Geography teaching

[xalciene]

Kevin Donnelly (The Australian) has a valid point about the neglect of current events and specific skills in geography syllabuses across the country, but we should not seek to replace existing syllabuses solely with the teaching of biophysical processes. Geography itself is an interesting and diverse discipline, spanning the applied and social

Comments

[munchymoocow]

The deficiencies in geography education are indicative of a wider malaise in school education across all the key learning areas. It's all about perspective really. Some say it's dumbing down, for others it's all apart of some leftist agenda, and someone else might call it readjusting the curriculum for new educational purposes. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

A question that needs to be answered, I think, is who the syllabuses and greater curriculum is targeted at and what the aim of geography education is. An approach based upon teaching for students moving up towards further education in the field, where firm understanding of principles and facts would be important, would be different than those who won't be continuing their studies, i.e. education for some versus education for all. There are issues of relevance which really are important for consideration, right down to the classroom level; students need a purpose for learning or they disengage, and there's no real educational point in force-feeding. I know it sounds like some kind of new age cop out that Kevin Donnely alludes to, but it's true.

In addition to your three steps to improving geography education, I think teacher development must be included; after all they're the ones responsible for implementing any syllabus. I don't mean merely in terms geography as an academic pursuit, but in better pedagogical approaches to geography. Similarly to my KLA (science), I think that generally, students come to year seven geography enthused and open to learning, but by year eight they'd have change their attitudes completely. Purely making it compulsory right up until year ten isn't enough. The 'boring' bits don't necessarily need to be so.

[xalciene]

There isn't a point in force feeding, but calls for a stronger conceptual and scientific basis to geography teaching are most welcome. Better teacher training is needed, granted (and that's what I was suggesting with the recruitment of geographers as teachers -- presumably they'd have the required education training as well), and often its the teacher that makes a class intersting, rather than the content -- although good content helps.

There's such an enormous range of topics and processes that can be studied in geography, and I agree that getting students interested from an early age is worthwile. However, I still stand by my point that it be made compulsory, as the essential skills that are taught are very important. Children need to have a strong understanding of the real world, and whilst teaching processes, on average, probably needs to improve, education of biophysical processes, the effects of land-uses, social, cultural and economic uses and inequalities of cities, and processes such as migration and development is important. Good teachers and good syllabuses are a good starting point.

[xalciene]

PS, did you read this letter in The Australian yesterday? It made a good point about what students are really getting out of school, and what the point of high school classes is.
(http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/its_killing_the_roots_of_our_cultural_inheritance/)

WELL done for taking an unashamedly conservative stance on the education debate ("In defence of the true values of learning”, Inquirer, 23-24/9). There are, however, two points to be made if the debate is to be relevant to the majority of students.

First, the argument so far has been to do with what and how to teach the top 15 per cent of students (your future readers). Certainly, the classics are appropriate for those who can understand and appreciate them, but for the large majority of students reading and comprehending extended texts with challenging language and themes is, for whatever reason, impossible. Many of these students will never read The Australian, or any other newspaper, to be better informed. I suspect this has always been the case, but, traditionally, non-academic students left school at 15 or 16 to become tradespeople. The legislated raising of the school-leaving age forces teachers to adapt curricula to the increased proportion of non-academic students. Not to recognise student preferences and limitations leads to a disruptive learning environment.

Second, the reasons for teaching critical thinking are practical, not ideological. If English was simply about traditional texts, you would have a sound argument for your back-to-basics approach. However, a sound modern, relevant, education requires students to be literate with advertising, a range of television genres, contracts and, most recently, internet research. Exposure to the plethora of marketing, propaganda and unregulated electronic media make critical thinking essential, particularly for young people, who, as a consumer group, have access to more products - and more money - than any previous generation.

The concept can, of course, be taken to ridiculous extremes, such as asking teenagers to interpret texts through various “ism” prisms. Such assessments are more suitable for assessing a grasp of the “ism” or for creative writing than for the given text.

The works of the great authors bind our language and provide deep cultural reference points, but the inevitable result of a modern, education is that those texts are effectively crowded out of the curriculum. This will kill the roots of our cultural heritage, but I suspect the current generation of students don’t and won’t care.
Jason Joyner
Geraldton, WA