TEACHER EDUCATION GEOCAPABILITIES 2: TEACHERS AS...

D2.2 Report “A small-scale survey among teachers and teacher educators”

526222-LLP-2012-BE-COMENIUS-CMP

1

LIFELONGLEARNING PROGRAMME –COMENIUS ACTION

TEACHER EDUCATION

GEOCAPABILITIES 2: TEACHERS AS CURRICULUM LEADERS

539079-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-COMENIUS-CMP

A EUROPEAN COMENIUS MULTILATERAL PROJECT

With the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication report reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the

information contained therein

.


526222-LLP-2012-BE-COMENIUS-CMP

2

D2.2 Report

A small-scale survey among teachers and teacher educators in participating countries

Author(s) partner:

Professor Sirpa Tani [Partner 2, University of Helsinki]

Due date of deliverable: September 2014 (month 10)

Version: v1

Dissemination Level: Public

Abstract: This report presents findings from the small-scale survey that was conducted among a group of geography teachers and teacher educators in the partner and associate partner countries of the GeoCapabilities2 project. The report shows respondents’ initial ideas of ‘capabilities’ and investigates the status of capabilities in their thinking about geography teaching.

With the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication report reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.


526222-LLP-2012-BE-COMENIUS-CMP 3

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Ideas of ‘human wellbeing’ and ‘human potential’

3. The role of education in achieving human wellbeing

4. Geography’s contribution to human capabilities

5. Teachers’ and teacher educators’ educational goals and teaching practices

6. Factors affecting geography teaching

7. Reflections

Annexes

Survey for experienced geography teachers and teacher educators (English)

Kysely maantieteen opettajille ja opettajankouluttajille (Finnish)

Erhebungsbogen für erfahrene Geographielehrer und Lehrerausbilder (German)

Enkät för geografilärare och lärarutbildare (Swedish)



1 Introduction

The aim of the survey was to explore geography teachers’ and teacher educators’

initial ideas of ‘capabilities’ and to investigate the status of capabilities in their

thinking about geography teaching.

The survey was designed in collaboration of the project participants. The English

version of the questions was then later translated into the languages used in partner

and associate partner countries. In addition to the English version, also Finnish,

Dutch German, Greek and Swedish versions were used. Reponses gathered by

using different languages were then translated into English.

Because of some practical and logistical reasons, data were gathered using different

procedures in participating countries: in some countries, the survey was conducted in

the form of interviews (e.g. in England and Germany), while in some other countries,

in the form of questionnaires (e.g. Finland and Sweden). Whilst this is clearly

problematic from a purely methodological point of view, the project team determined

that this was tolerable, given the goals of the investigation (to explore views and

perception and to provide contextual ‘colour’ and ‘texture’ to the initial conceptual

work rather than an objective foundation or platform). The number of respondents

was decided to be kept small: the aim was to reach 4 to 6 teachers and/or teacher

educators in every participant country. The US participant decided take a little more

time and to gather a larger data set, which will be analysed and reported on later in a

subsequent document.

It is important to note that the length of the answers varied remarkably between the

countries. There were several reasons for this: First, because of the differences in

data gathering method, the written answers were in some cases transcribed by the

researcher after the oral interviews conducted with the respondents (in England,

Germany, Greece and the Netherlands), while in some other cases they were written

in their native language by the respondents themselves and then later translated into

English by the researcher (in Finland and Sweden). The method of translating the

oral interviews varied between the countries: for example, the Dutch researcher

translated the main ideas of the responses, not word-precise expressions while the

German researcher made more detailed translations. In the Finnish case, the



researcher’s aim was to translate the written answers as carefully as possible. All

these differences can affect the results and should be kept in mind. Second, because

of the language issue, the English respondents and the English researcher – who

could use their own language in their responses – could produce more detailed

answers than the participants from other countries.

In the survey, some background information was gathered in order to get an overall

idea of the participants. By the time of writing this report (November 2014), 31

respondents had participated in the study, fifteen of them being teacher educators

and sixteen geography teachers. All of them were experienced teachers and teacher

educators; many had been working for several decades. The respondents, whose

academic backgrounds and degrees varied between the countries, came from six

countries:

– England: 10 respondents (4 teacher educators, 6 teachers)

– Finland: 6 respondents (1 teacher educator, 5 teachers)

– Germany: 5 respondents (4 teacher educators, 1 teacher)

– Greece: 2 respondents (2 teachers)

– The Netherlands: 6 respondents (6 teacher educators)

– Sweden: 3 respondents (3 teachers)

The analysis was started by reading all the answers to each question one after the

other, so that the replies from different countries were kept separate. Some notes

were then made based on the first impressions. Some initial differences between the

replies from different countries were noted; they will be mentioned later in the

presentations and in the report. Then, answers were reduced in order to find their

‘core content’. After that, data was re-organised based on its content. Answers from

different countries were analysed together and some categories were formed, which

will be introduced in the following pages.

During the process of designing the questionnaire first in English and then translating

it into different languages, the researchers noted a couple of issues that must be kept

in mind while reading the analysis and interpretations made in this report. First, the

concept of ‘capability’ was found difficult to be translated so that it would be

understood in the same way in all the participating countries. An example of the



straightforward translations can be found in Figure 1 showing the translations of the

word ‘capability’ in some of the many European languages.

Figure 1. The term ‘capability’ translated into different European languages

(http://ukdataexplorer.com/european-translator/).

Second, some of the researchers pointed out how the English term ‘curriculum

making’ could not be translated without a danger of losing its original meaning. The

words ‘curriculum’ and ‘making’ were easy to translate, but the idea of teachers who

have the power to decide how to apply the ideas of national standards or framework

curricula into their teaching in practice was not that easy to translate. For example, in

Finland, ‘curriculum making’ (‘opetussuunnitelman tekeminen’ in Finnish) as a term is

connected to the process where national framework curriculum is converted to

municipal or school curricula. Teachers in Finland are relatively free to decide what

they do in their classrooms and therefore ‘curriculum making’ should be explained for

them in a different way. The Finnish case is just one of the many examples that the

researchers had to face and solve in conducting this research.

Finally, we have to stress that this report does not pretend to be an act of ‘high-

fidelity’ social science research and it should not be read in that way. It is a small-

http://ukdataexplorer.com/european-translator/



scale survey with a modest (but nevertheless, for this project, important) purpose. It

is to elicit some perspectives of 'capabilities' as possible approach to enable or

facilitate curriculum leadership in geography. This project – especially this report – is

not 'research' to stand on its own two feet: it is more the beginnings, or entry point, to

a process that leads to a heightened sensitivity of some of the cultural factors that

influence (and to some extent, guide) the "curriculum making" interventions that

make up the online platform and its evaluation during the next steps of the project.



2 Ideas of ‘human wellbeing’ and ‘human potential’

After some background questions (regarding respondent’s academic background;

main fields of interest in geography; experience in teaching/teacher education) a

following context statement was given to the respondents:

“In order to achieve their potential people need to be able to stay healthy and

take part in cultural, economic, social and political life. Broadly speaking,

people need to be in a position to take responsibility for their own lives. They

need to be able to think, make decisions and act according to what they believe

is right. All these abilities, capacities and attributes we refer to as human

‘capabilities’”.

The statement was followed by the first question: “From your perspective, what is

meant by ‘human wellbeing’ and ‘human potential’?” For the analysis, ideas

regarding ‘human wellbeing’ and ‘human potential’ were decided to be kept separate

because of the notable differences in the answers. ‘Human wellbeing’ seemed to be

understood more easily among the respondents coming from different countries than

the concept of ‘human potential’, which was found difficult to be translated and thus

described in different languages – this could be seen for example by comparing the

English responses to the answers from other countries.

‘Human wellbeing’ was analysed by forming some preliminary categories. Objective

factors were understood as including the basic needs and their fulfillment, while

subjective factors were defined as people’s own ideas of how happy or satisfied they

were. In closer inspection of the data, however, it was noticed that these two

categories were not easy to be applied in all the situations. For example, how to

categorize answers where the emphasis was put on the actions that society should

produce (e.g. ‘to produce successful learners, confident individuals, responsible

citizens’) or on the actions that an individual should make (e.g. ‘how others are

treated; how people look after themselves – habits, choices, how to use time)’?

Health was often mentioned (both physical and mental health) – but was it something

that should be thought as an objective or subjective factor? For example, is ‘knowing

how to stay healthy’ objective factor of human wellbeing? The problems in categories



were evident in some cases where basic needs were mentioned: some respondents

included not only concrete issues such as food, clothing and shelter in basic

needs, but also some social elements (family and friends) as well as emotional

issues (being happy). After finding the first attempt of categorization problematic,

data was then organized under three main categories: objective (measurable)

factors; subjective factors (people’s own experiences of their wellbeing); and

relational factors (how one acts as an individual; how other people are treated, etc.).

Teachers’ and teacher educators’ ideas of ‘human wellbeing’ were then categorized

under these three themes (Table 1).

Majority of the respondents highlighted the individual aspects in human wellbeing;

basic needs and health (including both physical and mental health) were often

mentioned. It is interesting to pay attention not only to the most often mentioned

issues in the data, but also to some ‘silences’; issues that were not at all – or were

seldom – mentioned. These included for example, economic aspects, which were

mentioned only by some respondents. They were totally absent in the English data;

twice mentioned by the Finnish respondents and then combined with ‘softer’ issues

(‘physical, social, mental, economic, cultural balance’ and ‘health, friendships, safe

economic situation’); once by a Greek respondent as well once by a Dutch

respondent. Societal dimensions were hardly mentioned; most of the responses

emphasized the individualistic level of the definitions of ‘human wellbeing’. The

Swedish respondents, however, stressed this dimension. Environmental dimension

was also practically missing; the respondents did not connect human wellbeing to the

environmental wellbeing or issues threatening it – like global warming. When the

context of the survey was clearly attached to geography education, it was perhaps

surprising to see how the respondents did not connect their responses on the human

wellbeing with geography.



Table 1. Teachers’ and teacher educators’ ideas of ‘human wellbeing’.

Objective (measurable) factors Basic needs

basic needs (physical, mental and social) fulfilled; having access to shelter, warmth, food and clothing; family & friends; calorie intake per day; food, clothing, hygiene and medical treatments; Maslow (pyramid of needs): health, safety, recognition

Health

health, including mental health; physical and emotional health Economic security

being sufficiently wealthy (i.e. not struggling to survive); material security; safe economic situation; income; size of apartments

General descriptions

physical, social, mental, economic, cultural balance

living spaces, work and consumption, education, relaxation, commuting, propagating and living in a community

access to education

Subjective factors (people’s own experiences of their wellbeing)

being sufficiently fit and healthy (in both body and mind) to be able to enjoy life

being content with oneself ; being content of existing situation; the level of comfort achieved in all aspects of life of a human being; happiness

family life and friendship

feeling secure

beliefs

ability to express oneself; abilities to effect on one’s own life; to get to know themselves, be adaptable to change

to recognize one’s talents and have ambitions

satisfaction of small desires (spare time activities)

to empathize, to understand the world

balance between oneself and the environment

empowerment

Relational factors (how one acts as an individual; how other people are treated, etc.)

the capacity to remain healthy; how people look after themselves

knowledge, understanding & skills to be a successful citizen

abilities to effect on one’s own life; ‘agency’

ability to express oneself in work and/or hobbies; satisfying recreational interests

satisfying one’s cultural and educational needs

to be able to choose where and how to live

confidence to decide, make choices; to take part, thrive, interact

how others are treated (i.e. respect for people); be willing to act for other people’s good; to interact with others and respect others; to live a healthy and good life without using other people’s resources, i.e. the ecological footprint

economic prosperity combined with the proper use of natural resources that leads to sustainability

to produce successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens

human rights, democratic rights; possibility to live the life one wants to live without being discriminated



3 The role of education

The second question of the survey – “What is the role of education in helping people

achieve wellbeing and their full potential in life?” – was designed in order to be able

investigate the respondents’ ideas of education as a promoter of human wellbeing.

As described earlier in this report, there were notable differences in the length of the

answers provided by the respondents coming from different countries, the English

responses being clearly more detailed and having more dimensions than the others.

This will affect the results and should be kept in mind when the following analysis is

reflected. Responses included some general notions; knowledge-led notions;

individual-centred notions (including skills); future- and society-led notions; as well as

some value-based notions.

Majority of the responses connected the importance of education with the individual-

centred aspects; education was seen as a way to enhance students’ opportunities to

achieve their potential in life by offering them some essential skills and

competencies. One of the respondents described the meaning of education as

follows:

“…education has a really important contribution to make to enable children to

achieve their potential: knowledge, insights, experiences that are distinctive

and which promote wellbeing (physical and mental). When done well this

provides young people with a platform on which THEY can achieve potential:

they are able see opportunities, can make choices…”

Education was seen as a way to help young people to recognize their own strengths

and weaknesses. Later, they could develop an interest to turn their weaknesses into

strengths and thus to enhance their opportunities to achieve their full potential in

future. One of the respondents described how education could unlock young

people’s potential:

“Education is really important to unlock potential. Giving people the ability to

think and make decisions for themselves; understanding that the world is not

black and white but is made up of shades of grey…”

Education was also seen important in preparing the students with some skills that

they would need in their future life. These skills were mostly connected with social life

and the abilities to interact with other people:



“Young person learns not only skills to challenge oneself, but also skills to live

with other people.”

In some responses, these individual-centred skills were connected with broader

contexts; education was seen as an important agent that could help young people

gain the basic skills for their future life as individuals but also as citizens in their

society:

“Education provides basic building blocks, preparing young people for their

future(s).

“Education will enhance your chance to be content, as more education opens

up more potential and thus more options to make things happen in the future.”

In the responses, the role of education in enhancing human wellbeing and potential

was surprisingly seldom connected with knowledge production or offering some

value-based aspects. Few respondents mentioned the knowledge that was needed

in order to enhance students’ opportunities to reach their future potential, or as one

of the respondents mentioned, the importance of a broad knowledge of ‘life, the

world and everything’ in this context. Another respondent stated: “Education can give

people knowledge that can open up new perspectives to them; new possibilities can

be discovered as well as problems being solved”. Some respondents were thinking

of different definitions and aspects of ‘education’. In their responses they were eager

to see education in a broader context:

“I want also to add that school is not the only site for educational experiences!”

“A person does not grow or develop in a vacuum. Living in a family also

includes education. Do you mean school education here? School education

has a really important role. Educational values on the national level reflect the

issues which are considered as important in society.”

Education was seen as a way to help young people understand the world and by

understanding, to enlarge their vision of the world. One of the respondents noted

how this kind of understanding could only be achieved through education, which

could thus be taken as ‘the basis of personal and societal development with the

share of each person being different, according to his or her personal human

potential’.



4 Geography’s contribution to human capabilities

The third question of the survey – “What, specifically, does geography education

enable one to know, understand, and be able to do?” – was designed to find out the

respondents’ ideas of geography in educational contexts. While some of the

respondents were geography teachers, they were ready to reflect geography in the

school context and especially its value for their young students, whereas those

coming from teacher education were often linking their responses with the context of

future geography teachers. In the following, all the answers will be analysed together;

this is done because of the limited number of respondents in each categories.

Answers – or extracts of them – were categorized under some main themes that

were identified in the respondents’ answers: namely, the importance of

understanding; skills and competencies; knowledge; moral and ethical values; and

emotional aspects. In the following, these themes are investigated by offering some

examples from the responses.

Most often the main relevance of geography education in the context of human

capabilities was connected with the need of understanding different issues. Some

respondents mentioned the understanding of spatial perspectives, but most often,

this aspect was linked with the ‘geographical thinking’, including the students’ abilities

‘to make sense of what they see, hear and do in the world’. Geographical thinking

and understanding were defined for example as follows:

“Thinking geographically means to think and finally also to act from different

perspectives.”

“…a strong understanding of the world they live in (and on) – an understanding

which can then be used in future life to make sense of the rapid changes that

are taking place on the planet.”

“Geography education enables people to understand the world around them,

enabling them to appreciate how they are compared to others, and to identify

both global patterns and reasons for these patterns.”

“Holistic and wide-ranging character of geography enhances to construct

understandable wholes from the fragmented facts.”

Another common theme that was present in the responses was skills and

competencies that were taught in geography education. Some respondents were



ready to highlight the meaning of broader thinking skills, whereas some talked more

specifically about skills in the context of geography education. These skills were

needed for critical reflection as well as for making ‘reasonable and justified

decisions’; for taking part ‘in the activities of communities and society’; for evaluating

‘the consequences of planning decisions’ as well as for reasoning ‘for their own point

of view’ or ‘being able to be an informed democratic citizen'. Some respondents

mentioned specific skills that were taught in geography. These included for example

map making/interpretation and graphical skills. A respondent reasoned this in the

following way:

“If the competences of analyzing and reflecting geo-media are taught, students

will be able to extract information from them in their daily lives and also always

take into account the constructive character of media. This helps to reduce

political manipulation.”

There were some respondents who talked about the importance of knowledge that

should be taught in geography education. Often they linked knowledge with

understanding:

“We learn more about people; difference and diversity. Young people should be

able to draw on this knowledge in their everyday lives… it enables them. They

understand more, they are better equipped to make informed decisions.”

In some responses, knowledge was linked straight to the factual information that was

regarded as important:

“Geography education gives young person knowledge about the world, its

physical characteristics, people and cultures, also knowledge about history of

nature and its processes and the importance of welfare of the environment for

people.”

Some respondents also regarded values and moral education as important aspects

in geography education. ‘Geography widens students’ view of the world’, said one

respondent, whereas some others mentioned the importance of educating for

responsibility and enhancing ‘the possibilities to live a sustainable life’. One

respondent mentioned the need ‘to identify conflicts of interest e.g. the distribution of

the Earth’s resources, that have to be solved in order to increase the well-being of a

majority’. Only few respondents mentioned emotional aspects. They linked



geography education with ‘a sense of belonging’, stimulating curiosity and enhancing

students’ sight of ‘awe and wonder about the planet and its phenomena’.

The fourth question in the survey took a different perspective at the issue. The

respondents were asked to answer the question “What are the consequences, in

terms of human wellbeing and human potential, of not being educated in

geography?” Most often, losing the opportunity to see ‘a big picture’, or to understand

the physical and human aspects together, were mentioned as severe consequences.

Many of the respondents were ready to reflect this question from many viewpoints,

for example:

“I have no evidence of this of course, but it is my judgment over many years as

a school teacher … that students, unless taught geography, do not seem to

have a big picture (of themselves in the world).”

“Understanding of the basics of environmental issues is the basis for a

sustainable way of life. In addition to that, geography education deals with

issues related with both physical and cultural environment that can help to

develop one’s own identity and recognizing it.”

“Without geography education young people would not be able to understand

or even question their position in the world. This does not refer to the

knowledge of their hometown’s latitude and longitude, but to the understanding

of influencing factors between the environment and the individual. The student

would be denied the opportunity of seeing things beyond his own world.”

Lack of understanding the ‘big picture’ was connected to the insufficient knowledge

of spatial variation, reasons behind it, and its consequences in different areas of the

world. This could be seen in the restricted worldview:

“This all depends on what we mean by geography … it is after all socially

defined. However, the essence is that without geography we risk not imparting

the spatial element … leading to a restricted view of the world: you don’t know

what’s out there! … in all its diversity and differences. Pupils would lack a

locational framework of the world. They lack an aspect of empathy because a

lack of knowledge and understanding would restrict their ability to empathize…”

“Without geographical knowledge and training you risk being insular; less likely

to see yourself as a global person. Your horizons/opportunities are limited.



Your wellbeing is affected ... you are less mindful of your role, in terms of

potential actions, with regard to issues that affects your life.”

Some respondents were ready to give examples where the lack of understanding

physical and human elements together seemed to be obvious:

“The consequences of geographical illiteracy are already clearly visible –

building on floodplains, denying climate change, air pollution in Asia – all these

examples have an impact on human wellbeing and restrict human potential.”

This kind of insufficient or partial understanding was linked with various elements.

Some respondents mentioned how students would miss ‘a certain kind of intellectual

perspective’, or how they would not be ‘able to fully synthesize the knowledge,

understanding, skills elsewhere in the curriculum if the curriculum has not been

designed to foster a “holism”’. Some of them were concerned about the probable lack

of factual knowledge and certain skills:

“Pupils would lack a locational framework of the world.”

“People with no geography in their educational background? Well, they

probably have a lower level of place knowledge, a less well developed

locational framework.”

“Without geography education, ’graphic literacy’ could also remain

undeveloped.”

The possible lack of geography education was also thought to affect students’ values

by restricting their worldview and their abilities to understand and appreciate different

places and people:

“Without geography people may lack an appreciation of the world in which they

live.”

“They lack an aspect of empathy because a lack of knowledge and

understanding would restrict their ability to empathise.”

This kind of partial knowledge and understanding was also linked to the limited

engagement of the world that could then keep them passive and feeling detached

from decision-making:



“Without geography, I believe a reduced engagement with the world is the

result. The resultant lack of understanding is disempowering ... affecting voting

maybe, participation in important debates, taking responsibility.”

“You are not aware of the world’s impact on you and your impact on the world –

you lack the insight that you are capable (have the potential) to make a

difference when it comes to for example protecting the environment.”

“…bigger danger of political manipulation, less interest in influencing one’s own

environment and in solving global problems, less understanding of spatial

conflicts of interest…”

“A human being not taught in geography has a harder time being a participant

in a democracy and to influence their situation, find it more difficult seeing

themselves and situations from different perspectives and scales.”

In some responses, geography was seen as a way to foster students’ emotions and

their appreciation of beauty:

“From the wellbeing point of view, without geography you cannot understand

and protect yourself and the others of the natural dangers, as well as not being

able to fully appreciate the beauty of the nature and what complex processes

have shaped our world.”

It was interesting to see how some respondents were ready to make a difference

between geography as a school subject and geographical perspectives to the world.

One respondent thought about the challenges of branding geography:

“This becomes a branding issue – does this question mean Geography (with a

big G) or geography (with a little g). If you do waves in physics, and inequality

in economics, and vegetation succession in biology, then bring it all together in

an extended essay you are therefore a de facto geographer. Do we need

people to learn Geography and call it that, or geography in terms of a

knowledge led approach?”

Another respondent was questioning the idea that certain issues could be only

connected to geography education; she was ready to stress the possibility to get the

needed knowledge in some other ways, too:



“I cannot think categorically that studying geography would be the only way to

wellbeing; this kind of thinking can even be dangerous. Studying geography,

offers of course an excellent basis for diversified and responsible thinking

(which indicates wellbeing), but there are also good and wellbeing people

without geography. It depends on the context.”

One of the respondents stressed that without geography education the area of

geographical knowledge could be ‘drained of its value-based content and reduced to

Trivial Pursuit -type of knowledge’. When the given responses to questions 3 and 4

were analysed together, it seemed obvious that the geography teachers and teacher

educators saw geography as important in enhancing students’ abilities to develop a

broad sense of the world, to connect physical and human perspectives together and

to learn to understand interdependence of different elements both in local but

foremost in the global level.



5 Teachers’ and teacher educators’ educational goals and teaching

practices

The fifth question of the survey – “In your practice, what educational goals for your

students do you have as a geography teacher?” – was designed for finding out how

the respondents saw their own contribution to broader educational aims they

considered important. This question produced a wide range of answers, which were

then classified as knowledge-centred goals; goals enhancing students’ motivation

and interest; goals related to different kind of skills; emotional and aesthetic aims;

social aims as well as value-based aims. These will be analysed closer in the

following.

Knowledge was mentioned only few times as educational goals for the respondents,

and even then, it was not the first in the list:

“Knowing different regions and places is not the number first in my ranking list,

but it also has some relevance for example in the context of traveling (holidays,

working, studying).”

More often, the respondents told that it was important for them to get their students

interested in geography as a subject. Enhancement of their motivation and

curiousness were mentioned by many teachers and teacher educators:

“I think it is important that students would construct attitude towards life that is

based on curiousness and desire for knowledge.”

“I seek to develop a love of the subject; and I want students to ‘get’ the

subject.”

“I want (my student teachers) to understand the significance of geography

education contributing to social justice. I want student teachers to love their

subject, think deeply about it and its value to young people.”

“…being an eye-opener for the subject of geography’s breadth and versatility.”

Development of students’ geographical thinking skills was seen as one of the most

important educational goals among the respondents. In these responses geography

as a school subject was closely linked with broader educational aims. Teachers’

pedagogical content knowledge and its application to teaching practice were

emphasized in these answers:



“I want them to understand the world in ways they did not have before – know

where places are; how they are linked; and understand some of the processes

happening in these places … human and physical processes that explain

change on a number of scales (short and long; local and global). And how

society responds to some of these changes.”

“For me, it is important that students understand the relations between and

interdependencies of people and nature. They should understand the changes

in their environment (local, regional and global), evaluate them and develop

initiatives.”

“My main aim is to present the interrelationships between the natural

environment and human activities in different regions of the earth.

Understanding the interrelationships between nature and society helps

students learn to understand and evaluate processes and to think of

rudimentary solutions. Through this educational approach I hope to encourage

students to participate in societal life in a competent and engaged way.”

Some respondents mentioned some thinking skills that were not directly connected

with geographical aspects. For example, one of them saw it important that students

would become ‘enquiring learners’ who ultimately would understand ‘the limits of

their own knowledge’. There was also a couple of mentions on geographical working

skills, for example, ‘to be able to use a map’, ‘to study a map, to identify the relief of

an area’; one of the respondents mentioned how students’ success in their

examinations was one of the educational goals.

Besides knowledge- and skills-based goals there were many mentions of more

value- and emotional-based goals in the answers. Geography education was not only

seen as including factual knowledge, but it also had many aspects that could

enhance students’ personal bond with their environment and other people. This bond

was seen important in developing responsible and empowered attitude towards the

world:

“It is also wonderful if a young person becomes interested in nature hobbies,

because I think that personal emotional bond with nature enhances in

constructing one’s capabilities to act for the environment.”



”There are many things in geography which I find important to deal with:

Constructing students’ and teacher students’ self-esteem; Improvement of

thinking skills; Respecting others and working together (sociability);

Strengthening and identifying one’s regional and cultural identities…”

Geography was seen as a way to educate young people towards active citizenship.

One respondent told that s(he) wanted students ‘to internalize sustainable way of

living, not only at the level of knowledge but also at the level of attitudes and actions’.

Some others mentioned same kind of goals for geography education:

“…students need to understand that they are part of something bigger, a larger

world, and what they do and think matters, because it can have impact.”

“To educate young people to become responsible, environmentally aware,

tolerant people who live a sustainable way of life.”

“…critical global citizenship, to learn to look at your environment and the

changing world critically.”

“Students should view geography as a subject that not only describes the

world, but also can change it – and that they feel involved in the process.”

There were several aims mentioned that connected geographical education with

broader educational aims of developing students’ social skills, empathy and respect

towards other people and cultures:

“To show genuine interest in the world around them. To consider decisions in

relation to their understanding of the wider world. To have compassion for

others.”

“I would like my students to respect the opinions of others…”

“Developing environmental and global responsibility, growing up to be a citizen,

getting along in everyday life, respecting other people, difference and

diversities, understanding the value of natural environments.”

“Personally I would like my students to participate in developing our society by

summoning the courage to take a stand in relation to developments because

they know that they can justify their view with the help of geography education.

Furthermore I would like my students to respect the opinions of others and to



be aware of the fact, that there is a relation between people and their

environment and that their actions thus influence the environment.”

Geography was seen as a multi-dimensional subject that could enhance students’

abilities to develop not only their knowledge base and skills, but also to develop their

moral, aesthetic and ethical values. Geographical thinking was highly valued among

the educational goals and it was linked with enhancement of understanding the ‘big

picture’ – the interconnection of physical and human environments – and their effects

on both local and global level.

Teacher educators who participated in the study gave us some examples how the

educational aims were applied in teacher education. One of them described how

s(he) encouraged student teachers ‘to have an understanding of the purpose of

lessons and teachers’ work’, whereas another respondent emphasized the

importance of fostering enjoyment in teaching and of contributing ‘to debates of

educational change and development’. One teacher educator described her/his

views like this:

“They should learn to scientifically think geographically, to develop their own

questions and methods, to conduct small research, to learn the ability to

interpret and argue, they should develop an understanding of geography and

its main contents and theoretical approaches and on this basis be able to

decide what to teach in their own lessons.”

The sixth question in the survey – “How do your educational goals affect what

geography you teach and how you teach it?” – was targeted for finding out how the

respondents implemented their educational aims into their teaching practice.

Most often, the respondents highlighted the use of different teaching methods that

would make their students interested in the subject. Some teachers mentioned that

their own interest and motivation were the starting points in their work. When they

were interested in the subject themselves this interest could also strengthen

students’ motivation:

“I teach topics that I find interesting! I can pass on my enthusiasm… I feel my

teaching has to have relevance … by which I don’t just mean immediate

interest to the students; I mean relevant to society today.”

“I teach geography that I am passionate about where possible…”



Teaching methods that could enhance students’ abilities to think critically were highly

valued by many respondents. Even when knowledge was also regarded important, it

was normally not enough:

“Knowledge is very important, but I want critical understanding, engagement

and the feeling of empowerment: that is the knowledge has to be engaged with,

not just received.”

“Issue based education. Part of that is to learn to form an opinion. Learn to

formulate arguments, exchange arguments, to form an opinion. Choice of the

issues on relevance and raise questions about the issues.”

Teachers were ready to give many examples of the teaching methods that they

found important. Even when the variation of the methods was great, the common

feature in the majority of the methods was their way to give the students an active

role in the learning process. Students were hoped to be educated towards creative

and critical thinking, and to become competent interpreters of different information as

well as be willing to work together with others and to be able to understand the views

of different people and interest groups:

“I use tasks that are designed to foster students’ creativity and to make them

think. To me it is very important that students think and act autonomously.”

“I try to use collaborative working methods in my classes so that the students

will work together.”

“I try to use different methods, for example case studies where the ideas of

different interest groups are highlighted. I also use tasks where students must

take different roles.”

Enquiry-based learning, portfolios, case studies and decision-making exercises were

mentioned among the teaching methods that were used. Some teachers also

mentioned the use of Internet and different applications of ICT in their teaching.

Students were seen as active information-searchers who had to be able to find, to

interpret and to use information for their study projects, which they then had to be

able to present by using various presentation and communication tools.

Some of the respondents were ready to highlight the importance of linking geography

teaching with students’ everyday experiences and their daily surroundings. This was



seen as one way to foster their motivation that could build bridges between

geography as a school subject and as a way to understand the world:

“I try to get the students into situations where they have to wonder about

different phenomena based on natural and human activities, or some concrete

examples. I also try to connect my geography teaching with students’ everyday

life and their local environments, in other words, I try to teach them to ‘read’ the

world geographically in everyday contexts.”

“I try to use current and everyday examples, to present issues clearly.”

“Authentic work with real questions or problems is often much more rewarding.

I try to work in real contexts and use an inductive approach to understanding.”

One teacher emphasized current challenges for geography teachers:

“I have an emphasis on sustainable development which is ‘easy’ in terms of

the curriculum, but not always as easy to create tasks about. Today’s youth

finds (with increasing knowledge) that the issues of sustainability are complex

and (they) would like to have concretion, which may be difficult to provide in

complex areas such as climate change.”

Teachers’ and teacher educators’ responses gave a diverse picture of geography as

a school subject where higher educational aims could easily been put in practice by

applying a wide range of teaching methods. Most often, the respondents stressed the

importance of helping students develop their competence to work together with

others, to use different sources of information for constructing their arguments and to

see the world from different perspectives.



6 Factors affecting geography teaching

In the seventh – and the final – question the respondents were asked to ponder their

views of the factors affecting their work. We asked: “Are there factors beyond your

control that affect what and how geography is taught in schools? What are they and

how has geography been affected in the curriculum?”

Factors that were listed in the answers included: education policy; accountability;

examinations and testing; curriculum; teaching materials; school’s resources;

practical issues in teachers’ work; and teachers’ competence as well teacher

education. There were some clear differences in the responses coming from different

countries; comments concerning accountability were mainly coming from English

respondents (one or two Dutch respondents also mentioned it though), while the role

of curriculum was most often stressed in Finnish, Greek and Swedish answers.

Education policy in general was often seen as affecting teachers’ power to have a

say in planning their teaching. Some respondents mentioned how politically

motivated decision making was often changing the direction where education should

be going; this was seen as unsettling for teaching in practice. Many English

respondents were concerned about the accountability pressures:

“Teachers are driven by accountability and market forces. ‘Management speak’

replaces proper planning for geography (for example the exhortation that pupils

must ‘make progress’ in every lesson).”

“Accountability pressures. The requirement on teachers to perform – by

measurable and imposed criteria, such as ‘all pupils need to show progress in

every lesson’. These pressures get passed down the chain … to student

teachers and ultimately the children: children seem only interested in their

measured performance, not what they are learning (this is not a new problem,

but is now grossly intensified).”

“We are focused on grading, standards, and away from deeper thought about

what we are teaching. New teachers are focused on technical competence,

which is just not ambitious enough. It is not robust enough to withstand

‘blowing in the wind’. It is unprincipled.”

Alongside the ‘accountability agenda’ various examinations, assignment and testing

procedures were seen to affect too much the aims and contents of geography



teaching in practice; some of the elements which could have been regarded as

important for young students, could get not enough attention because of their nature;

they were not necessarily those elements which could be tested and therefore they

were easily neglected or forgotten:

“Controlled assignments ... we need to make sure that students achieve…”

“Central examination and syllabus are dominant in teaching practices. If it is not

in the central exams (for example writing an essay), it will not be practised.”

“In upper secondary school, matriculation examination is also affecting

teaching, because students have to be coached for it during the whole upper

secondary school.”

The status of national curricula varies between the countries participated in this

study. When teachers and teacher educators were asked about the factors affecting

their work, many mentioned the power of curriculum to guide their work. This could

be seen as restricting their ability to choose what to teach and how to do it:

“National curriculum is brought as given.”

“I cannot affect the national curriculum; it must be followed.”

“I teach geography which is following the curriculum. There are many themes

and topics in the curriculum that must be studied effectively and quickly. It

restricts the working methods that can be used.”

“In our country, the Ministry of Education determines the strictly program and

lessons, so it is very difficult to bypass the process in order to teach what we

consider to be more appropriate.”

“Curricula are political constructions. They have been written with help of

experts but also with additions from politicians, which can lead to a sprawling

document.”

There were, however, some respondents who did not see national curricula as

restricting as teachers in the quotations above did. On the contrary, they were ready

to emphasize their opportunities to apply national guidelines into practice:

“The curriculum sets the framework, but I adjust it to the group of students I

teach.”



“Curricula are anyway so general and also corresponding with my own goals

that I don’t find them as restrictive.”

“Curriculum does not restrict work or studying above-mentioned contents, on

the contrary, it obliges to do that. One of the bottlenecks is teachers’

competency and their willingness to highlight these issues.”

Teachers’ competence was mentioned among factors affecting the ways in which

geography was taught in schools. A respondent mentioned how all the teachers

teaching geography were not necessarily competent enough for the job:

“My current school has a large number of non-specialists teaching

geography… This waters down the specific knowledge and understanding

shown by teachers in class and often has a negative impact on student passion

for the subject. I have expressed my views on this topic…”

“The curriculum is a bit too specific in areas such as GIS, where many teachers

lack relevant education, since the software is so modern and teachers don’t

know how to use it in a relevant way. In-service training tailored for teachers is

needed.”

The situations where the teachers did not always have academic degree in

geography were seen – quite easily – affecting the quality of teaching; they had

insufficient subject knowledge and could not thus make students interested in the

subject as likely as qualified geography teachers did. Some respondents saw

problems also in teacher education:

“The other bottleneck is teacher education where you don’t have enough

opportunities to strengthen teacher students’ competencies enough. School

culture would surely make things possible if there would be enough will, I really

believe that. In other words, I don’t believe that there are structural obstacles

but more obstacles related with competence and motivation.”

The above-described factors were connected to political decision-making and to

some structural features. Beside them, there were also quite many practical factors

mentioned which were seen as affecting teachers’ work. Teaching material and its

limitations were mentioned by some respondents:

“…the supply of teaching materials, especially in textbooks, has a great

influence on the kind of geography taught in schools, as, even if teachers don’t



solely use the textbook, they still take examples, tasks and material from

textbooks and teacher journals.”

“Textbook series have everything: tests, PowerPoint presentations… this leads

to less thinking of teachers…Publishers’ driving force. It would be much better

if teachers are curriculum makers…”

Some respondents gave examples of practical issues that affected teachers’ work.

Time pressure, financial resources of the school as well as class-sizes were among

the factors mentioned:

“…the resources of the school affect very much. It would be wonderful to be

able to make a fieldtrip during the grade 9 course... It is very difficult to get

money for this, especially during these times.”

“On the other hand the cuts in lesson time and the fusion with other subjects

increasingly reduce the opportunities to achieve geography education and to

foster a geographic view of the world.”

“The most important criterion for good teaching, which I unfortunately cannot

influence, is the size of the class. … The smaller the class the bigger the

success in learning (at least according to my observations). Large classes

provoke either lecturing or individual work, in the course of which students may

work, but have to get along with hardly any support.”

“Furthermore the amount of time allocated to geography is important. Long

term, cumulative, competence oriented learning cannot be achieved in one

lesson per week (plus all the disruptions in the course of a school year). This

framework provokes the planning of single lessons and makes long term

learning impossible.”

There were also some single points that the respondents mentioned in their answers.

Even when these were not common issues discussed in the survey, they are worth

mentioning here. One respondent was concerned about the style of geography

education in general:

“I am also very concerned with ‘edutainment’ and the slow but sure move away

from tough explanations and the need for instant gratification. I think this has

undermined aspects of physical geography where the focus has become more

superficial, on patterns not process. I see a lot of lessons which stress behavior



management and pedagogic technique, with rather limited geography. This is a

concern.”

Another respondent raised the concerned of constant changes made in the aims and

contents of teaching:

“The pace of change is bewildering and stressful – politically motivated

decision making, chopping and changing: this is unsettling.”

There was also concern of the emphasis of facts in geography teaching – they were

seen as opposite from the attempt to enhance understanding in geography

classrooms:

“A regional approach and factual knowledge are not helpful in developing a

need to know and an understanding for the complexity of the world.”

One teacher noted that selective traditions have a major impact on how geography

education is perceived today. Teachers’ own experiences of geography from their

school years or their perceptions of geography influenced by old traditions, affected

the ways in which geography was taught.

Despite all the obstacles and challenges that were seen as restricting teachers’

freedom to choose what and how to teach, there were also some more positive

arguments presented:

“School culture would surely make things possible if there would be enough

will, I really believe that. In other words, I don’t believe that there are structural

obstacles but more obstacles related with competence and motivation.”

“I think that there are very few things which would prevent me teaching that

kind of geography which I myself find important and interesting.”



7 Reflections

The results of the survey revealed some issues that were shared by many teachers

and teacher educators coming from different countries. Results revealed that the

teachers and teacher educators who participated the survey did not readily connect

‘human wellbeing’ and ‘human potential’ explicitly to geography education; these

were reflected mainly on a broader level. Individual aspects (e.g. basic needs, health,

security, ability to express oneself, etc.) were highlighted while societal, economic

and environmental aspects as elements of wellbeing were seldom mentioned.

Education was considered important in enhancing students’ opportunities to achieve

their personal potential; it was thought that education could offer young people skills

and essential competencies they would need in their lives. Education was seen as a

way to help them understand the world and to widen their world-vision.

Based on the responses to the first question of the survey, human wellbeing and

human potential were not necessarily connected with geographical education.

However, this was not the case in the other questions that were targeted more

closely to the context of geography education. It seems that for the respondents, at

least for the majority of them, one of the major features of geography was its diverse

character; it is a subject that includes both natural and human/social scientific

aspects, and when these are studied together, students’ abilities to develop their

understanding of multi-faceted and complex phenomena can be enhanced.

‘Understanding the big picture’ and ‘critical thinking’, were often connected to

geographical thinking, which was seen one of the most important feature in

geography education. Knowledge was seen important but often its importance was

linked with its opportunity to enhance understanding. More than ‘knowledge’,

teachers and teacher educators emphasized the abilities to find and evaluate

different kind of information and based on this, to develop their abilities to formulate

arguments and to take a stand.

It seems then that in the small snapshot of teachers and teacher educators who

informed this survey the particular significance ascribed to ‘powerful disciplinary

knowledge’ (as discussed in the GeoCap 2 Report D1.1) is not fully recognized or

acknowledged. Having said this, the survey may also simply reveal that teachers do

not have the language or the conceptual framework to incorporate geographical

knowledge into a concept of curriculum that is essentially Aims or Goals based. It is



to provide such a language and framework that the GeoCapabilities project may

have a contribution to make.

Several respondents internationally were keen to distinguish geographical knowledge

from other learning elements. Thus, geography was often seen as a subject where

values and ethical considerations were important: many respondents were

emphasizing the importance of enhancing students’ growth as active and responsible

citizens. Some also highlighted the aesthetic and emotional aspects which

geography education could include. Geography was seen as helping young people

construct their personal relationship with their environment and other people. This

relationship – or meaningful bond, their attachment with people and place – was

seen important in fostering their growth to responsible and active citizens.

Our survey revealed many obstacles that teachers were facing in their work. Many of

them told us about accountability and testing pressures that restricted their freedom

to teach what they found essential. Some of them saw the national guidelines as just

setting a framework for their teaching, while some others felt them as documents that

had to be followed in detail.

There were remarkable differences in responses coming from different countries.

This observation leads us to the question of ‘curriculum making’: this has been

introduced in Report D1.1 as a major conceptual foundation stone of the project

(indeed the project proposes a whole training Module based on this idea). In the

countries where the national curricula have power to guide teachers’ work in detail,

the idea of ‘teachers as curriculum makers’ may sound weird at first glance, while in

some other countries, where teachers have more freedom in planning and executing

their teaching, the idea is more easily understood. However, in all cases teachers are

responsible for the ‘enacted curriculum’. From the viewpoint of the GeoCapabilities

project, it is thus important to pay attention to context-based differences in the status

and practices of geography education. Despite these obvious differences, there

seems to be enough common features that are shared by teachers in different

countries regarding the essence of geography education. These features can be

further elaborated when the platform during the project will be designed.

Date post:	13-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

TEACHER EDUCATION GEOCAPABILITIES 2: TEACHERS AS...

Documents