of Colorado’s ski areas. Students used the data to draw conclusions regarding the affect of the adia- batic process and the orographic effect on the devel- opment of Colorado ski areas.

October 30,1995, and the continued conflict in Bosnia, an activity that involves creating a maga- zine was introduced as an interactive and coopera- tive research project for the world geography course. The activity provided both content and an authentic assessment for evaluating content knowl- edge. Students created a magazine focusing on the concept of devolution. Magazines included nonfic- tion and fiction articles, cartoons, advertisements, crosswords, word searches, maps, graphs, and poems relating to the three regions that they chose for their research.

from the project and that generally it was more enjoyable than doing a research report or a paper. Even though group projects such as this can be problematic when one member of a group does not do his or her share, most of the problems are mini- mized by requiring each student to produce a speci- fied number of articles and creative works. Additionally, encouraging students to do peer eval- uations was helpful in fostering cooperation among students.

The study suggested that authentic assessment is most applicable to standard six and essential to the success of the project. According to Wiggins (1993), authentic assessment involves worthy prob- lems of real life situations and allows students to demonstrate what they know. Therefore, authentic assessment was incorporated into examinations as well as into projects such as the magazines. Rubrics appropriate for the assessment were included for the students. By including a rubric, students knew at the beginning of the project what was expected of them. Time management is perhaps the greatest obstacle to using authentic assessment. However,

Based on the recommendation to incorporate

Because of the Quebec referendum planned for

Students reported that they learned a great deal

Colorado’s Geography Standards 279

the instructor has the opportunity to see whether the student has learned to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate or if they are still in the recall stage of cog- nitive understanding.

Students in the pilot courses evaluated instruc- tional activities on a Likert-type scale of one to five, with one being the lowest and five the highest rat- ing. The activities were evaluated on levels of enjoyment, learning, and appropriateness. Students evaluated the activities higher both on learning and appropriateness than they did on enjoyment, which also received a positive rating. The more rigorous activities such as the magazine project, had the highest evaluations in all three categories. The stu- dents apparently valued the challenging activities, particularly when they had the opportunity to pro- duce a product.

CONCLUSIONS

This article reports the results of both a survey research project and the implementation of ideas generated from that research into pilot courses. In both cases, the purpose of the entire project was twofold: to determine whether preservice students gained enough geography content knowledge in one of two introductory geography courses to ade- quately understand and utilize the Colorado Model Content Standards in Geography in their own teaching, and what could be done to strengthen the two courses in the weakest areas of content and skills addressed in the standards. The findings, interpretation, and recommendations of this research present an argument toward consistency in content that would more closely align the teaching of GEOG 100 and GEOG 110 at UNC with the Colorado Model Content Standards.

phy course needed to be developed, but rather a concerted effort to bolster current course content should be adequate. A deliberate and purposeful attempt to launch the physical component of geog- raphy to a more equal footing with human geogra- phy is demanded in general introductory courses. Positive results from addressing those concerns in the pilot classes demonstrated that those changes were, indeed, successful. In addition the pilot class- es allowed students to leave the courses with better honed skills in map interpretation and in models of teaching strategies appropriate for teaching critical thinking in geography. Because of the small enroll-

The study did not indicate that a new geogra-

ment in the summer pilot courses, the initial survey was not given to those students at the end of the course.

However, the successful modification of two pilot courses by a faculty member already familiar with the standards is not necessarily a model that can be adopted in every faculty member’s case, nor by geography faculty members in general. First, a greater awareness of the content standards among all geography faculty everywhere must be devel- oped. This is a natural and relatively easy place to start with course restructuring. A fuller exposure to the standards and a justification for their basis for teaching geography content may create significant change in the congruence of the college courses and the content standards.

It should be noted that students in the classes who were not preparing to teach also learned how to express their knowledge of geography in more meaningful ways. Therefore, an unintended finding of this study is that the course modifications described can be beneficial to all students, not just preservice students.

Geography programs in higher education are now being confronted with curriculum issues posed by the creation, and in many cases, the adoption and implementation of content standards in geogra- phy. For institutions that prepare geography teach- ers, there must be some certainty that students tak- ing only one or two courses in geography receive breadth of content that will prepare them adequate- ly to address the standards in their own teaching. And, although not addressed in this article, geogra- phy programs must also prepare to meet the needs of students enrolling in their programs after having completed a K-12 education where geography stan- dards were in place. At least one model has been presented in this article to address the former.

NOTES 1 The program at UNC has since been changed to require a

minimum of nine semester hours in geography for sec- ondary social studies licensure. The exception is for the history teaching major which still requires just one course in geography. The Proposed Content Standards included several changes from previous publications (M. Kenney, interview 5/22/95), and with a few more changes the document was adopted by the state board of education in August 1995. The syllabi were more illustrative in the area of comparing teaching methods, which was not the focus of this study. Only 16 essential were chosen for the student survey to minimize the length of the survey. The two omitted were thought to be somewhat redundant with other essential elements.

2

3

4

280 Wilson, Weller, and Cole

REFERENCES Bednarz, S. W., and R. S. Bednarz. 1994. The standards are com-

Bednarz, S. W., and R. S. Bednarz. 1995. Preservice geography

Bloom, B. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1:

Colorado Department of Education. 1994. Higher Expectations,

ing! Journal of Geography 93194-196.

education. Journal of Geography 94:482-486.

Cognitive Domain. New York David McKay.

Better Results: Establishing Standards for Colorado Students. Denver, Colorado.

Colorado Department of Education. 1995. Colorado Model Content Standards. Denver, Colorado.

Danielson, C. 1996. Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

assessment. NCATE Quality Teaching 6(2);6-8.

Canada. Fifth edition. Ottawa, Ontario.

Elliott, E. J. 1997. Standards project emphasizes performance

Energy, Mines and Resources Canada. 1993. National Atlas of

Geography Education Standards Project. 1994. Geography for Lfe: National Geography Standards 1994. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Research and Exploration.

decision-making in geographical education. Keynote address and paper presentation at the San Marcos Summit Conference in Geographic Education. May 19,1995.

Helburn, N. 1991. The geographical perspective: Geography’s role in citizenship education. In Social Science Perspectives on Citizenship Education, R. Gross and T. Dynneson, eds., pp. 116-140. New York Teachers College Press.

Wiggins, G. P. 1993. Assessing Student Performance. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Winkler, H. R. 1994. The role of higher education in enhancing history education in the schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association. San Francisco, California. January 4,1994.

Yff, J. 1996. State Policies to Promote P-16 Collaboration: A Survey of Professional Development and P-12 Content Standards. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Gerber, R. 1995. Research as a basis for competent, experiential