GEReCo UK IGU-CGE

Geography Education Research Collective / UK Commission on Geographical Education of the International Geographical Union

Blog

  • What’s up with the weather? Attribution science for teachers of geography

    GEReCo Open Seminar, March 19th 4:30-5:30pm, Online

    Dr Nicholas Leach, University of Oxford

    Sign up here: https://forms.office.com/e/BPFLN8BMqq

    Join this Geography Education Research Collective (GEReCo) open seminar to hear an introduction to attribution science, a discussion of the latest research in the field, and to explore the challenges facing teachers in addressing questions about the relationships between weather events and climate. Find out more about Dr Nicholas Leach’s work here: https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/our-people/leach

    Photo by Carl Jorgensen on Unsplash

  • We are all Gravesian

    Professor John Morgan

    On Thursday this week (30.01.25), I received two messages. The first was to announce the publication of the Handbook of Geography Education, edited by Sarah Bednarz and Jerry Mitchell. The second was a reminder that Norman Graves was celebrating his 100th birthday. It was a fitting coincidence because Norman Graves was one of the founders of the field of geography education research during his tenure at the University of London Institute of Education (now UCL). Although there are few direct references to Graves’s work (about a dozen), the Handbook reflects the work he did to define the problem-space of the field.

    Elsewhere, I have often remarked that the making of modern geography education at least in the UK can be dated to the publication of three founding texts. These are Graves’s (1975) Geography education, David Hall’s (1976) Geography and the geography teacher, and Bill Marsden’s (1976) Evaluating the geography curriculum. Published around the same time, what they had in common is that they were attempting to make sense for teachers of the convergence of curriculum theory and geographical theory. Geography was going undergoing its conceptual revolution and education was being reshaped by new findings from educational psychology and the introduction of rational curriculum planning. Graves summarised the challenges for geography teachers, who must make sense of the philosophical basis of their teaching and consider psychological questions of how young people learn. He noted that there were sociological questions of why some children learned faster and more effectively, but this was not his prime concern (even though it was of growing interest to others and spawned the birth of the ‘new sociology of education’ (Young 1971) also at the Institute of Education (IoE).

    Graves offered a pragmatic solution to the question of the overarching conceptual framework or ‘paradigm’ with which to work. He suggested there were three such paradigms vying for attention in geography in the 1970s. These were the spatial organisation paradigm, ecosystem paradigm, and critical social science. He stated his preference for the ecosystem paradigm as most effectively allowing teachers to make the transition from the old regional paradigm to the new geography in school. He was unclear about the value that critical social science or radical geography might have for the subject in schools.

    In passing we should note that Graves advocated and set the standard for using educational research as the basis for rational curriculum planning. In this he was very much a product of the time. Graves joined the IoE in the mid-1960s the time of the expansion of teacher training and educational research. He introduced the landmark MA in Geography Education in 1978. Dennis Lawton had been appointed as the first Professor of Curriculum Studies in 1964, and Harold Rosen and James Britton led the English section. They set about modernizing the training of teachers in the face of comprehensive schooling and curriculum change. Graves’s 1975 book Geography education was based on these courses. This was the first shift towards curriculum theory in geography education and his follow up – Curriculum Planning in Geography (1979) – defined the curriculum problem for teachers and offered practical advice on how to solve it.

    Graves, like all of us, was shaped by the politics of the time. He took up his role at the IoE at the height of the progressive educational settlement, a time of optimism about the prospects for improving learning for all, and teachers and teacher educators enjoyed relative autonomy.  The frontiers of knowledge about the organization of learning were expanding, and universities were trusted as the best place to codify and pass on this knowledge. Those who worked with Graves took on and developed many of the ideas (Ashley Kent, Eleanor Rawling, Mick Naish, Frances Slater and a little later, David Lambert). By the late 1970s this consensus was beginning to breakdown and education policy took on a harder edge. Graves wrote increasingly about the need to defend teacher education (this is part of a longer story for another time).

    For now, I simply want to acknowledge that what we recognise as the field of geography education research owes much to Norman Graves who effectively defined the problems of the field. Things have moved on, of course, and by the 1990s teacher education was increasingly defined by technocratic approaches and the critical turns in academic geography posed new challenges for curriculum theory in geography education. The internationalization of the field, something Graves encouraged and was part of, has brought with it new ways of writing and thinking about geography education, as reflected in Bednarz and Mitchell’s impressive Handbook of Geography Education.

    The publication of this major contribution to geography education research on the centenary of one of its founders reminds us that we have always been, and remain, Gravesian in some way, whether this is explicitly acknowledged or not.

    References

    Bednarz, S. and Mitchell, J. (2025). Handbook of geography education. Springer.  https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-3-031-72366-7

    Graves, N.J. (1975). Geography in Education. London: Heinemann  Educational Books.

    Graves, N. J. (1979). Curriculum planning in geography. London: Heinemann  Educational Books.

    Hall, D. (1976). Geography and the geography teacher. Unwin Education Books.

    Marsden, W.E. (1976) Evaluating the geography curriculum. London: Oliver and Boyd.

    Young, M. F. D. (1971) (Ed) Knowledge and Control: new directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier-Macmillan

  • New Progress Reports on Geographical Education

    Steve Puttick

    Following progress reports in Progress in Human Geography on geographical education by Rex Walford in the 1970s, Norman Graves in the 1980s, and Christine Winter in the 2010s, the most recent set of progress reports on geographical education have just been published:

    Geographical education I: fields, interactions and relationships

    Geographical education II: anti-racist, decolonial futures

    Geographical education III: changing climate, changing geographies, changing geographical education?

    Together, they aim to offer a critical account of the field by reviewing some of the major developments, examining trends reflecting on the changes in priorities for the research and practice of geographical education. The first report sketches the areas and sub-disciplines involved with geographical education and highlights opportunities for its contribution to public reasoning. The second examines trends around decolonial approaches towards geographical education and argues for the importance of anti-racism. The third and final report focuses on climate change, charting the rapid increase in attention to the issue and critically reviewing the multiple ways in which geographical education is grappling with this complex and urgent challenge. I hope the reports are useful for a wide range of colleagues working in the many different areas that together construct geographical education, ultimately contributing to the question that concludes the third report: How might we build geographical education that is creative, robust, generous, hopeful and diverse enough to empower and inspire everyone teaching and learning geography to create more just and equitable futures amid a changing climate?  

    Geographical education I: fields, interactions and relationships

    Abstract

    Complex global challenges, rapid shifts in the mediation and distribution of information, rising inequalities and a toxic milieu of low-quality public reasoning make geography education more important than ever. This first progress report explores the nexus of geography education research, geography education practice and scholarship and the geographies of education. Conceptualising the fields through expansive understandings positions this report in an optimistic space, highlighting significant opportunities for geography and its contribution to public reasoning through deepening collaborations and attending to tensions in education’s ‘shadow and shine’: tensions between its complicity in maintaining unjust hierarchies against its potential for emancipatory transformation.

    Link: Geographical education I: fields, interactions and relationships – Steven Puttick, 2022

    Geographical education II: Anti-racist, decolonial futures

    Abstract

    This report critically reviews developments in geographical education through the themes of anti-racism and decoloniality, reflecting on the silences around these issues across previous progress reports and arguing that the present moment might be understood in terms of a decolonial turn. Publication trends and increasing attention associated with the turn are unevenly distributed, contested and attenuated by structural issues surrounding the recruitment and retention of more diverse geographers. The report concludes with suggestions for developing anti-racist, decolonial futures through improving representation, addressing disciplinary fragility, and giving greater attention to nuance and singularity.

    Link: Geographical education II: Anti-racist, decolonial futures – Steve Puttick, 2023

    Geographical education III: Changing climate, changing geographies, changing geographical education?

    Abstract

    This third progress report critically examines the shifting role of climate change in geographical education: from a peripheral concern to an urgent and defining priority. Climate change now occupies substantial space across research, practice and curriculum, however, this transformation unfolds amid ongoing ‘lag’ between public discourse, research evidence, and curriculum development. Highlighting tensions across urgency and complexity, global and local scales, and representation and justice, the report concludes with a call for building geographical education futures that are creative, generous, hopeful, diverse and robust enough to meet the challenges of climate change.

    Geographical education III: Changing climate, changing geographies, changing geographical education? – Steve Puttick, 2025

    If you don’t have access to that version, the Accepted manuscript is freely available in Oxford University’s Research Archive here: Geographical education III: changing climate, changing geographies, changing geographical education? – ORA – Oxford University Research Archive

  • The potential of knowledge-rich teaching

    David Lambert

    This brief memorandum provides a succinct summary of Future 3. It draws from a longer open access article published mainly for a German audience of geography educators: https://zgd-journal.de/index.php/zgd/issue/view/167 which provides more detail and importantly citations and references – these ideas do not just rise without trace. The International Geographical Union Commission for Geographical Education (IGU-CGE) is holding a panel discission to explore international perspectives on Future Three scenarios (August 25th 2024) which will focus on key emergent questions such as,

     1. What changes in teacher education and professional development are needed for teachers to enact a progressive knowledge-rich geography curriculum?

    2. How might these changes be implemented in the context of national policy for schools and the geography curriculum?

    3. How might these changes be sustained so that they are transformative?

    Hard Times, published 170 years ago, was Dickens’ satirical destruction of education based upon ‘nothing but facts’. It remains an eloquent revelation of capitalism’s power to reduce humanity to numbers and definitions. In educational terms this meant reducing learning to fact and reifying a pseudo-scientific ‘reasoning’ process that purported to be value-free, objective, and devoid of feeling, emotion, and intuition. Today, when many schools proclaim their curriculum as knowledge-led and/or knowledge rich, to what extent have we learned some of the lessons provoked by the narrow and harmful processes of education depicted in Hard Times? If there remains a shadow of Thomas Gradgrind then it is not for want of repeated attempts to move on from ‘nothing but facts.’ For instance, over 50 years ago Postman and Weingartner famously called for anew education‘to help all students develop built-in, shockproof crap detectors.’ The old education, they argued, was predicated on absolute, fixed and unchanging ‘truths’ and did not encourage critique. It was dominated by certainties, often binary rights and wrongs and did not encourage ambiguity.

    The new education emphasised learning more than teaching, focussing teachers’ attention not on teachable knowledge but on the learner. Gert Biesta has called this the ‘learnification’ of education, and while this may produce competent, socially skilful, and highly flexible human capital, it risks turning out young people who are in some ways significantly untaught. The ‘swing’ between old and new education, between traditionalist and progressive educational thought, between modernisers and conservatives, continues. With a potentially epochal election having now taken place we should ponder this carefully.

    It is possible to imagine a third option, which is exactly what Michael Young and Johan Muller attempted to do in their 2010 paper on three future curriculum scenarios. These are caricatures, but they contain enough veracity to facilitate meaningful and productive debate about the curriculum:

    Future 1 (F1) is a curriculum consisting of ‘given’ knowledge that is seemingly uncontested. The teacher delivers these authorised contents. It is a traditional curriculum of one-way transmission.

    Future 2 (F2) is a response to the deficiencies of a transmission model of the curriculum Subject boundaries are relaxed or even dissolved. Content becomes increasingly arbitrary, and instead generic and transferrable skills are brought to the forefront.

    Future 3 (F3) restores the responsibilities of teachers for ensuring pupils have access to knowledge (they are more than ‘facilitators of learning’). But unlike F1, knowledge is contested, dynamic and subject to argument. Students are encouraged to discern the reliability or dependability of knowledge claims. This is a curriculum of engagement with knowledge itself.

    F3 curriculum scenarios address the inadequacies of both F1 and F2. Thus, under F3 it is accepted that all knowledge is socially constructed – it is produced by groups of human beings – but this does not mean that all knowledge has equal claim to truth, rendering selections of what to teach arbitrary. F3 recognises the virtuous educational intent that can be present in both the ‘traditional’ F1 and the ‘progressive’ F2 scenarios. Thus, in F3 scenarios specialist disciplinary knowledge (sometimes referred to as ‘powerful knowledge’) is a curriculum principle, but the focus of attention is on how this knowledge is made (and by whom), how it gains (or loses) its warrant, and how it changes over time. Curriculum knowledge is not the same as the knowledge it draws on. In short, F3 thinking resolutely rejects the ‘old education’ but imagines the ‘new education’ focussed on teachers’ work and the quality of the enacted curriculum.

    F3 curricula:

    • ask ‘who are we teaching?’ This is to acknowledge and respect students’ lived experiences, aspirations, and drives as learners;
    • are mindful of the prime reason that schooling is compulsory – that there is important knowledge that students can acquire at school that is beyond their everyday experience, and that acquiring it is necessarily a voluntary action on the part of the learner;
    • recognise that there are different ways of ‘knowing’ the world. For example, although we learn much through our everyday experience, this is very different from learning to see the world as an object of study and it is this difference that pupils can pose the greatest difficulties for some students;
    • provide opportunities and encourages students to think about how we know what we claim to know;
    • seek to show the ‘power’ of different ways of seeing and thinking associated with different subjects.

    F3 thinking encourages a shift from the technical competence and efficiency of teachers to implement and deliver content, towards the kind of dialogue and conversation with and among students that demonstrates their engagement and encourages the search for new knowledge. Claims for curricula based on ‘powerful knowledge’ are easy to assert. However, if through their implementation such curricula achieve little more than short-term memorisation, then much of the emancipatory potential of knowledge-rich teaching is lost. This point is arguably of greatest significance for students of minoritised and/or socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

    A yet more ambitious claim is that a F3 curriculum might even begin to address how school curricula – and teaching itself – can face up to epochal challenges such as the rise of post-truth politics, conspiracy theories, the yet to be understood educational implications of artificial intelligence and the environmental and political crises that the climate emergency points to.

    Reference

    Lambert, D., Béneker, T. and Bladh, G. (2024) Teaching Quality in Geography: what are we trying to achieve? Zeitschrift für Geographiedidaktik, 51, 3, 156-159. DOI: 10.60511/51187

    https://zgd-journal.de/index.php/zgd/article/view/187/482

  • Live Global Voices in the Geography Classroom

    Florence Smart

    Can ‘live’ international video calls with pupils create a collaborative, more globally minded, and up-to-date approach to geography lessons? Florence Smart shares her MSc research in which she created a new impactful learning environment and pedagogy from beyond the confines of the classroom. 

    International Video Calls in Lessons

    In this MSc study, video calls (via Microsoft Teams) were used across a sequence of geography lessons with year 8 pupils in a senior school in London and their international peers at a school in Bangkok. The calls included instances of group discussion, 1:1 conversations and whole class collaboration aiming to recognise that ‘empowering and engaging the voice of students is vital’ (Breslin 2011: 59). Qualitative data were collected from staff and pupils in London, using a base-line test, post-intervention questionnaire and a group interview. 

    The research found that video calls could enhance learning and help widen viewpoints while bringing case studies alive. Video calls can be used to contribute to blended digital lesson activities to ‘check-in’ with pupils abroad, mutually discussing their own learning and everyday experiences. The real time video calls also sought to decentralise the teacher as the ‘sage on the stage’ and invite more perspectives and authenticity from first-hand accounts. 

    Amidst the ‘galloping variables’ of globalisation (Bennis, 1970), digital shifts have transformed the spatial constraints of the classroom opening the potential of live global interaction and collaboration. Jones (2010) finds that authentic voices can also help counteract the onslaught of potentially biased, inaccurate media coverage or outdated textbooks. Her research suggests that students value intercultural dialogue too for future employability, personal growth and well-being. Therefore, cross-cultural interaction should be more routine and ‘risk free’, putting students at ease (Jones 2010). This may be particularly significant too for marginalised students who struggle with a sense of belonging at school (UNESCO 2017).

    Rationale

    Rationale for the video call intervention in this research came from speaking to colleagues frustrated with resources that used outdated language, or those that papered-over nuances of lived experiences (Anderson, 2021). Teachers also wanted to help students resist commonplace misconceptions created by heightened media coverage and social media.

    Promoting participation and inquiry helps create critical thinkers and improves a sense of ownership of learning which has been at the forefront of policy in the UK (Wasner, 2016) and the SDGs – Goal Number 4 (UNSDGs, 2023). This intervention also responds to what Russel (2023) described as the ‘anti-education’ system, where rote learning for academic success can stifle curiosity. Arguably, soft skills like leadership and collaboration will help ‘future proof’ children’s education as well as to overcome potential issues posed by artificial intelligence.

    Reinforcing opportunities to share ideas, but only with like-minded individuals, may, however, only widen the echo chamber. This speaks to Wasner’s (2016) questions of, how teachers ‘decide whose voices to listen to, and how?’. In terms of bringing a plurality of voices into the classroom, she suggests that it should no longer be considered ambitious to introduce a greater range of perspectives.

    I believe geography teachers should enable students with new ways of seeing the world with a greater emphasis on the geographies of everyday life. Freire’s (1970: 53) concept of a ‘banking model’ is long gone, which equated teachers as clerks who would plainly ‘deposit’ information into children. Educators should be both ‘simultaneously teachers and students’ and a live dialogue through video calls allows for all of those in the classroom to be learning collaboratively.

    The Intervention

    In the calls, students asked questions such as ‘What are you studying at the moment?’, ‘Do you consider your homeland to be a democratic country?’, ‘How much free time do you have?’, ‘Do you own a guitar?’. The latter, follows on from Hans Rosling’s quirky ideas to measure development – guitar ownership per capita. He argues that this shows that individuals in the country have enough disposable income for the guitar, for lessons, free time to practise, and are exposed to a range of musical influences suggesting social mobility. In the study this question, provided the most fruitful responses and encouraged discussion about music and cultural similarities and differences.

    International collaboration was also built into the supra-curriculum alongside the study to embed challenge and curiosity. This involved letter writing within a geography club and a Geographical Speaker Programme. In the latter, one guest speaker on Teams was a marine biologist in the Maldives, giving pupils a direct insight into life working there, and another was a British diplomat working for the foreign office in Shanghai, speaking on foreign relations and careers.

    Findings

    In the base-line questionnaire and early sections of the group interview, students tended to refer to ‘us and them’ – in, perhaps, an unintentional or unconscious process of ‘Othering’. In the post-intervention questionnaire, there are more phrases such as ‘we are…’, ‘our geography lessons…’ and ‘first-hand voices’, which allude to a greater sense of group collaboration, self-awareness of being united as learners. This links to what Fielding (2001) suggests is a favourable element to learning – engendering pupils with a ‘significant voice’.

    The analysis of the cross-section of answers relayed a sense of sameness. The results found that the students consumed some of the same media, for example. There was also discussion about other aspects of consumption such as drink and music. While this is unsurprising given the context of the two schools – one being the international counterpart of the other – another view was that friendships were being built and a sense of cultural difference or othering was eroded. Quotes from the post-intervention questionnaire, include ‘I made friends’, ‘I would like them to come to visit us, or me to them’, and ‘even though they are far away, we are very similar’. Collins (2014: 300) says that school rituals of community buildings have key consequences – ‘optimism, confidence and initiative’ – the video calls in this study may be regarded as a useful, addition to assemblies, ‘form’ times or activity days.

    Challenges and Ethical Considerations

    Because this study focusses on an immeasurable skills-based intervention, it is difficult to track cause and effect. One year 8 participant, however, noted that he valued that the discussions were open-ended and there was no assessment.

    Practical implementation of the project was also limited by time constraints, time differences, language barriers, access to technology and space in the curriculum for ‘non-examined’ study. The lessons took place during ‘form time’ in the UK and the last period of the day in Thailand and required significant teacher input and support to ensure effective learning in the digital sphere.

    Ethical concerns about ‘looking in’ must also be considered alongside safeguarding and data protection. The study received CUREC ethical approval from BERA with informed consent from the head teacher, parents and the participants. There was no data collected from the pupils at the international school and no recording of the Teams calls. Safeguarding in the digital sphere involved two members of staff present in the calls and close following of policy. Partly because many students may show less restraint or inhibitions on communication behind the keyboard (Hardaker, 2015), I was clear in my behavioural expectations with the classes and had oversight of the conversations being had verbally and in the ‘chat’ function. Questions posed by pupils must be non-judgemental and students should be guided on the best ways to approach each other politely and appropriately.

    Conclusions

    This research points to the potential of seizing the opportunities that digital technology can provide for live interaction and cross-cultural learning through hearing from voices beyond the confines of the classroom. Looking ahead, pupils could be linked up in lessons with other students, businesses, conservationists or charities (after taking into account ethical and practical considerations).

    References

    Anderson, N. (2021). Why Do We Need to Decolonise Geography?. Available: https://decolonisegeography.com/blog/2021/02/why-do-we-need-todecolonisegeography/. Last accessed 13/04/22

    Bennis, W. G. (1970). American bureaucracy, Transaction Publishers.

    British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2018) Ethical guidelines for Educational Research. [Online] Available on: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-foreducational-research-2018 [Accessed on 14 July 2023].

    Bragg, S. (2007). “Consulting young people.” A review of the literature. Open University for Creative Partnerships. www. creative-partnerships. com/content/gdocs/cyp. pdf.

    Breslin, T. (2011). Beyond ‘student’voice: The school or college as a citizenship-rich, human scale and voice-friendly community. The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide, 57-72.

    Bunnell, T. (2021). “The elite nature of International Schooling: a theoretical framework based upon rituals and character formation.” International Studies in Sociology of Education 30(3): 247-267.

    Collins, R. (2014). “Interaction ritual chains and collective effervescence.” Collective emotions: 299-311.

    Fielding, M. (2001). “Students as radical agents of change.” Journal of Educational Change 2(2): 123-141

    Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth, Penguin.

    Hardaker, C. (2015), ‘“I refuse to respond to this obvious troll’: An overview of responses to (perceived) trolling”, Corpora, 10 (2): 201–229.

    Jones, E. (2010). Internationalisation and the Student Voice Taylor & Francis e-Library, Routledge.

    Rosling, H. (2023). Factfulness. Flammarion.

    Russell, J. (2023). Our anti-education system stifles curiosity. May 29th 2023, The Times.

    Skidmore, D. (2002). “A theoretical model of pedagogical discourse.” Disability, Culture and Education 1(2): 119–131.

    UNESCO. United Nations Educational, S. a. C. O. (2017). Accountability in education: meeting our commitments; Global education monitoring report, 2017/8. Paris, France.

    UNSDGs – United Nations Educational, S. a. C. O. (2023). “UNSDGs Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.” Access from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4

    Wasner, V. (2016). “Critical service learning: A participatory pedagogical approach to global citizenship and international mindedness.” Journal of Research in International Education 15(3): 238-252.

  • To what extent can online coaching software help trainee geography teachers to summatively assess pupils’ GCSE Geography examination answers?

    Martin Sutton writes about his Highly Commended dissertation, submitted as part of his MAEd (Geography) from UCL Institute of Education.

    Teaching about summative assessment with trainee teachers has long intrigued me, especially the tension between accurately assessing work and the inherent challenges that any assessment process can entail. My interest in geography assessment, coupled with my joint roles of being both a PGCE teacher educator and also a secondary school geography teacher, meant that I could draw upon both perspectives to inform my research. I have often wondered how trainee teachers are ‘taught’ to summatively assess work and how well they can transfer what they have learned into practice.

    Popham (2011, p.267) used the phrase ‘assessment literacy’ to describe the understanding and ability of an educator to grapple with the theoretical and practical demands of this field. This study set out to investigate assessment literacy with both trainees and also their school mentors. The relationship between mentor and trainee is well researched (Lord, Atkinson & Mitchell, 2008; Rehman & Al-Bargi, 2014; Roberts, 2019; Healy et al. 2022). The mentoring role is clearly valued by the DfE, who have constructed non-statutory Mentor Standards (DfE, 2016) which stipulate that trainees should receive support from mentors around assessment and marking. My research addressed how this mentor-trainee interaction worked in terms of summative assessment literacy.

    Lambert (2011, p.5) summarises the geography assessment landscape when he claims that “assessing progress is particularly challenging in a subject like geography which is not learned in a cumulative or linear sequence.” This is a notion to which many classroom teachers can empathise with. The interconnectedness of the subject has been widely agreed upon from Massey’s “a sense of the global” (2014, p.36) with porous boundaries, to Jackson’s “geographies of connection” (2006, p.199). It is this synoptic characteristic which makes assessing progress in the acquisition of knowledge and skills a demanding task, as the Geographical Association has for many years attempted to clarify (GA undated).

    The discussion around formative assessment (for learning, rather than of learning) is a well-trodden path. Black and Wiliam’s (1998) seminal meta-analysis of assessment for learning, sparked the publication of geography specific assessment research, by Weedon and Lambert (2006). They champion the use of formative feedback in a subject specific context and point to further work that suggests that feedback should not be accompanied by a mark or grade (Butler, 1987). In line with work of their predecessors (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Bloom, 1969; Popham, 2008), Weedon and Lambert (2006) outline the advantages of peer assessment, self-assessment and encouraging the pupils to reflect on their own work (such as the use of traffic lighting their own performance, confidence or knowledge). Pupils were positioned at the heart of the assessment process, in line with later work by Weedon, co-authored with Hopkin (2006; Figure 1). However, there is relatively little literature that concentrates on summative assessment or the assessment of learning (although, see Lambert and Lines, 2000).

    Dempsey et al. (2009) identified a clear need for improved assessment skills among trainee teachers and tested a web-based coaching software to address this. They found that by exposing the marker to short prompts and hints, coupled with the marks from peers, could help trainee teachers to better assess children’s work at a primary school level. Inspired by their work, my study investigated whether a similar tool could benefit UK trainee geography teachers and their school mentors.

    Considering the time constraints reported by both mentors and trainees, I conducted research to evaluate the potential effectiveness of a web-based solution in this context.  

    By using a collection of carefully designed coaching comments, the 15 trainee teachers were exposed to a coaching intervention in an attempt to teach them how to mark examination answers. The trainees were shown an exam answer and asked to suggest both a raw score out of 9 and also a more general level (1-3), based on a rubric written by the exam board. The software then displayed a coaching suggestion for the trainee to read, that was specifically written for the question, prompting them to look at a specific part of the rubric. These statements were written based on the feedback from a cluster of qualified teachers. The trainee then had the option to re-score the answer if they wished to.

    The research focused on measuring both the self-efficacy and also the accuracy of the trainees’ marking, across a set of 7 sample GCSE examination answers. Additionally, the views of 37 qualified geography teachers, who all work in teacher teaching, was collected and analysed.

    By undertaking a pre- and post-questionnaire, the trainees’ change in self-efficacy was found to have significantly improved (p<0.05). Furthermore, their ‘gain scores’ could be calculated by comparing their judgement before and after the coaching intervention. The trainees were shown to have significantly improved their marking accuracy when they were shown a coaching comment, when they were a mark or more away from the ‘correct’ score (p<=0.01). The teachers were asked for their opinion on the coaching software in comparison to their current practice and reported a strong preference for this novel pedagogy (p<0.05). Although nothing can replace to experience gained through actually becoming an examiner, it appears that this coaching intervention was valued as opening up this particular ‘black box’.

    The trainees and teachers cited an increase in independent practice and time efficiency as the two main strengths of the experience. They suggested that the face-to-face element of a post task discussion should be maintained in future practice. The study suggests that online coaching software should be used within the ITT year and additionally across the wider subject community, such as the RGS or the GA, to deliver powerful geography CPD to trainees and qualified teachers.

    It has become clear to me that since submitting my dissertation, that there has been a recent explosion in the use of generative Artificial Intelligence in education. It would be perfectly feasible for this technology to be coupled with the software that I have designed, so that the intervention statement given to the trainee was generated by AI, based upon their view of the work itself. This would lead to an exceptionally bespoke supportive prompt that would demand more research and thought into its use in geography education.  

    Note: Please feel free to contact the author should you wish to know more about the software that he developed as part of his research. m.sutton@reading.ac.uk

    References

    Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi delta kappan, 92(1), 81-90.

    Bloom, B.S. (1969). Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation. In Educational evaluation: New roles, new means. The 63rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 2 (Vol. 69), ed. R.W. Tyler, 26–50. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474.

    Dempsey, M. S., PytlikZillig, L. M., & Bruning, R. H. (2009). Helping preservice teachers learn to assess writing: Practice and feedback in a Web-based environment. Assessing writing, 14(1), 38-61.

    DfE (2016). National Standards for school-based initial teacher training (ITT) mentors. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/536891/Mentor_standards_report_Final.pdf (Accessed: 05/06/2024).

    Geographical Association (undated) Progression in geographical learning, Geographical Association. https://geography.org.uk › students-learning-in-geography

    Jackson, P. (2006). Thinking geographically. Geography, 91(3), 199-204.

    Healy, G. Hammond, L., Puttick, S., and Walshe, N. (eds) (2022) Mentoring Geography Teachers in the Secondary School. Abingdon: Routledge

    Lambert, D. (2011). The Geography National Curriculum: GA curriculum proposals and rationale. Geographical Association. Available at: https://www.geography.org.uk/download/ga_gigcccurriculumproposals.pdf  (Accessed: 05/06/2024).

    Lambert, D. and Lines, D. (2000) Understanding Assessment: purposes, perceptions, practice. Abingdon: Routledge

    Lord, P., Atkinson, M. and Mitchell, H., (2008). Mentoring and coaching for professionals: A study of the research evidence. Variations, 1(4).

    Massey, D. (2014). Taking on the world. Geography, 99(1), 36-39.

    Popham, W. J. (2011). Assessment literacy overlooked: A teacher educator’s confession. The Teacher Educator, 46(4), pp.265-273.

    Popham, W.J. (2008). Transformative assessment, Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Rehman, A. A. & Al-Bargi, A. (2014). Teachers’ Perspectives on Post Observation Conferences: A Study at a Saudi Arabian University. Theory and practice in Language Studies, 4(8), p.1558.

    Roberts, R.L. (2019) in Hickman, D. (ed) Mentoring English teachers in the secondary school: a practical guide. London: Routledge.

    Weedon, P., & Lambert, D. (2006). Geography inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the geography classroom. Sheffield: The Geographical Association.

    Weedon, P., and Hopkin, J. (2006). Assessment for learning in geography. In Jones, M. (2017). Handbook of Secondary Geography. Geographical Association.

  • Early thoughts on ‘spatial computing’ through the lens of geography education

    Kenneth Y T Lim, National Institute of Education, Singapore; Bryan Z W Kuok, Independent scholar; Ahmed H Hilmy, National Institute of Education, Singapore

    Introduction

    By their very nature, virtual environments and immersive worlds suggest affordances for learning that geography educators have been particularly suited to speak towards, not least of which being the potential for dynamic, embodied, and multisensory learning experiences to sit alongside field studies in the physical world.  Such environments and their associated technologies are not new, having been marketed to consumers since at least the mid-2000s – and earlier if panoramic photographs are included.

    Virtual environments are, however, enjoying a recent resurgence of interest (see, for example, Zhao, et al., 2021), not only because of the recent pandemic but because of the introduction of the mixed reality headset from Apple in February 2024. In its rhetoric of marketing, the company is advancing the paradigm of what it terms ‘spatial computing’.

    In this essay, we share our early thoughts on the extent to which the spatiality of ‘spatial computing’ is a gimmick or something that might potentially whet the appetite of geography educators and our associated research community.

    The surfacing of geographical intuitions

    In the course of a typical school day, members of the school community – staff and students alike – traverse the campus several times a day, sometimes being exposed directly to the elements, while at other times in the shade. The paths we take as we traverse our campuses reflect our tacit responses to such exposure (Lim, et al. 2024). Through our own bodily experience, we therefore develop over time a textured map of our respective school campuses, which in turn influences our decision-making in subconscious ways.

    Perhaps a signifier of the skilful teacher is how to design for opportunities for such tacit ‘geographical’ knowledge to be made more explicit, in order for students to connect their everyday embodied lived experiences in authentic ways with the formal codified domain knowledge of the classroom.

    The moves we choose to make in our learning environments are constrained by a number of factors, one of which is the effective management of multiple digital devices during our lessons. We do not say this as shorthand for blind advocacy of affording each student access to their own device at all times – while there be some advantages to this, this model has its concomitant implications for classroom management. However, we see tremendous opportunities in digital tools that can serve as creative canvases for students to express their often nascent understandings of geographical concepts. For example, students could manipulate terrain in an immersive environment to depict features such as a river delta. These digital artefacts can then serve as focal points for teacher-facilitated classroom discussions, helping students connect geographical concepts with their own lived experiences.

    On Collaborative Observation

    In 2015, we published a paper (Cho & Lim, 2015) in the British Journal of Educational Technology (BJET) in which we advanced a pedagogical strategy we termed Collaborative Observation, as part of our work on the Six Learnings curriculum design framework (Lim, 2009). In this paper, we addressed the problem of how teachers could effectively manage and scaffold the learning experiences of pupils in large classes (typically, forty pupils per class), particularly when the learners are operating as avatars in an immersive environment. In that paper, we compared three different conditions, namely learners in a 1:1 ratio with a computer, learners in a 1:40 ratio sharing the use of a single computer, and traditional didactic instruction. With regard to the latter, we advanced the case for Collaborative Observation: namely, learners in a 1:40 ratio sharing the use of a single computer.

    Learner-Generated Augmentation

    In 2020, we followed up with a second paper in BJET, this time describing the construct of what we term as Learner-Generated Augmentation (Lim & Lim, 2020). The latter

    describes activities in which learners use Augmented Reality (AR) tools to annotate their local environments, giving teachers better insight into which aspects of their surroundings students find significant and meaningful. In this context, ‘augmentation’ refers to the addition of digital information onto the physical environment through AR technology. Through this process, students can express their emerging understandings of a topic by linking digital content to personally meaningful elements in their physical environment.

    For example, a student learning about local history might choose to digitally annotate a site within the neighbourhood with historical information, while the teacher may have chosen to augment the town hall instead. More often than not the elements in their environments which novices might choose to annotate would be different from those which the teacher (as domain expert) might choose. In the hands of a skilled teacher, such differences represent rich opportunities for discussion and mutual learning. Learner-Generated Augmentation acknowledges where the learners are coming from, helps make their otherwise tacit conceptions more visible to the teacher, and has applications in the sciences as well as in the humanities. For instance, in a geography lesson about their local community, students could be tasked with creating augmented reality annotations on a map to highlight landmarks, infrastructure, or environmental features that are personally significant to them. This would surface the students’ mental models of their neighbourhood to the teacher. The resulting student-created AR content could then serve as boundary objects for class discussion and collaborative knowledge building.

    Spatial computing and its implications for geography education

    The two papers published in 2015 and 2020 explored pedagogical strategies founded on distinct premises and contexts. Collaborative Observation, as described in the 2015 paper, involved multiple learners observing an expert (the teacher) perform a task in a virtual world, then collaboratively discussing and solving related problems. In contrast, the Learner-Generated Augmentation approach introduced in the 2020 paper tasked learners themselves with creating augmented reality artifacts to represent their emerging understanding of a topic, situated in personally meaningful real-world contexts.

    While these two approaches may seem conceptually oppositional in terms of who generates the virtual / augmented content (expert vs learner) and the technology used (virtual world vs AR), the affordances of the Apple Vision Pro allow for a convergence of these premises and contexts. The device’s advanced AR capabilities enable both expert-led demonstrations akin to Collaborative Observation and learner-driven creation as in Learner-Generated Augmentation, all within the learner’s immediate environment. This fusion is enabled by what Apple refers to as the paradigm of ‘spatial computing’.

    ‘Spatial computing’ refers to the ability of devices like the Vision Pro to understand and interact with the user’s surrounding physical space, blending digital content seamlessly with the real world. It leverages technologies such as advanced computer vision, real-time 3D mapping, and gesture- / eye-tracking to create immersive mixed reality experiences anchored to the user’s environment.

    ‘Spatial computing’ technologies like the Vision Pro foreground the role of the body in meaning-making and creative expression. By allowing learners to engage with digital content overlaid on their physical surroundings, these devices facilitate an embodied, multisensory approach to learning that bridges the physical and psychological dimensions. Learners can leverage natural interactions and familiar environmental cues to construct personally relevant understandings, moving fluidly between consuming and producing knowledge artifacts in a shared hybrid space.

    As a wearable, the Vision Pro lends itself naturally to the notion of embodiment, in that – in such cases – the learners’ auditory and visual sensory inputs are augmented by the affordances of whatever apps the learners are using, but also that the apps have a certain degree of geospatial permanence within the augmented world of the learner. The advanced AR capabilities of the device enable both peer-led demonstrations akin to Collaborative Observation and learner-driven creation as in Learner-Generated Augmentation, all within the learner’s immediate environment. There are competing technologies such as the Meta Quest 3 which is primarily focused on immersive VR experiences and Microsoft’s Hololens, although this appears to have more limited AR capabilities. While these competing headsets tend to be optimized for either VR consumption or basic AR annotations, Apple’s ‘spatial computing’ paradigm appears to better support both expert-guided collaborative experiences as well as open-ended learner creation within a unified device.

    Given the cost of the Vision Pro at the time of writing, it will be some years off before schools can afford the luxury of a 1:1 ratio of the Vision Pro (or its successors or future competitors) to pupils. Yet this is not to discount the potential of the Vision Pro today for socially constructed meaning-making in field-based activities in both physical and virtual sites. Thus, for example, it is perfectly possible to imagine the scenario of a field-based lesson in which the learners annotate their local environments as they explore their neighbourhoods, leaving digital notes (such as text and sketches) at locations and sites that they themselves consider significant. In the context of a lesson unit, learners could be tasked to cast or to record their screens as they explore their environments and annotate them, for subsequent post-activity discussion in either small groups or as a class, as facilitated by the teacher.

    Concluding remarks

    Geographers have a unique appreciation that space is a shared and contested construct and at the same time, understanding that space and place are deeply personal and tacit. One of the earliest attempts to tease these tensions and relationships out through digital means was Moed’s (2002) project: ‘Annotate space: interpretation and storytelling on location’. That project pre-dated smartphones, using early mobile phones in urban environments to document social constructions of space. In the two decades that have since passed, a new generation of geographers has the potential digital wherewithal to annotate space in new and exciting ways. How we as a community of educators interpret these affordances in geography education is a story yet to be written.

    References

    Cho, Y. H., and K. Y. T. Lim, (2015). “Effectiveness of Collaborative Learning with 3D Virtual Worlds” in British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1) pp 202-211.

    Lim, I. J. E., Low, A. L. Y., and K. Y. T. Lim, (2024). “Optimising learning environments: a microclimate study of a school campus in Singapore using an integrated environment modeller simulation tool (IEMsim)” in Chova, L. G., Martinez, C. G., & Lees, J. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 18th annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference.

    Lim. K. Y. T., (2009). “The Six Learnings of Second Life: A Framework for Designing Curricular Interventions In-world” Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2(1) pp. 4-11.

    Lim, K. Y. T., and R. Lim, “Semiotics, memory and Augmented Reality: History education with Learner-Generated Augmentation” British Journal of Educational Technology, special section on “Beyond observation and interaction: Augmented Reality though the lens of constructivism and constructionism”, 51(3) pp 673-691

    Moed, A. (2002). Annotate space: Interpretation and storytelling on location. Interactive telecommunications program, New York University.

    Zhao, J., Wallgrün, J. O., Sajjadi, P., La Femina, P., Lim, K. Y. T., Springer, J., and A. Klippel, (2021). “Longitudinal effects in the effectiveness of educational virtual field trips” Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(4), 1008-1034.

  • GEReCo Masters Dissertation Prize Awarded!

    We are delighted to announce the outcomes from the inaugural GEReCo Masters Dissertation Award! This annual award is designed to celebrate and amplify the voices of emerging researchers who are shaping the future of geography education.

    Many congratulations to Florence Smart (MSc Learning and Teaching, University of Oxford) for being awarded the Winning dissertation prize for a thesis titled: Postcolonial Pedagogy: An investigation into live global voices in the geography classroom.

    The selection panel considered the thesis to be original and timely, contributing to work around education and the postcolonial and ‘global classroom’. initiatives. There was an impressive engagement postcolonial theory, geography and geography education, and critical attentiveness to the context of the school that was the site for the research. The design of the project was well considered with a thorough engagement with research ethics. We thought the study had significance in its contribution to post-colonial studies and theorisation, children’s geographies and geography education. It has the potential to prompt significant thought and further development of an ethics of care, respect and equity in the practice of global voices/classroom initiatives.

    Many congratulations also to Martin Sutton (MA Education Geography, IoE/UCL) for the Highly Commended dissertation, titled: To what extent can online coaching software help trainee geography teachers to summatively assess pupils’ GCSE Geography examination answers?

    The selection panel felt this investigation into online tools to support teachers’ assessment skills was very timely, as online technologies supporting assessment (including AI) are likely to become more common. The committee was particularly impressed by the careful location of the study in the field of assessment in geography education, including an excellent literature review. The research design and rigorous quantitative analysis was impressive, leading to impactful findings and conclusions. We felt this study had significance both by evidencing the benefit of online coaching for teachers’ assessment efficacy, and because it could inspire further research into the potential of online tools for developing geography teachers’ assessment capabilities.

    Look out for further information on both research projects, including through blog posts on the GEReCo site.

  • Time to make more space for knowledge production in geography education?

     William Quirke, Dan Swanton, Sarah Trolley, Lauren Hammond, and Grace Healy

    Introduction

    Beginning in their very early years, children explore material and social spaces, asking questions and engaging with stories as they inquire in, and about, the world (Owens et al., 2023; Puttick, 2023). Geography speaks ‘directly to children’s curiosity, wonder and concern for the world around them’ (Owens et al., 2022, p. 20). From exploring the micro-ecological worlds of schools through citizen science (Dunkley, 2023) to participatory mapping with young people in cities (Swords et al., 2019), geography education in formal and informal education spaces can play an important role in nurturing this curiosity and (re)orientating young people’s attention in, and with, the world (Biesta, 2021). These illustrative examples highlight that studying geography involves developing deeper knowledge and understanding of the discipline, and increasing agency in inquiring in, and about, geography (Firth, 2014; Roberts, 2023).

    In this article, we consider the value of supporting students to engage with knowledge production in geography education through providing them with opportunities for thinking geographically, being geographers and doing geography. Geography education in schools has sometimes failed to engage with epistemic nature of geography, or the nature of geographical knowledge (Firth, 2014), meaning that knowledge production has – at times – been left under-explored in curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. This raises important questions about areas including, but not limited to; educators agency and confidence in teaching geographical methods; whether the nature of education spaces support students and educators in doing geography; and whether the geographical methods represented in geography curricula actively engage with disciplinary turns and thinking – for example, feminist, queer, decolonial and radical ways of inquiring – and how this shapes experiences and imaginations of knowledge production, as well as the representation of people and places in school geography.

    The article draws upon contributions to an online seminar organised through the Geography Education Research Collective (GEReCo) in Spring 2024. Following a merger in 2019, GEReCo acts as the UK’s sub-committee of the International Geographical Union’s Commission on Geographical Education (IGU-CGE). It is significant to note that all current members of the collective have a primary affiliation to an education institution/association based in England, with some (honorary) members also working/researching in Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and/or internationally. GEReCo seminars seek to contribute to academic debate in, and about, geography education through engaging with people working in a variety of roles and spaces, and/or who have different perspectives on, and experiences of, geography education[1]. For example, the Spring 2024 seminar had contributions from colleagues working in England and Scotland to support critical consideration of how the construction of geography as a school subject in national education policy shapes how it is taught, learnt, and assessed.

    In the following section, William Quirke (Teaching Fellow: PGDE Geography & Sustainable Development Education in the Institute of Education, University of Strathclyde), Dr Dan Swanton (Senior Lecturer in Human Geography and Head of Teaching and Learning in the School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh), and Sarah Trolley (Senior Social Researcher at Defra and a recent geography teacher and MEd student at the University of Cambridge) – share a vignette from their research/practice, as they engage with these debates. We conclude the blog by reflecting on the importance of these discussions for young people and educators, also suggesting next steps for this work.

    William Quirke: Opportunities and challenges for knowledge production in the Scottish geography classroom.  

    Scottish education is currently experiencing a period of reform instigated by a number of recent reports and national consultations (Hayward 2023, Muir 2022). As such, there is much thought about the purpose of education and the range of knowledge and skills that ought to be included and assessed in the Curriculum for Excellence, Scotland’s national curriculum.

    In relation to geography in the Broad General Education (BGE) phase in secondary school (ages 12-15), there are many opportunities for geography teachers to support learners in developing geographical skills to produce knowledge of their own. However, the extent to which this can be achieved is arguably supressed by current educational policy structures. Scotland has a robust policy foundation regarding the skills development of young people. To provide an example, published in 2009, Building the Curriculum 4 is a policy document which promotes ‘effective learning for children and young people enabling them to develop skills for learning, life and work across all aspects of the curriculum at all levels’ (Scottish Government, 2009). By focusing on nine key messages, the document highlights learner entitlements in this area and states the importance of learners being aware of and understanding the value of the skills they are developing within their educational careers. Although there is explicit mention of skills development in all curricular areas, my observations suggest that, in practice, this translates to a focus on the development of general skills such as time management, organisation, communication and leadership rather than distinct disciplinary skills related to a particular subject area such as disciplinary literacies or numeracies. This view is supported through other policy documents such as Developing the Young Workforce: Scotland’s Youth Employment Strategy (Scottish Government, 2014) and Developing the Young Workforce Career Education Standard (Education Scotland, 2015) which feature a focus on skills development in pursuit of future employability as opposed to the creation of knowledge.

    Thus, geography teachers in Scotland may find themselves in a situation where value is only placed on geographical skills that are interdisciplinary and transferable to the world of work. A consequence of this may be an incentive for teachers to deliver lessons that forgo opportunities to develop skills for geographical enquiry in favour of a ‘jug and mug’ or ‘chalk and talk’ model of teaching geographical knowledge where learners are passive recipients of teacher knowledge. There is only one Experience and Outcome (a statement which outlines progression in learning) mentioning geographical enquiry: ‘SOC 4-12b I can carry out a geographical enquiry to assess the impact and possible outcomes of climate change on a selected region and can propose strategies to slow or reverse the impact’ (Education Scotland, n.d. p10). Apart from this, there is little to mandate teachers to facilitate knowledge creation in BGE geography lessons. However, despite these challenges, it is important to note that there is a lot of flexibility within the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence and geography teachers have a high level of autonomy. They are free to choose their own case studies, examples, pedagogical approaches, and modes of delivery to engage with the curriculum and have the freedom to engage with learning through local, national and international contexts of their own choosing. With this in mind, there is opportunity for teachers to take full advantage of this autonomy and find their own ways to make space for knowledge production in their own geography classrooms.

    Dan Swanton: Using a zine assessment to make space for student curiosity

    In this vignette I share some reflections on a zine assessment (https://edin.ac/47U0aAa) that I use with Year 3 and 4 undergraduate students to assess fieldwork on an optional course on cities. In the course we read, make and share zines as part of fieldwork assessment.  The fieldwork element is designed to build student confidence in the key theories and ideas by inviting students to design a half-day group fieldwork project focusing on a neighbourhood in Edinburgh. The students then make individual zines to document and share their fieldwork experience.

    Zines are home-made, self-published magazines. They are made by folding a sheet of A3 paper into an 8-sided booklet. Making a zine typically involves folding, writing, drawing, collaging, cutting and pasting. Zines combine text with drawn and found images to create a visual and material artefact. One appeal is that zines offer a creative medium for students to document and reflect on their experiences of doing fieldwork and their responses to the ideas, methods, place, people and practices that they encounter. Another appeal is that zines are a type of participatory media. They are participatory in two senses. First, zines make space for personal and political stories that matter to whoever makes them.  Second, zines are participatory because they invested in public sharing (Piepmeier, 2008, p.58), zines are made to be shared and read.

    Inspired by the writing of Sarah Ahmed (2019) and Rosmarie Garland-Thomson (2011) I’ve come to think of zines as a misfit assessment. It’s a misfit because it is out of sorts with many of the norms, assumptions and infrastructures that have developed around assessment in higher education. Zines breaks plagiarism-detection software; they sit uncomfortably with grade-related marking criteria; they challenge expectations of student academic writing. But these misfitting qualities of zines are generative. The zine assessment makes space for student curiosity, creativity and collaboration.

    Zines make space for student curiosity in at least two ways. First, introducing zines and zine culture in an academic course can spark a searching and critical curiosity amongst students about different perspectives, voices and experiences. Zines can foreground people and stories that are often marginalised in curricula and encourage students to question the practices through which knowledge is produced and authorised contributing to important work decolonising and diversifying the curriculum (Gebrial, 2018; https://decolonisegeography.com/). Second, when paired with student-designed fieldwork the zine assessment makes space for co-creation allowing students to make their learning relevant to them personally and to others. Zines become a vehicle for embedding engaged and critical pedagogies that emphasises the ‘need to actively transform knowledge, rather than passively come to it’ and value the ‘experiences, histories, and resources that students bring to the classroom’ (Giroux, 1983, p.7). The zine assessment works helps moving away from what Freire (1970) characterised as a banking model of teaching. The assessments help break down barriers between the classroom learning and everyday life. The material form of the zine, alongside its place in participatory cultures of knowledge sharing and organisation, challenges the students to reflect on, and practice, an ethics and politics of knowledge production. The zines assessment follows a more hopeful, ‘life-affirming’ approach that values students as partners and co-creators. It makes space for student agency in the learning process and pushes them to think about how knowledge should be an active force in shaping. A more just world.

    Sarah Trolley: Beginning to explore A-level student’s ideas of knowledge in geography

    When welcoming new Year 12 students (16-17 years old) at the start of their A level course to the Geography Department one September, I asked the class a few questions to get to know them. One of my questions was ‘what is your favourite topic in geography?’. One student said they preferred human geography, their explanation was particularly interesting: they enjoyed human geography because it is ‘all opinions’, whereas physical geography is ‘all facts’.

    This made me curious. How do students’ view geography; specifically, how do they make sense of the nature of knowledge in human and physical geography.  This sparked a research project – as part of a Master in Education (MEd) course – consisting of 11 semi-structured interviews with Year 12 students. During the interviews students discussed their ideas about human and physical geography. One student, for example, said that for them human geography is like a ‘food web’ that has ‘no set place to start’, whereas physical geography was more like a ‘flow chart’. As I reflected on these ideas, I wondered where the student’s ideas had originated. Had I been teaching human geography as a ‘food web’ and physical geography as a ‘flow chart? It seemed clear, however, that the participating students held complex ideas about physical and human geography.

    This research made me more determined to discuss knowledge in my classroom and make space for students to question the nature of geographical knowledge. I am still pondering how to best integrate these discussions into lessons and schemes of work, but have so far found Non-Exam Assessment (NEA) lessons fruitful in discussing what it is possible to know in geography and where geographical knowledge comes from with students.

    Conclusions

    Professor Pat Noxolo’s (2017, p.319) argues that “knowledge is not ‘universal and independent of context’, but is always deeply imbricated in power, and in the contingencies of its time, location and relations of production”. This emphasises how fundamental teaching about and engaging with forms of knowledge production is for geographical education. Within the short seminar and this blog post, we cannot do justice to the breadth and depth of knowledge, perspectives and experiences that exist around knowledge production in geography, rather we see this as a contribution to provoke reflection and enable others to consider absences and challenges in discussions so far.

    We hope that if you engaged with the seminar and/or read this post, you might be able to reflect on your own research/practice as geography teachers/researchers/academics like Will, Dan and Sarah have about the space you give to engaging with knowledge production;

    Firstly, you might consider what shapes the ways you think about knowledge production, and what influences your practice. For example: Is it what is written in national curricula/specifications? Is it formal professional development or informal conversations with colleagues?

    Secondly, you might be inspired by the ways Sarah’s students were able to talk about their experiences and engage in discussions with children and young people about what they understand about knowledge production.

    Thirdly, you might think about the artefacts you use that provide insights into knowledge production (as Dan does) and the ways in which assessment demonstrates importance of this aspect of geographical education.

    References

    Ahmed, S. (2019). What’s the Use? Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

    Biesta, G. (2022). World-centred education: A view for the present. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Dunkley, R. (2023). Looking closely through environmental learning: Citizen science and environmental sustainability education. Hammond, L. Biddulph, M. Catling, S. McKendrick, J.H. (eds.) Children, education and geography: Rethinking intersections. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Education Scotland (n.d.) Curriculum for Excellence Social Studies Experiences and Outcomes. Retrieved 18/03/2024, from Social studies: Experiences and outcomes (education.gov.scot)

    Education Scotland. (2015). Developing the Young Workforce Career Education Standard 3-18. Retrieved 18/03/2024, from Career Education Standard (3-18) September 2015

    Firth, R.(2014). Disciplinary knowledge: Task design in geography. Thomson, I. (eds.) Designing tasks in secondary education: Enhancing subject understanding and student engagement. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Freire, P. (1970/2017). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.

    Gannon, K. (2020). Radical Hope: A Teaching Manifesto. West Virginia University Press.

    Garland-Thomson, R. (2011) ‘Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept’, Hypatia 26:3, pp.591-609.

    Gebrial, D. (2018). ‘Rhodes Must Fall: Oxford and Movements for Change’ in Bhambra, G., Gebrial, D., and Nisancloglu, K. (eds.). Decolonising the University. London: Pluto Press. pp.19-36.

    Giroux, H. (2020). On Critical Pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury.

    Hayward, L. (2023). The Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment. Retrieved 18/03/2024, from Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment: review and key recommendations – gov.scot (www.gov.scot) 

    Muir, K. (2022). Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish Education. Retrieved 18/03/2024, from Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish Education – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)

    Noxolo, P. (2017). Introduction: Decolonising geographical knowledge in a colonised and re- colonising postcolonial world. Area, 49(3), 317– 319.

    Owens, P. Rotchell, E. Sprake, S. Witt, S. (2022). Geography in the Early Years: Guidance for doing wonderful and effective geography with young pupils. Primary Geography. 109 pp. 19-22.

    Piepmeier, A. (2009). Girl Zines: Making Media: Doing Feminism. New York: New York University Press.

    Puttick, S. (2023). The geography teaching adventure: Reclaiming exploration to inspire curriculum and pedagogy. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Roberts, M. (2023). Geography through enquiry: Approaches to teaching and learning in the secondary school (second edition). Sheffield: Geographical Association.

    Scottish Government (2009). Building the Curriculum 4: Skills for Learning, Skills for Life and Skills for Work. Retrived: 18/03/2024, from Building the Curriculum 4: Skills for learning, skills for life and skills for work (education.gov.scot)

    Scottish Government (2024). Developing the Young Workforce: Scotland’s Youth Employment Strategy. Retrieved 18/03/2024, from  Developing the young workforce: Scotland’s youth employment strategy – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)

    Swords, J. Jeffries, M. East, H. Messer, S. (2019). Mapping the city: Participatory mapping with young people. Geography. 104(3) pp. 141-147.

    [1] You can access recordings of some of the previous seminars through the GEReCo blog: GEReCo Blog – GEReCo UK IGU-CGE

  • Geography Education Masters Dissertation Award

    We are delighted to announce that applications are now open for the inaugural GEReCo Masters Dissertation Award!

    Through this new annual award GEReCo seeks to celebrate and amplify the voices of emerging researchers who are shaping the future of geography education.

    For more information and to apply, please see: https://www.gereco.org/about/gereco-masters-dissertation-award/