4
Improvement Needed: Preservice Geography Teacher Education MICHAEL T. GILSBACH n recent years, emphasis on geo- I graphic education has increased in grades K-12. Geography was named one of the core areas in the Goals 2000 education act, placing it in the same category as the core subjects of math- ematics, science, history, and English (Boehm, Brierley, and Sharma 1994). It appears that the public is finally realizing that the perspectives that the discipline offers on world cultures, global trade, the environment, history, and all manner of human and physical interactions are essential to the educa- tion of those who will take our nation into the twenty-first century. Accord- ing to Petry (1999, Geography is a media darling; legislators speak of its importance, business people support student geography projects, teachers’ journals and magazines are full of geography ideas and discussion. Geog- raphy is esteemed by the public. (487) Many have recognized, however, that teachers cannot teach that which they have not been taught. The problems in geography preservice education have been widely addressed. The National ~~~ MICHAEL T. GILSBACH is a student truchrr ot Chnnceller High School in Fred- rricksburg. Virginiu. Council for Geographic Education (NCGE) and authors such as Boehm (1994) and Petry (1993, among others, have astutely pointed out the problems in this area. Groups including, but not limited to, the NCGE, the Association of American Geographers, the National Geographic Society, and various state geographic alliances, as well as individ- uals such as Gail Ludwig (1995) and Susan Hardwick (1995). to name but a few, have made many suggestions for rectifying the problem. In this article, I provide an overview of the recent work on this problem as well as some possi- ble solutions. I address the inadequacies in preservice geography education and the reasons for their existence. I have included an overview of some of the more effective programs designed to alleviate the problems. I do not intend this article to be all encompassing or the definitive statement on the subject. I hope that it provides a basic understand- ing of the current debate and promotes change in an area that needs changing. The Problem In an effort to make those who would teach geography more knowledgeable about the content and methodology of the discipline, geographers and educa- tors have set up programs to educate inservice geography teachers. The most notable of these is the geographic alliance network established by the National Geographic Society. Through this program, inservice teachers attend summer training sessions about geogra- phy content and pedagogy that they later pass on to their colleagues (Hermann 1995). More than 9.000 teachers have been trained in alliance programs since 1985 (Dulli and Goodman 1994). Although these measures are laudable, they are incomplete. Bednarz and Bed- narz (1995) wrote that such programs have not been properly coupled with efforts on the part of preservice educa- tion. As Boehm, Brierley, and Sharma (1994) pointed out, “if all we do is pro- vide inservice training in geography for teachers, then we institutionalize the need for continual inservice teacher training” (21). Indeed, preservice geography teach- er education is in a poor state in many respects. Only five states require geog- raphy for elementary certification, and only two-thirds of the states require any geography at all for a secondary social studies certification (NCGE 1991). One survey of thirty teacher-training pro- grams found that 5 1 percent of the ele- mentary teachers and 88 percent of the THE SOCIAL STUDIES JANUARYFEBRUARY 1997 35

Improvement Needed: Preservice Geography Teacher Education

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Improvement Needed: Preservice Geography Teacher Education

Improvement Needed: Preservice Geography Teacher Education

MICHAEL T. GILSBACH

n recent years, emphasis on geo- I graphic education has increased in grades K-12. Geography was named one of the core areas in the Goals 2000 education act, placing it in the same category as the core subjects of math- ematics, science, history, and English (Boehm, Brierley, and Sharma 1994). It appears that the public is finally realizing that the perspectives that the discipline offers on world cultures, global trade, the environment, history, and all manner of human and physical interactions are essential to the educa- tion of those who will take our nation into the twenty-first century. Accord- ing to Petry (1999,

Geography is a media darling; legislators speak of its importance, business people support student geography projects, teachers’ journals and magazines are full of geography ideas and discussion. Geog- raphy is esteemed by the public. (487)

Many have recognized, however, that teachers cannot teach that which they have not been taught. The problems in geography preservice education have been widely addressed. The National

~~~

MICHAEL T. GILSBACH i s a student truchrr ot Chnnceller High School in Fred- rricksburg. Virginiu.

Council for Geographic Education (NCGE) and authors such as Boehm (1994) and Petry (1993, among others, have astutely pointed out the problems in this area. Groups including, but not limited to, the NCGE, the Association of American Geographers, the National Geographic Society, and various state geographic alliances, as well as individ- uals such as Gail Ludwig (1995) and Susan Hardwick (1995). to name but a few, have made many suggestions for rectifying the problem. In this article, I provide an overview of the recent work on this problem as well as some possi- ble solutions. I address the inadequacies in preservice geography education and the reasons for their existence. I have included an overview of some of the more effective programs designed to alleviate the problems. I do not intend this article to be all encompassing or the definitive statement on the subject. I hope that it provides a basic understand- ing of the current debate and promotes change in an area that needs changing.

The Problem

In an effort to make those who would teach geography more knowledgeable about the content and methodology of the discipline, geographers and educa-

tors have set up programs to educate inservice geography teachers. The most notable of these is the geographic alliance network established by the National Geographic Society. Through this program, inservice teachers attend summer training sessions about geogra- phy content and pedagogy that they later pass on to their colleagues (Hermann 1995). More than 9.000 teachers have been trained in alliance programs since 1985 (Dulli and Goodman 1994). Although these measures are laudable, they are incomplete. Bednarz and Bed- narz (1995) wrote that such programs have not been properly coupled with efforts on the part of preservice educa- tion. As Boehm, Brierley, and Sharma (1994) pointed out, “if all we do is pro- vide inservice training in geography for teachers, then we institutionalize the need for continual inservice teacher training” (21).

Indeed, preservice geography teach- er education is in a poor state in many respects. Only five states require geog- raphy for elementary certification, and only two-thirds of the states require any geography at all for a secondary social studies certification (NCGE 1991). One survey of thirty teacher-training pro- grams found that 5 1 percent of the ele- mentary teachers and 88 percent of the

THE SOCIAL STUDIES JANUARYFEBRUARY 1997 35

Page 2: Improvement Needed: Preservice Geography Teacher Education

social studies teachers in those pro- grams had not been required to com- plete a geography course (NCGE 199 1). Another survey of inservice social studies teachers showed that 25 percent had no undergraduate geogra- phy training and 55 percent had three or fewer courses (Herman 1995). Finally, a Tennessee survey found that although half of the high schools offered geogra- phy, only one-third of the teachers had any sort of preparation in the discipline (Goldman 1990).

One particularly disturbing study showed preservice teachers’ serious lack of geographic knowledge by test- ing their ability to draw a sketch map of the world (Chiodo 1993). Many of the maps drawn inaccurately depicted the size, shape, relative location, names, and even the number of continents. When the maps drawn by the elemen- tary preservice teachers were compared with those done by seventh-grade stu- dents, there was often no distinguish- able difference. Those performing most poorly in the study were female preser- vice elementary teachers. This is espe- cially troubling because it will be they, as the large majority of the elementary community, who will provide younger students with their first exposure to geography (Chiodo 1993).

Finally, preservice teachers are not receiving sufficient training in geogra- phy methods. Social studies pedagogy courses continue to concentrate on his- tory, in large measure because methods professors are unfamiliar with new geography teaching techniques (Lud- wig 1995). Momll, Enedy, and Pontius (1995) cited a survey in which 72 per- cent of 852 teachers “strongly agreed” that “[mlost elementary and secondary geography social studies teachers have not received adequate training in geog- raphy, and therefore do not teach it well” (538).

The Reasons for the Problem

Inadequacies in preservice education are the result of several problems. First, the teacher-education system is very difficult for any one group to change. A number of interest groups are trying to

affect the system in some way. Geogra- phy is but one of these, and making its voice heard is often difficult. Further, the educational system is highly decen- tralized. Programs and regulations vary from state to state, and hundreds of teacher-education institutions have their own programs and variations within the parameters of state guide- lines (Morrill, Enedy, and Pontius. 1995). As a result, attempts on the part of geography educators to alter the sys- tem take “time and effort and can often be frustrating” (Libbee 1995,504).

Second, there is an academic elitism in our universities that looks down upon schools of education and does not take seriously the training of teachers, even those who will teach their own discipline (Boehm, Brierley, and Shar- ma 1994). This has two results, the first of which is a lack of meaningful com- munication between geography depart- ments and education departments. (In an informal survey, I found several arti- cles on geography preservice education in geography journals but found very little specific to the subject in education journals.) Without at least some input from experienced geographers, educa- tion departments will either see no need for altering the geography aspects of their programs or will have difficulty doing so in an effective manner.

An additional result of academic elit- ism is a tendency of geography acade- mics to disdain serious work in the edu- cation field and in teacher education. Geography educators will have difficul- ty designing new and innovative meth- ods and materials, and the field may become stagnant unless they are sup- ported more fully by their colleagues. These two conditions, pointed out by Boehm et al., have resulted in “a dimin- ished presence of geography in the minds of classroom teachers” (Salter 1991, 60) and, if not corrected, will seriously hinder improvement of pre- service education.

A final reason for the problems in this area is the lack of communication between teacher-training institutions and the schools in which their students will teach. In many respects, teacher- education programs have not been

responsive to the needs of schools, and schools have been ambiguous about what they want in prospective new hires (Boehm, Brierley, and Sharma 1994). The demand for geography in public schools has increased considerably in recent years. Yet many teacher-educa- tion programs have neglected to make the necessary changes to meet that new demand (NCGE 1991). One survey by the National Center for Educational Statistics reports that most require- ments for preservice social studies teachers have not changed since the 1970s (Doering et a]. 1995). That can also be attributed in large measure to the apparent lack of interest on the part of many professional geographers in K-12 education and the subsequent lack of communication between public schools and schools of geography (Boehm, Brierley, and Sharma 1994). The ultimate goal of teacher-education programs, however, should be to pro- duce good K-12 teachers. To do this, close communication between depart- ments of education, and in this case departments of geography, and the pub- lic schools is absolutely necessary.

Solutions

Despite the many obstacles and com- plications surrounding real improve- ment, many solutions have been pro- posed and/or put into practice to alleviate the problems in preservice geography education. These solutions range from innovative professor-student and professor-teacher cooperation pro- grams to simply making changes in the state or institution’s program guidelines.

The National Council for Geograph- ic Education has been very active in its attempts to improve preservice educa- tion. In 1995, the NCGE joined with the Association of America Geogra- phers (AAG) to implement the Geo- graphic Education National Implemen- tation Project, (GENIP), a program to improve all aspects of geography edu- cation. As part of GENIP, a proposal was developed for eight universities to design introductory college-level geog- raphy courses for preservice teachers. These courses were to be designed

36 JANUARYlFEBRUARY 1997 THE SOCIAL STUDIES

Page 3: Improvement Needed: Preservice Geography Teacher Education

around the curriculums of the local schools so that the material would be most meaningful to the student teach- ers. Five of these course syllabuses were presented in the AAG’s The Intro- ductory Course in Geography for the Preservice Teacher (1990), four of which have a regional organization and one of which is organized topically. Each of them appears to be an effective prototype around which other institu- tions might design their own courses (Shirey and Bencloski 1990). The key to this approach, however, is the delib- erate effort to create programs that fos- ter communication between colleges and schools and contiguity between school curriculums and teacher-educa- tion curriculums, thus producing better geography teachers.

Another effort by the NCGE was the position paper it published in 1991 enti- tled “The Role of Geography in Preser- vice Teacher Preparation: Geography in the Social Studies.” The paper outlined the NCGE’s recommendations for the geography component of teacher educa- tion. It divided its recommendations into those for all teachers, for social studies teachers, for teachers seeking licensure for a single discipline within the social studies, for elementary teach- ers and those in “self-contained” class- rooms, and for teachers of geography in social studies methods courses. The NCGE suggested that all programs should include courses in basic geogra- phy content and that the methods course should emphasize the use of all types of geographic tools and techniques as well as how geography fits into the other social sciences (NCGE 1991).

A final effort of the NCGE in coop- eration with the AAG, the American Geographical Society, and the National Geographic Society was the 1994 pub- lication of Geography for Life- National Geography Standards. This publication, which outlines the expect- ed levels of geographic achievement for students in grades K-12, endorses “a broad view of the discipline” (Viadero 1993,5), representing the many aspects of geography. Described as the possible magnum opus of the geography reform initiative by Peterson, Natoli, and

Boehm (1994), it is also an excellent re- source for preservice geography teach- ers and could easily be the core of a geography methods course.

One such course has been suggested by Hardwick (1995). She proposed a preservice geography course called Geographic Concepts that is organized around the five traditional themes of geography (location, place, human- environment interactions, movement, and region) and the six elements and eighteen standards in Geography for Life. She argued that such a course structure would provide students with a logical and interesting framework for geographic knowledge and would give preservice teachers “guidance for high- powered geographic instruction in his or her own future K-12 classroom” (Hardwick 1995,514).

Another course is one produced by the New Hampshire Geographic Alliance in cooperation with Keene State College. That model world geog- raphy course for preservice teachers effectively combined the content of world geography with the methods in geography taught to inservice teachers in the Alliance summer sessions. Because the course is taken early in a student’s curriculum, it is partially designed to help the student decide if he or she really wants to teach. The pro- gram’s designers report that student feedback has been very positive and that the course, which is repeatedly revised for improvement, has proven highly beneficial to preservice geogra- phy teachers (Havill et al. 1995).

Further, a possible solution to the problems of preservice education is to change the standards of certification or licensure. Libbee (1995) outlined the means and strategies for improving licensure standards. He suggested requiring that preservice elementary teachers major and minor in certain core subjects that they will teach, point- ing out that in such systems, geography tended to fare quite well. He also advo- cated working toward changes in the general education system that would help preservice education. Such changes included more focused social studies curriculums and alternative

geography courses for secondary stu- dents. He warned, however, that an increased number of geography courses alone will not make better geography teachers. Only well-taught courses are capable of that (Libbee 1995).

A number of programs have been established involving inservice geogra- phy teachers. One such program was developed at the University of Northern Colorado. Here experienced secondary geography teachers are paired with members of the college geography fac- ulty to teach both world regional geog- raphy and geography methods. The objective of these courses is to teach students both content and “as many effective ways of teaching geography” (520). Student teachers in the program are then placed with members of the Colorado Alliance so that they might better put the methods they have learned to work in the classroom. After three years in operation, the program’s designers report that interest in geogra- phy education, geography class enroll- ment, and geography licensure is on the rise (Cole 1995).

Another program involving inservice school teachers is GEO-Teach. This pro- gram comprises a core of geography and education coursework to teach students content and methods. The students par- ticipate in field assignments in which they work with “mentor-teachers,” The program also stresses use of the Nation- al Standards and through the sequence of courses, “merges content with pedn- gogy” (Doering et al. 1995,524) in such a way as to make both more meaningful to the preservice teacher.

Forums in which geographers and educators can communicate are another possible solution to the problem. In Vir- ginia, the Geographic Alliance conducts summer conferences to disseminate the standards in Geography for Life. These conferences create regional teams con- sisting of teacher educators, geogra- phers, K-12 teachers, school administra- tors, preservice teachers, and members of the state’s Department of Education. The teams then use the standards to develop new types of learning activities and, returning to their respective regions, help to infuse the standards and activi-

THE SOCIAL STUDIES JANUARYEEBRUARY 1997 37

Page 4: Improvement Needed: Preservice Geography Teacher Education

ties into teacher education programs. Such meetings are useful because they address the communication problems between the geographers and the edu- cators and those between the colleges and the schools, allow for the distribu- tion of new geographic ideas to all lev- els of the education system, and help get the necessary people involved to improve geography education (Monill, Enedy, and Pontius 1995).

One final program, also a forum approach, is aimed at improving geog- raphy methods courses and is described by Ludwig (1995). This program result- ed from a conference run in 1992 by the Missouri Geographic Alliance that was designed to inform social studies meth- ods professors about new concepts in geography. The participants, college geography professors and social studies methods instructors, met in a retreat environment for four days. They dis- cussed geography content, methods, and teaching technologies. All patici- pants were involved in presenting and discussing the material. The confer- ence, reported to have been a great suc- cess, resulted in huge increases in teacher attendance at geography-related conferences, especially by teachers from education institutions involved in the program (Ludwig 1995).

Conclusion

Researchers have established that there are problems in geography pre- service education. Far too many teach- ers-who will be expected to teach geography-are not receiving suffi- cient training in content or methodolo- gy. Moreover, the reasons for this problem have also been well estab- lished, with the primary one being a lack of proper communication be- tween the necessary groups of people.

This is not to say that this is a simple problem that can be easily or speedily fixed. Quite the contrary, real change will take time and a great deal of effort. Yet it can be done. I have highlighted some of the possible courses of action. There are many ways of effecting change, and the methods noted here can be altered or adapted to suit a given area or program. Change, however, must come.

For our students to receive a good geography education, they need to be taught by teachers who are geograph- ically literate and are familiar with the latest and most effective means of teaching the discipline. To make true and lasting improvement in geogra- phy education, therefore, changes must be made in the way teachers are taught. Professional geographers, K-12 teachers, and teacher educators must communicate and work together to bring about these types of improve- ment, lest geography education in American schools be doomed to mediocrity and inadequacy.

REFERENCES

Bednarz, S. W., and R. S. Bednarz. 1995. Preservice geography education. Jour- nal of Geography 94 ( 5 ) : 482-486.

Boehm, R. G., J. Brierley, and M. Sharma. 1994. The bete noir of geographic edu- cation: Teacher training programs. Jour- nal ofGeography 93 (1): 21-25.

Chiodo, J. J. 1993. Mental maps: Preser- vice teachers’ awareness of the world. Journal of Geography 92 (3): 110-1 17.

Cole, D. 1995. Experienced teacher partic- ipation in preservice programs: A model in geography at the University of North- em Colorado. Journal of Geography 94

Doering, A.. D. Egan-Barker, C. Johnson, C. Keen, and M. Lo. 1995. GEO-Teach: A preservice teacher preparation pro- gram in geography. Journal of Geogra- phy 94 (5) : 524-526.

(5): 519-523.

Dulli, R. E., and J. M. Goodman. 1994. Geography in a changing world. NASSP Bulletin 78 (564): 1-6.

Goldman, J. P. 1990. Remapping geography instruction. Education Digest 55 (9): 38-40.

Geography Education Standards Project. 1994. Geography for life-National Geography Standards 1994. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society.

Hardwick, S. 1995. Looking towards the future: A concepts, themes, and standards approach to preservice teacher education. Journal of Geography 94 (5): 5 13-5 18.

Havill, T., R. A. Jobin, B. Maguire, and T. Miller. 1994. The Y of geography: Developing a model world geography course for preservice teachers. Journal of Geography 93 (4): 164-170.

Hermann, D. 1995. Overcoming geographic innocence in geography education. Jour- nal of Geography 94 (5): 527-529.

Libbee, M. 1995. Strengthening certifica- tion guidelines. Journal of Geography

Ludwig, G. 1995. Establishing preservice partnerships: Geography and social stud- ies. Journal of Geography 94(5): 5 30-5 33.

Morrill, R., J. P. Enedy, and S. K. Pontius. 1995. Teachers and university faculty cooperating to improve teacher prepara- tion. Journal of Geography 94 ( 5 ) :

NCGE. 1991. The role of geography in pre- service teacher preparation. Journal of Geography 91 ( 2 , supp.): 1-8.

Peterson, J. F., S. J. Natoli, and R. G. Boehm. 1994. The guidelines for geo- graphic education: A ten-year perspec- tive. Social Education 58 (4): 206-2 10.

Petry, A. K. 1995. Future teachers of geog- raphy: Whose opportunity? Journul of Geography 94 (5): 487-494.

Salter, C. L. 1991. Eliminating geographic ignorance. Education Digest 56 (9): 59-62.

Shirey, R. I., and J. W. Bencloski, eds. 1990. The introductory course in geogruphy for the preservice teacher. Washington, D.C.: Assn. of American Geographers.

Viadero, D. 1993. Geography educators release first draft of curriculum standard. Education Week 12 (40): 5 .

94 (5): 501-504.

538-542.

38 JANUARYlFEBRUARY 1997 THE SOCIAL STUDIES