232
Geography and education: North
America
A. David Hill
Department of Geography, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO
80309, USA
The first report in this series (Hill, 1989a) framed its discussion around the institutional
context, content, and teaching and learning processes of geographic education in North
America. Because these are perennial issues and because they provide a broad view, this
second report examines recent developments in the USA within this same framework.
After more than a half century of neglect, precollegiate geography (K-l2th grades) in the
USA was receiving so much public attention two years ago that the words ’renaissance’
(Hill and LaPrairie, 1989) and ’rediscovery’ (Hill, 1989b) were used to describe the
phenomenon. The pace of this institutional change has become so accelerated that it
would not be inappropriate to use the word ’revolution’ today. Since the last report,
geographic education was placed on the national agenda in the USA, and that new
recognition of geography’s importance is revolutionary. The growing geographic alliance
network in the USA continues to be effective in putting geography on state and local
educational
agendas as well.
Complementary change is underway in the content and process of geographic education, although it would be an exaggeration to describe this change as revolutionary.
Indeed, the demands being created by the art ’olution in an institutional context cannot as
yet be met by the current system in geographic education. There are still too few welltrained teachers and too little good instruc iona material. Nevertheless, considerable
progress is being .nade. For example, inserv cue programmes by geographic alliances are
increasing the numbers of trained teachers, and the ’five fundamental themes’ are
beginning to appear in new textbooks. New, publicly funded instructional materials
development projects may also help to redefine what is taught as geography, but national
assessment guidelines for geography are likely to make a greater impact on content and
process. Finally, teaching and learning processes in geographic education may be
profoundly influenced by the emphasis being placed on the development of higher-level
thinking and inquiry, particularly if this emphasis is incorporated into the national
assessment process. This would be perhaps the best indicator of a new maturity of
geographic education in the USA, a maturity born of confidence gained from geography’s
new institutional strength.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
233
I
Context
The institutional context of geographic education has changed dramatically, especially in
the past two years. On April 18, 1991, President Bush announced America 2000: an
education strategy (US Department of Education, 1991 ), which defines geography as one of
the five core subjects to be promoted and assessed in a broad programme of educational
reform. The adoption in 1990 of an ambitious set of six National Education Goals by
President Bush and the nation’s governors capped an education reform movement that
began in the early 1980s with the ’Nation at Risk’ report (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983). Following ’Nation at Risk’, the nation’s governors placed
educational reform high on their agenda (National Governors’ Association, 1986; 1989;
Southern Governors’ Association, 1986); at the ’education summit’ in 1990, the governors
and the White House agreed on the Goals. Geography’s role in the National Education
Goals is noted in Goal 3:
By the year 2000, American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in
challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography; and every school in
America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible
citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modem economy (National Education Goals
Panel, 1991b: 14).
geography is mentioned in the National Education Goals is nothing less than
revolutionary when viewed against the neglect, if not utter absence, of geography in the
precollegiate curriculum in the previous five to six decades (Jenness, 1990; Stoltman,
1990).
Only a political neophyte would think that geography just appeared on the national
agenda because of its intrinsic merit. Indeed, were it not for the concerted efforts of
numerous individuals working effectively through several geographic societies since the
mid-1980s, geography would still be unnoticed. Gilbert M. Grosvenor, President and
Chairman of the National Geographic Society (NGS), has provided major leadership for
these efforts (Hill, 1989a; 1989b; Hill and LaPrairie, 1989; Jumper, 1991). Spearheading
Grosvenor’s campaign is the expanding network of NGS-sponsored geographic alliances,
now in 47 states (Grosvenor, 1991). In addition, the resources and lobbying effectiveness
of NGS kept the national media focused on geography through many supporting projects
(Geography Education Program, 1991c). Examples include the National Geography Bee
(1989-91, with more than 5 million students participating in 1991); successive Congressional resolutions to declare a National Geography Awareness Week (beginning in 1987);
distribution of 35 000 copies of NGS’ Historical atlas of the United States to secondary
school libraries (Raitz, 1991); and funding of an international Gallup survey (Gallup
Organization, Inc., 1988), the results of which brought considerable newspaper and
television coverage about ’geographic illiteracy’. NGS successfully engaged private corporations in the campaign. For instance, Citibank publicized Geography Awareness Week
in 1989 and 1990 by sending direct mail inserts to its 15 million Visa and Mastercard
members. Other geographic organizations have also been instrumental in placing geography in the public consciousness. In 1990-91, the Association of American Geographers
endorsed the second annual American Express Geography Competition, which attracted
2500 students from 44 states and awarded $100 000 in prizes to the winners and their
The fact that
teachers.
The recent, increased use of maps on television news programmes has been a deliberate
response by the national networks to the perceived issue of geographic illiteracy. Finally,
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
234
ABC-TV named a professional geographer, H.J. de Blij, as its Geography Editor, and
features his expertise to explain the events in the news on the programme ’Good Morning,
America’ (de Blij, 1990). Reports of national-level commissions and surveys have also
helped put geography on the national agenda. In addition to the Gallup survey (1988),
considerable attention was drawn to ’geographic ignorance’ by a survey of high-school
seniors conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (1989).
There is other evidence of geographic education’s new prominence. For example,
nongeography journals have recently published special issues on the subject (Gritzner,
1990; Hill, 1989b). Also, Focus, the American Geographical Society’s magazine that
popularizes geography, began covering geographic education when Salter (1986b) wrote
about geography and curricular reform; since 1988, Focus has regularly carried a
’Geography and Teaching’ section (Eichen, 1988a; 1988b; ’1988c; 1989a; 1989b; 1989c;
1990; Salter, 1990).
The attention given to geography has not been entirely without dissension. The
National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools (1989) recommended that future
social studies curricula be organized on a matrix of geography and history, a scheme that is
being implemented in the new California curriculum framework (Salter, 1986a). This
emphasis is criticized by some social studies educators who perceive it as a throwback to a
traditional discipline-focused, rather than citizenship-oriented, social studies curriculum
(National Council for the Social Studies, 1989; Epstein and Evans, 1990; Metcalf and
Jenness, 1991; Brodkey, 1991; Parker, 1991b). Underlying this criticism is the long-lived ’
debate about tilting the social studies toward one of its three traditional emphases:
’citizenship and civic participation; disciplined knowledge; and the critical and reflective
capacity’ (Metcalf and Jenness, 1991: 24; Jenness, 1990). As is the case with many debates
between vested interests, too few persons show a willingness for, or seem capable of,
balancing these emphases.
Citizenship education has been the most consistent rubric of the social studies in North
America, and geographers seeking greater recognition for geography among social studies
educators have been at pains to show geography’s role in citizenship education (Gritzner,
1990). Substantial contributions in this genre have recently come from Stoltman (1990)
and Helburn (1991).
This revolution has increasingly placed geography on local agendas as well. In fact,
without strong local support, the national institutional context of geographic education
cannon affect marked local change because schooling in the USA is locally controlled. In
the USA, the common curricular pattern blended geography into the elementary grades,
K-6. Rarely was geography offered as a separate course above the 7th grade, but that is
changing rapidly. The Council of Chief State School Officers (1988) reported that the
public schools in 41 of 56 USA states and territories intend to require more geography in
their curricula during the next five years. The report also noted that geography is now
offered either as an elective or requirement to students in at least one of the grades between
9 and 12 in 34 states, and that it is required in high school in five states (Geography
education in United States, 1989). A 1990 survey reported 35 states offering geography
courses or combined geography and history courses in grades 9-12; it is shown as a
requirement or an alternative on a required list in 16 states (Council of State Social Studies
Specialists, 1990). Stoltman (1990) reported that 10 states had incorporated the ’five
fundamental themes’ of geography education (Joint Committee on Geographic Education,
1984) in their social studies curriculum guides, and that each of these 10 states had revised
their guides since 1984.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
235
In addition to the new secondary-level geography requirements, strengthened tertiary
admissions standards are now beginning to include geography. For example, all students
admitted to any of the University of Tennessee campuses after 1988 are required to have
one year of high school world geography or world history. The University of California
(Geography Education Program, 1990), the seven state universities of Minnesota (Minnesota Alliance for Geographic Education, 1990), and the University of North Dakota are
other recent examples of new university admission requirements of high school geography.
The University of Colorado’s College of Arts and Sciences has had a geography entrance
requirement in effect since 1988.
Much of the change at the state and local level has been strongly influenced by new
linkages between people at elementary, secondary, and tertiary levels. These linkages have
been especially stimulated by the growing network of geographic alliances (universitybased, grass-roots organizations that bring together the content expertise of academic
geographers and the experience of precollegiate teachers to improve geography instruction
in grades K-12). Beginning with seven states in 1986, the alliance network had grown to 47
states and Puerto Rico by 1991 (Geography Education Program, 1991b). Sponsored by
the National Geographic Society, these state-based alliances are funded with matching
grants from the states (both public and private sources) and from the National Geographic
Society Education Foundation.
One of the most significant developments arising out of the alliances is the increasing
professionalization of teachers. Typically, teachers first participate in summer institutes over 4000 teachers have been trained since 1986 (Geography Education Program, 1991a).
Then, as ’teacher consultants’ (TCs), they apply their training by leading peers in their
home school districts in inservice workshops, which create a multiplier effect involving
thousands of additional teachers. TCs provide geography specialist leadership at the
individual school level. This is increasingly needed because subject-matter specialists are
being removed from central administrations as district decentralization schemes sweep the
country. Many TCs have presented papers (usually demonstrations of classroom activities
they have created) at professional meetings, such as a conference of the state alliances or
the annual meeting of the National Council for Geographic Education. A number of these
teachers have begun writing for publication. Teacher-created lessons are regular features
of alliance newsletters, and the Joual of Geography has devoted special issues to this
material (e.g., Salter and Riggs-Salter, 1990).
The NGS alliances have also offered a new constituency and a new form of professional
service activity to many university geographers. They lead alliances as co-ordinators, in
some states sharing those duties with colleagues in other geography departments, schools
of education, state education agencies, and precollegiate teachers. Professional geographers direct and help staff summer institutes, speak at schools and alliance conferences,
and work with elementary and secondary teachers to develop instructional materials and
plan curricula. These activities represent means by which university faculties collaborate in
the educational mission with local school communities. Although this nontraditional
faculty role may conflict with the accepted roles of university research and teaching, it is
attractive to universities wishing to develop ’outreach’ beyond the academic community;
indeed, it is recognized as a new means of strengthening university geography departments
(Aangeenbrug, 1989).
Because well over half of high school graduates in the USA go on to college, the
revolution in precollegiate geography quickly ramifies into higher education. Although.
survey data are not yet available, informal communications from geographers in several
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
236
departments report, surging undergraduate geography enrolments, e.g., in the last three
they have doubled at the University of Tennessee. The number of geography majors
has doubled at the University of Colorado at Boulder since 1988, and for the first time,
students are opting to major in geography as they enter the university. Qualitative changes
are also likely to occur, e.g., the current level of sophistication at which introductory
college geography is taught will probably be inadequate for future students who will have
learned much more geography in high school than did students in the past.
In many of the departments where alliance co-ordinators are based, alliance funds
support students who work on alliance activities. At the University of Colorado, for
example, alliance funds have supported geography graduate students since 1987, and the
alliance funds were also instrumental in establishing the Center for Geographic Education
in the Department of Geography in 1988. The Center provides an institutional base for the
Colorado Geographic Alliance and acquires additional grant monies for research and
development projects that support both masters and doctoral students specializing in
geographic education. The revolution in geographic education in the USA is creating a
demand for graduate-level expertise in geographic education that will be difficult to meet
because few graduate geography departments offer an emphasis in this subfield.
Some university geographers criticize the alliances. Fuller (1989; 1990), in speaking
generally about the ills of USA public education, argued that alliances cannot ameliorate
those ills. Indeed, he argued that alliance promotional activity exclusively on behalf of
geography contributes to the parochial, special-interest view that has weakened public
education in the USA. Several authors (Bednarz, 1989; Marran, 1989; Byklum, 1990;
Salter, 1991a) contested Fuller saying that, as an ’outside’ observer, he misunderstood
alliances and their role in educational change. Salter (1991b), provided an ’insider’s’
perspective on the complex, nontraditional, and often contradictory relationships between
university geography and the alliances.
years,
11
Content
Just as the institutional
context of geographic education is changing, so too is the content
of school geography. The document most responsible for this content change was
Guidelines for Geographic Education (joint Committee on Geographic Education, 1984),
which laid out the framework commonly referred to as the ’five fundamental themes of
geography’ (Location; Place; Relationships within Places; Movement; Region). The ’five
themes’ have been widely accepted in the USA, and the teachers who are trained in their
use through the NGS alliance network generally teach a more comprehensive and
conceptual geography than was once common. For those affected by these changes, place
location and ’capes and bays’ are no longer considered adequate geography.
Labelling the five themes ’the new school geography’, Harper (1990a) asserted that this
’new geography’ was inadequate to encompass the subject matter and failed to demonstrate how geography provides an essential perspective on the world. His ’critique’ opened
a lively debate in the journal of Geography (Blouet, 1990; Boehm, 1990; Harper, 1990b;
Hill, 1990b; Lanegran and St. Peter, 1990; Natoli, 1990; Peterson, 1990; Salter and
Salter, 1990). Harper’s antagonists, most of whom are either ’five themes’ authors or
alliance co-ordinators, said he misconstrued (or ignored) the purpose of the themes, the
context in which they were developed, the way they are being used, and the role they are
playing in the process of educational change. The five themes can, of course, be misused or
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
237
treated simplistically and bureaucratically, but they can also be a highly useful framework
for the skilful practitioner (e.g., Gersmehl, 1991).
The broad acceptance of the five themes cannot, of course, be explained only by
reference to agreement on subject matter. In my view, they were wisely drawn up to be
adaptable throughout a huge and highly diverse educational system comprising 50 states,
more than 15 000 school districts, and approximately 83 000 public schools. There are
many systems that are diverse in terms of institutional context, content, and teaching and
learning processes. To be widely accepted, the themes had to be flexible in several ways.
The five themes are (and what follows might be ‘11 Commandments’ for would-be
guidelines developers):
1) conceptually inclusive: there are few, if any, geographic concepts that cannot fit into
the themes;
2) methodologically open: they do not demand a particular geographic method or
approach, e.g., regional or systematic;
3) politically and philosophically neutral: they don’t promote a particular political
leaning or bias such as positivism, structuralism, or humanistic philosophy;
4) age and grade-level adaptable: they may be used with a wide range of sophistication as
shown by the separate guidelines volumes for K-6 and 7-12 (Geographic Education
National Implementation Project, 1987; 1989);
5) unrestricted in scale of analysis: they are appropriate for studies ranging from the local
to global scale;
6) amenable to attitudes and values in education: yet this is only a potential, which is left
to the choice of the teacher;
7) user-friendly for beginning teachers: even teachers untrained in geography find that
the themes make geography approachable and interesting;
8) teacher-friendly for experienced teachers: well-trained geography teachers immediately recognize the potential richness and comprehensiveness of the themes and, of
course, can use them flexibly in their teaching;
9) useful as content organizers: existing instructional materials and curricula may easily
incorporate them and they may be used to structure new materials and curricula;
10) pedagogically free: both inquiry-oriented and traditional didactic teachers may use
them to good advantage; and
11) unspecific to cognitive level: teaching and learning at all cognitive levels, from
descriptive recall to process analysis to evaluation, are possible with them.
In looking for evidence of changing content, it is important to assess both geography
textbooks and supplementary materials. Textbooks play the dominant role in defining
what content is taught. This is especially true where teachers are not well trained in
geography, which, unfortunately, is still the general case in the USA. Secondary geography
textbooks are beginning to feature the five themes. In reviewing 21 secondary textbooks
published between 1981 and 1989, St. Peter (1989) found that of the four texts explicitly
incorporating the five themes, all four carried 1989 publication dates. A newer text suitable
for advanced secondary- and beginning college-levels is thoroughly structured around the
five themes (Hardwick and Holtgrieve, 1990). Another secondary text to be released
shortly (Baerwald and Fraser, 1992) introduces the five themes and then applies them at
various spots throughout the book.
As suggested above, use of the five themes does not guarantee that texts (or for that
matter teaching) will be process-oriented. Indeed, recent work by Hoffman (1990) showed
that many secondary geography texts do not encourage a process-oriented geographic
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
238
selected facts rather than the explanation of facts and the
of patterns rather than the explanation of patterns. Rarely do they offer
alternative theories and even more rarely do they examine theories in the light of facts. A
new, rich, data-laden secondary text published in Canada (Fagan, 1991) has a strong
problem-orientation but does not offer many alternative explanations. Although the topics
it addresses typically lie within the purview of geography, it does not explicitly identify its
subject-matter with geography but rather for the teaching of ’world issues’.
Significant innovation in the content of geography-as-taught is not likely to come from
the textbook publishers but rather from the creators of supplementary materials. A spate of
new supplementary materials have begun to appear, some of which are edited assemblages
of previously produced fugitive materials (e.g., Backler and Stoltman, 1988), or anthologies of new teacher-produced activities (e.g., Massachusetts Geographic Alliance, 1990).
Useful teaching resources have become available recently for special topics such as
population and the environment (Crews and Cancellier, 1991), sustainable development
(Posey-Pacak, 1991), and resources management (World Resources Institute, 1990). The
National Geographic Society recently published a teacher training book (Ludwig et al.,
1991) for its alliance-related inservice work, and the National Council for Geographic
Education (1990) is distributing to teachers a useful set of 10 reproducible outline maps.
New curriculum frameworks and course outlines based on the five themes are in great
demand by schools and districts wishing to add and improve upon geography. The
Geographic Education National Implementation Project has produced both elementary
(1987) and secondary (1989) curriculum documents. One of the most impressive school
geography curriculum documents comes from Canada (Ontario Ministry of Education,
1988). Outlines for university courses designed for students studying to be geography
teachers were produced by a project funded by the US Department of Education (Shirey
and Bencloski, 1990).
New, large-scale materials development projects have the potential to define a new,
more problem-oriented geography for the expanding numbers of secondary geography
students. In 1990, the National Science Foundation began supporting a three-year project
at the University of Colorado that is developing issue-oriented, data based inquiry
modules for secondary-level global geography (Dunn, 1991; Hill, 1990a; 1991). A
complementary project, scheduled to begin in 1991 at the University of Minnesota under a
National Science Foundation grant to the Association of American Geographers, will
produce secondary-level materials for USA geography (Gersmehl et al., 1991). Both of
these projects are designed to produce materials for year-long courses.
education.
They emphasize
description
IIII
Process
The three traditional emphases of the social studies were mentioned earlier: ’citizenship
and civic participation, disciplined knowledge, and the critical and reflective capacity’
(Metcalf and Jenness, 1991: 24). The latter - ’preparing students to think’ - is receiving a
great deal of attention among social studies educators; higher-level thinking and critical
thinking are continually mentioned as important goals (e.g., Parker, 1991a). This stress on
the teaching and learning process is sometimes perceived to be pursued so single-mindedly
in teacher training that disciplined knowledge gets neglected. Geographic educators have
frequently urged a reduction of emphasis on facts in order instead to teach students to ’do
geography’ - to pose questions, solve problems, and make decisions. Despite this urging,
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
239
Stoltman (1991) found only one research study (published 20 years ago) on critical
thinking and geography.
It is telling that only 20 of the 92 references in Stoltman’s (1991) recent review of
research on geography teaching were published in the last 10 years. Stoltman divided the
research into four categories: 1) K-12 geography teaching, subdivided into elementary and
secondary instruction; 2) the use of maps in geography teaching; 3) children’s spatial/
cognitive development; and 4) geography’s status as a school subject.
Castner (1990) has produced the most substantial recent work on geographic teaching
and learning. Drawing eclectically from educational ideas in music, art, science, and
cartographic communication, Castner’s innovative perceptual approach to geographic
education attempts to link visual discrimination to concepts fundamental to geographic
thinking. Although it is not a book on practice, it lays a foundation for new thinking about
practice. Students and teachers following Castner’s lead will stress inquiry and improvisation in geographic education.
The assessment of the new National Education Goals in the five core subjects (science,
maths, English, history and geography) at grades 4, 8 and 12 is likely to become a major
factor in steering the content and process of geographic education. Since teachers are
pressured to ’teach to the test’, the nature of the coming geography assessment could be
highly significant. The methodology of national assessments in the USA has in the past
relied heavily on multiple-choice questions that could be machine-scored, a system that
many educators have long deplored. Increasingly, educators are calling for ’authentic
assessment’, an evaluation paradigm for measuring dimensions of learning other than
recall by looking at performance over a wide range of activities (National Education Goals
Panel, 199 a) .
IV
Conclusions
decades, geographers in the USA have bemoaned the lowly status of their
discipline. Beginning in 1984, an unprecedented campaign, led by the National Geographic Society’s president and chairman, Gilbert M. Grosvenor, has succeeded in placing
For several
geography on the national agenda - the new National Education Goals lists geography as
one of the five core subjects to be emphasized in reforming the USA system of education.
This remarkable change in the institutional context of geography will create demands that
the geographic education system will find great difficulty in meeting.
Despite impressive inservice teacher training by the geographic alliances and a growing
amount of new instructional material, there are woefully inadequate supplies of welltrained geography teachers and of good instructional materials. The system of higher
education support for geographic education is also inadequate: academic geographers pay
little attention to the special needs of students preparing to become precollegiate teachers;
there are too few graduate students being trained in geographic education; and there is too
little research being done in geographic education.
Geography’s prominence in the National Education Goals will place heavy responsibility on geographic educators to create innovative means to assess the outcomes of a
rapidly expanding geographic education. If resources can be made available to undertake
authentic assessment in geography, geographic educators will face a great challenge;
success in meeting this challenge could well usher in a revolution in geography content and
process to match the ongoing revolution in the institutional context of geographic
education.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
240
References
Aangeenbrug, R.T. 1989: Getting it together: advice
to departments. Professional Geographer 41, 487-90.
Backler, A. and Stoltman, J., editors, 1988: Geography education. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Baerwald, T.J. and Fraser, C. 1992: World Geography. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bednarz, S.W. 1989: What’s good about alliances.
Professional Geographer 41, 484-86.
Blouet, O. 1990: 5 themes minus 3 themes 2 themes
(or 4 questions). Journal of Geography 89, 227.
Boehm, R.G. 1990: Communication from readers.
Journal of Geography 89, 84.
Brodkey, J. 1991: ’Charting a Course’: rewriting the
familiar. Social Education 55, 26-27.
Byklum, D. 1990: Critique of ’Why geographic alliances won’t work’. Professional Geographer 42,
=
364-66.
Castner, H.W. 1990: Seeking new horizons: a perceptual
approach to geographic education. Montreal & Kingston : McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Council of Chief State School Officers 1988: Geography education and the states: a report on a 1988
geography education survey of state education agencies.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School
Officers.
Council of State Social Studies Specialists 1990:
National survey of course offerings, requirements, and
testing in social studies, kindergarten grade 12. [CSSSS,
an affiliate of the National Council for the Social
Studies.]
Crews, K.A. and Cancellier, P., editors, 1991: Connections : linking population and the environment [Teacher’s Guide and Student Resource Book]. Washington,
DC: Population Reference Bureau, Inc.
De Blij, H.J. 1990: Geography on ’Good Morning,
America’. Focus 40, 32-37.
Dunn, J.M. 1991: New global geography instructional
materials: revised development model. 1991 Annual
Meeting Abstracts, Association of American Geographers, Miami, FL, 13-17Aprd, 53.
M. 1988a: What is geographic education?
Where does technology fit in? Focus 38 ( 1 ), 33-36.
1988b: National Geography Bee? Focus 38(2),
33-36.
1988c: Games geographers play. Focus 38(3),
35-36.
1989a: Weather prediction in the classroom. Focus
39(1), 27, 29.
1989b: Logo and geography teaching. Focus 39(2),
25-26.
1989c: Popular film as a resource in teaching
Eichen,
—
—
—
—
—
Focus 39(4), 31-32.
1990: New enviro-magazines and classroom use.
Focus 40(3), 35-36.
Epstein, T.L. and Evans, R.W., editors, 1990: Special section: reactions to ’Charting a Course: Social
Studies for the 21st Century’. Social Education 54(7),
427-46.
geography.
-
Fagan, M.
1991: Challenge for change. Second Edition.
Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd.
Fuller, G. 1989: Why geographic alliances won’t work.
Professional Geographer 41, 480-84.
1990: The revenge of ’Why geographic alliances
won’t work’. Professional Geographer 42, 366-68.
——
Gallup Organization, Inc. 1988: Geography: an international Gallup survey. Princeton, NJ: The
Gallup Organization, Inc.
Geographic Education National Implementation
Project 1987: K-6 geography: themes, key ideas, and
learning opportunities. Washington, DC: Geographic
Education National Implementation Project.
1989: 7-12 geography: themes, key ideas, and learning
opportunities. Washington, DC: Geographic Education National Implementation Project.
Geography Education Program 1990: UPDATE
Fall. Washington, DC: National Geographic
Society.
1991 a: Geography education program: 1991 and
beyond. Washington, DC: National Geographic
Society.
1991b: UPDATE Spring. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society.
1991c: Geography education program five-year
report. Washington, DC: National Geographic
Society.
—
——
——
——
Geography education in the United States: a report
on a 1988 geography education survey of state education agencies. 1989: Journal of Geography 88(2),
57-60.
Gersmehl, P.J. 1991: Themes and counterpoints in
geographic education. Unpublished paper.
Gersmehl, P.J., Archer, C., Bosowski, E., Brand,
O., Cohen, S., Muller, P., Raitz, K., Stoltman,
J. 1991: Joint USSR-US geography curriculum project proposal. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.
Gritzner, C.F. 1990: Geography and social studies
education: mapping the interface. International Journal of Social Education 5(2), 9-21.
Grosvenor, G.M. 1991: The president’s report on the
education foundation. National Geographic 179(6).
Hardwick, S.W.
and
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Holtgrieve, D.G.
1990: Pat-
241
terns on our planet: concepts and themes in geography.
New York: Macmillan.
Harper, R. 1990a: The new school geography: a
critique. Journal of Geography 89, 37-30.
1990b: Communication from readers. Journal of
Geography 89, 134-35.
Helburn, N. 1991: The geographical perspective: geography’s role in citizenship education. In Gross,
R.E. and Dynneson, T.L., editors, Social science
perspectives on citizenship education. New York:
Teachers College Press, 116-40.
Hill, A.D. 1989a: Geography and education: North
America. Progress in Human Geography 13, 589-98.
1989b: Rediscovering geography: its five fundamental themes. National Association of Secondary
School Principals Bulletin 73(521), 1-7.
1990a: A model for issue-based geographic inquiry
in secondary schools. Instructional Materials for Global
Geography, Bulletin lA. Boulder, CO: University of
Colorado Center for Geographic Education.
1990b: Communication from readers. Journal of
Geography 89(2), 84-85.
1991: Developing instructional materials for the
schools: progress report on a National Science Foundation project. 1991 Annual Meeting Abstracts, Association of American Geographers, Miami, FL, 13-17
April, 84-85.
Hill, A.D. and LaPrairie, L.A. 1989: Geography in
American education. In Gaile, G.L. and Willmott,
C.J., editors, Geography in America, Columbus, OH:
Merrill, 1-26.
Hoffman, G.M. 1990: A study to design and test a
content analysis tool to measure the geographic
process-orientation of high school geography textbooks. Masters thesis, Department of Geography,
University of Colorado, Boulder.
—
——
——
——
——
D. 1990: Making sense of social studies. New
York: Macmillan.
Joint Committee on Geographic Education 1984:
Guidelines for geographic education: elementary and
secondary schools. Washington, DC: Association of
American Geographers and National Council for
Geographic Education.
Jumper, S.R. 1991: Interview with Gilbert M. Grosvenor. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 15(2)
101-12.
Jenness,
D.A. and St. Peter, P. 1990: Communication from readers. Journal of Geography 89,
85-86.
Lanegran,
Ludwig, G.S., Backler, A., Bednarz, S.W., Bock,
J.K., Bockenhauer, M.H., Stoltman, J.P. and
Walk, F.H. 1991: Directions in geography: a guide for
teachers. Washington, DC: National Geographic
Society.
1989: ’Why geographic alliances won’t
work’ - a response. Professional Geographer 41,
486-87.
Massachusetts Geographic Alliance 1990: Global
geography: activities for teaching the five themes of
geography (grades 3-9). Boulder, CO: Social Science
Education Consortium, Inc.
Metcalf, F.D. and Jenness, D. 1991: A response to
the critics. Social Education 55, 24-26.
Minnesota Alliance for Geographic Education
1990. The geography connection 5(2).
Marran, J.F.
National Assessment of Educational Progress
1989: The geography learning of high-school seniors.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
National Commission on Excellence in Education
A nation at risk: the imperative for educational
1983:
reform. Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.
National Commission on Social Studies in the
Schools 1989: Charting a course: social studies for the
21st century. Washington, DC: National Commission
on Social Studies in the Schools and the National
Social Science Disciplinary Associations.
National Council for Geographic Education 1990:
NCGE outline map blackline masters: set A. Indiana,
PA: National Council for Geographic Education.
National Council for the Social Studies 1989: In
search of a scope and sequence for social studies.
Social Education 53: 376-87.
National Education Goals Panel 1991 a: Measuring
progress toward the national education goals: potential
indicators and measurement strategies, compendium of
interim resource group reports, March 25, 1991.
—— 1991b: Measuring progress toward the national education goals: potential indicators and measurement strategies, discussion document, March 25, 1991.
National Governors’ Association 1986: Time for
results: the governors’ 1991 report on education. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.
1989: America in transition: the international frontier,
report of the task force on international education. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association.
Natoli, S.J. 1990: Communication from readers. Journal of Geography 89, 86-87.
—
Ontario Ministry of Education 1988: Geography:
Intermediate and senior divisions, 1988, Curriculum
Guideline, Parts A-F. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Parker, W.C. 1991a: Achieving thinking and decisionmaking objectives in social studies. In Shaver, J.P.,
editor, Handbook of research on social studies teaching
and learning. New York: Macmillan, 345-56.
1991b: A final response: searching for the middle.
—
Social Education 55, 27-28, 65.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
242
Peterson, J.F. 1990: Communication from readers.
Journal of Geography 89, 135-36.
Posey-Pacak, M.A. 1991: Earth at risk: instructional
on the sustainable development and manageof the environment, a resource guide for K-12
teachers. Washington, DC: Geographic Education
National Implementation Project.
materials
ment
Raitz, K.
States.
1991: Review of Historical atlas of the United
Annals, Association of American Geographers
81(1),
167-69.
Salter, C.L.
1986a: Geography and California’s educational reform: one approach to a common cause.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 76,
5-17.
1986b: Geography and curricular reform. Focus
36(2), 31-33.
1990: What is the essence of geographic literacy?
Focus 40(2), 26-29.
1991 a: Geographic alliances: be moved, but not
alarmed. Professional Geographer 43, 102-04.
1991 b: The university and the alliance: a study in
contradictions. Journal of Geography 90, 55-59.
Salter, K. and Riggs-Salter, C., editors, 1990: Special issue: the teachers speak. Journal of Geography
—
—
—
——
89, 145-92.
Salter, K. and Salter, C. 1990: The teachers speak: a
note on what they are talking about, and the five
themes. Journal of Geography 89, 146-47.
Shirey, R.I. and Bencloski, J.W., editors, 1990: The
introductory course in geography for the preservice
teacher. Washington, DC: Association of American
Geographers.
Southern Governors’ Association 1986: Cornerstone
of competition, a report of the Southern Governors’
Association, Advisory Council on International Education. Washington, DC: Southern Governors’
Association.
Stoltman, J.P. 1990: Geography education for citizenship. Bloomington, IN: Educational Resources Information Center.
1991: Research on geography teaching. In Shaver,
J.P., editor. Handbook of research on social studies
teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan,
437-47.
St. Peter, P. 1989: Text assessments in geography:
interpretive analyses of standard geography textbooks,
7-12. Indiana, PA: Geographic Education National
——
Implementation Project.
US Department of Education 1991: America 2000:
an education strategy. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
World Resources Institute 1990: Teacher’s guide to
World Resources 1990-91. Washington, DC: World
Resources Institute.
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016