International Perspectives on GeographicalEducation

Series editors

Clare Brooks, UCL Institute of Education, London, UKJoop van der Schee, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

This series is under the editorial supervision of the International GeographyUnion’s Commission on Geographical Education. Led by the priorities and criteriaset out in the Commission’s Declaration on Geography Education Research, theseries plays an important role in making geography education research accessible tothe global community. Publications within the series are be drawn from meetings,conferences and symposiums supported by the Commission. Individual bookeditors are selected for special editions that correspond to the Commission’songoing programme of work and from suitable submissions to the series editors. Inthis way, research published represents immediate developments within theinternational geography education community. The series will also seek to supportthe development of early career researchers in publishing high quality, high impactresearch accounts.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15101

Osvaldo Muñiz Solari • Michael SolemRichard BoehmEditors

Learning Progressionsin Geography EducationInternational Perspectives

123

EditorsOsvaldo Muñiz SolariDepartment of GeographyTexas State UniversitySan Marcos, TXUSA

Michael SolemAmerican Association of GeographersWashington, D.C.USA

Richard BoehmTexas State UniversitySan Marcos, TXUSA

ISSN 2367-2773 ISSN 2367-2781 (electronic)International Perspectives on Geographical EducationISBN 978-3-319-44716-2 ISBN 978-3-319-44717-9 (eBook)DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-44717-9

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016947947

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or partof the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmissionor information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodology now known or hereafter developed.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt fromthe relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in thisbook are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor theauthors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein orfor any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer NatureThe registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland

Preface

Building a Foundation for International Collaborativeand Comparative Research on Geography LearningProgressions

Since 2013 the National Center for Research in Geography Education has beenleading a project known as GeoProgressions in an effort to build capacity to conductresearch on learning progressions in the context of U.S. geography education. Oneof the major outcomes of GeoProgressions was the publication LearningProgressions for Maps, Geospatial Technology, and Spatial Thinking: A ResearchHandbook (Solem et al. 2015), which offers an introduction to learning progres-sions and examples of their applications in the context of spatial cognition research.

Drawing principally upon the work of math, science, and geography educators inthe U.S., Learning Progressions for Maps, Geospatial Technology, and SpatialThinking presents a methodology for researching how students develop increasinglycomplex and sophisticated understandings of fundamental geographic and spatialconcepts along with the development of their cognitive learning capacities.Information of this nature may well assist geographers seeking a way of calibratinginstruction to draw out what students know about spatial relationships, assess howthey perceive spatial information, and help them successively build upon priorknowledge to reach more complex levels of spatial awareness and cognitive ability.Geography learning progressions have significant potential to assist administratorsand teachers by providing evidence of students’ conceptual understanding ofdisciplinary content.

The broader literature on learning progressions offers many examples that mightserve as potential models for geographers seeking to conduct studies on learningprogressions in relation to other domains of geographic knowledge as expressed inGeography for Life: U.S. National Geography Standards (Heffron and Downs2012). In its review of this literature, GeoProgressions illustrated the importance ofthinking about learning processes in terms of “grain size,” that is, the relativebreadth or depth of a progression in knowledge and thinking.

v

Take, for example, Leema Berland and Katherine McNeill’s learning progres-sion for scientific argumentation (Fig. 1). This learning progression conceives aprocess of scientific argumentation in three dimensions, each having a linear gra-dient ranging from simple to more complex. Without prescribing disciplinarycontent or context, Berland and McNeill outline a coarsely grained progressionshowing hypothetical relationships between the instructional support provided tostudents as they think and reason with data, make claims and rebuttals, and drawconclusions about cause and effect.

For geographers, Berland and McNeill’s learning progression might suggest ameans of engaging students in a process of geographic inquiry and reasoning. Itwould be up to the geography educator to refine this progression by defining thequalities of the geographic questions, data, evidence, pedagogies, and communi-cation techniques at play in the process of scientific argumentation.

This does, however, raise a specter within geography education: how dependentis this particular learning progression on students’ prior knowledge? In other words,to what extent can a person engage in scientific argumentation without first havingfoundational knowledge in a discipline? One might be able to think and deliberatein very complex terms, and yet, still reach invalid or inaccurate conclusions becauseof inappropriate methods, faulty assumptions, and limited knowledge about a

Dimension Simple Complex

Instructional context

Question is closely defined with two-three potential answers

Question is open with multiple potential answers

Data set is small Data set is large Students define data set

Data set is limited to appropriate data

Data set includes both appropriate and inappropriate data

Detailed scaffolds Moderate scaffolds No scaffolds

Argumentative product

Claims are defended Claims are defended with evidence

Claims are defended with evidence, and reasoning

Counterclaims are NOT rebutted Counterclaims ARE rebutted

Claim addresses question asked Claim addresses question asked with a casual account

Component (i.e. evidence, reasoning, rebuttal) is appropriate

Component (i.e. evidence, reasoning, rebuttal) is appropriate and sufficient

Argumentative process

Claims are articulated, defended, questioned or evaluated

Claims are articulated, defended, questioned, AND evaluated

Claims are articulated, defended, questioned, evaluated, and revised

Student participation in argumentative discourse is prompted by their teacher

Teacher and students share responsibility for prompting theargument

Students spontaneously engage in argumentative discourse

Fig. 1 A learning progression for scientific argumentation (Berland and McNeill 2009). The moredarkly the cells are shaded, the more complex the students’ work on that characteristic

vi Preface

problem and its context. While the debate on the topic of the relationship, causal orcorrelational, among knowledge creation capacities and chronologies is expected,this book maintains a focus on practical, experiential, and conceptual discussions oflearning progressions within geography education. Further theoretical research isneeded to formulate understandings and debates about how knowledge creation andfoundational learning are interrelated, especially within geographic education.

One may consider the design of a learning progression that models a progressionbased on both content knowledge and scientific thinking process (Fig. 2). In thisexample, the learning progression presents a hierarchical portrayal of the scientificconcept of biodiversity, with content progressing from foundational knowledge(i.e., knowing and being able to explain the difference between a plant and ananimal) toward a conceptual understanding of what constitutes biodiversity in termsof richness species and taxa and abundance (Songer et al. 2009). This relativelyfine-grained content progression is aligned with a more coarsely grained

B5. An area has high biodiversity if it has both high richness (taxon or species diversity) and high abundance.

B4. Biodiversity is a measure of the number and variety of different organisms in a particular area (habitat, ecosystem, or biome, so scale dependent). Biodiversity combines abundance and richness.B3. Richness and abundance are two different measures of the amount of animal life in a habitat or area. Abundance is the total number of each kind of animal in the habitat, richness is the number of kinds of animals in an area. (You need a classification system to be able to measure the variety of organisms)

E7. You can connect the plants and animals in a habitat into a web of eating relationships, a food web. Because many animals rely on each other, a change in the # of one species (especially the elimination of one species) can affect many different members of the web

E5. Trophic relationships between organisms can be diagrammed as a food chain, a linking of predators and prey.

E4. An animal that eats another organism is a predator, the organism that it eats is called its prey. A parasite eats only a part of another organism and doesn’t kill it. The organism (plant or animal) that a parasite feeds on is the host.

E3. Most animals use particular kinds of organisms for food. Some general groups are herbivores, carnivores,omnivores, and decomposers.

E2. Organisms can be divided into producers (those that make their own food) and consumers (those that use other organisms or their remains as food).

B1. A habitat is a place that provides food, water, shelter, and space for living things.

C5. Organisms are grouped based on the structures they have in common. This is called classification.

C4. Organisms (animals) have different features that they use to survive in different habitats. There are observable internal and external differences (some fly, some have scales, fur, wings, live in the water, etc.). Some of these differences are used to distinguish major groups.

C3. Plants and animals differ in the types of observable structures they have and what function those structure have.

A: Content Progression for Biodiversity B: Inquiry Reasoning Progression for Building Evidence-based Explanations

ComplexStudents construct a scientific explanation consisting of a claim, evidence, and reasoning which links the two, without any prompts or guidance. Construction draws on a substantial amount of additional (not given) content knowledge in order to, for example, determine salient irrelevant evidence and to justify claim through scientific reasoning.

IntermediateStudents construct a simple explanation using prompts or partially completed explanations to guide, for example, the development of a claim and the use of relevant evidence.Construction draws on a moderate amount of content knowledge.

MinimalStudents match relevant evidence to a given claim.No extra content knowledge is required.

Fig. 2 Learning progression for evidence-based explanations about biodiversity (Songer et al.2009)

Preface vii

progression of what constitutes as simple to more complex qualities of scientificreasoning about biodiversity.

Although Songer et al. (2009) learning progression is an attempt to meld therelationship between knowledge and thinking in a process of makingevidence-based explanations, there is very limited empirical research on whethersuch a tool, developed for a relatively “vertical” science such as biology, will beuseful for investigations of learning processes in relation to geographical subjectmatter, such as urban environments, cultural landscapes, social justice, or economicinterdependence. These and many other topics do not constitute a clear hierarchicalarrangement (progression) of knowledge that may constitute a prerequisite forreaching more complex levels of conceptual understanding and higher cognitivethinking. Solem and Lambert (2015) address this and other cautionary assumptionsin their concluding chapter to Learning Progressions for Maps, GeospatialTechnology, and Spatial Thinking: A Research Handbook.

Despite the aforementioned uncertainties, learning progressions are attracting theinterest of geography educators if for no other reason than the potential of thisresearch field to generate empirical knowledge of student learning. Additionally,there are also many innovative practical values of learning progressions that warrantour attention.

Practical Applications for Learning Progression Researchin Geography Education

It is clear that models for learning progression research are available in STEMdisciplines, and that they are catching the eye of geography educators. One couldargue that this type of research may be among the most valuable in the process ofgeography education despite complexities that will be difficult to understand andeven more complicated to measure. For example, Berland and McNeill’s workuncovers the dilemma of “students’ prior knowledge” and how this single variablemight call into question students’ ability to engage in argumentation. Now add tothis the whole mosaic of students’ value components and the social context oflearning with regard to variables, such as race, religion, politics, socioeconomicbackground, family structure, and cultural preconditioning, and there is a compli-cated mental set of conditions that will no doubt affect how students learn conceptsand skills in any discipline.

Nonetheless, it is in the student learning arena where learning progressionsresearch may validate assumptions about a hierarchy of understanding geography,including how it is learned and, ultimately, within what stage of childhooddevelopment it may be more practical or effective to be learned and applied.Mastering this research process will take time. Geographers may be starting thisnew course in learning progressions behind scholars in other disciplines, albeit withgumption and determination to find a new way of teaching geography to futuregenerations of students.

viii Preface

The Case in the United States

Learning progressions research in geography education is of critical importancebecause it provides a unique understanding necessary for all of the other elementsof teaching and learning in U.S. schools, components, such as instructional mate-rials (including textbooks), content standards, performance standards, and assess-ments. A research based scope and sequence for American geography educationmay represent the starting point for all other teaching and learning processes inK-12 schools. Such a research-based scope and sequence might reachuniversity-level teacher training courses so that beginning and pre-service teachersface their initial jobs with adequate and sensible preparation.

Geography educators are beginning to anticipate the 3rd edition of Geographyfor Life, national standards in geography in the U.S. While standards vary fromstate to state, Geography for Life is the opportunity for a national, research-basedscope and sequence. Now is the chance for the profession to make practicalresearch-based recommendations to curriculum developers about what and howstudents, at all grade levels, should learn geography. Teachers will pay closerattention to these standards, if it is widely known that they have been authenticatedin classrooms with students. Learning materials will be revised and teacher edu-cators, particularly those involved in certification programs, will use learningprogressions in their teaching tool kits. While these comments apply to the U.S.system of teaching and learning, this volume clearly displays that the learningprogression research challenge is similar in many of the other countries of theworld. We can and do learn from each other.

The Value of International Perspectives

Learning progressions are having an impact on geography education worldwide,within diverse education systems pertaining to local, cultural and institutionalpolicies, assessments, and curricula. The idea for publishing a book capturinginternational perspectives on geography learning progressions arose during a panelsession at the 2015 AAG Annual Meeting in Chicago, where researchers affiliatedwith the GeoProgressions project shared their work with the many internationaldelegates in attendance. It soon became apparent from the ensuing discussions thatthe meaning of learning progressions varies, often considerably, from country tocountry. In some cases, a learning progression is understood to be a broad scopeand sequence for a curriculum, taking the form of guidelines for teaching andlearning disciplinary content, ideas, skills, and principles across primary and sec-ondary levels of education. Elsewhere learning progressions are defined in relationto a child’s cognitive development and thinking processes, often at a veryfine-grained conceptual scale. In between this spectrum there are many other

Preface ix

permutations of what constitutes a learning progression in the realm of schooleducation.

The chapters in this book illustrate the diversity, depth, and breadth of howgeography educators conceive learning progressions as a theory of learning, as aresearch methodology, and as a practical resource for teaching, assessment, andcurriculum development. By engaging in a discourse on learning progressionswithin different educational systems, geographers are building a community aroundwhich geography education can unfold to meet the demands of students in thetwenty-first century. By working locally in GeoProgressions, geographers andteachers help to strengthen and reinforce geography education within the parame-ters and purview of national and international educational systems.

The debate about progression normally turns one’s attention to technical issuesthat might help to determine some ways of approaching the ultimate goal oflearning progressions within geography education. That attention needs to bepurposefully directed, as it can lead to erroneous paths that stray from the end goalsand ultimate purpose. Keeping in mind this possible difficulty along the road ofstudying learning progressions, the chapters are organized to follow a path sym-bolically introduced as ‘progress in the highway to learning progressions’ (Fig. 3).

Margaret Robertson, John Morgan, and Jeana Kriewaldt, representing Australiaand New Zealand in Chap. 1, initiate the journey to confront the question of whatconstitutes progress in geography, and, at the same time, introduce the importantdistinction between progress of geography and progress in geography. The authorscall for a revision of aims, purposes, and approaches of geography within the schoolsystem.

Péter Bagoly–Simó and Anke Uhlenwinkel in Germany take a stand on rigorousconceptualization of progression in Chap. 2. It is a good connection to the first

Fig. 3 Progress and learning progressions. Countries’ problems, approaches, and propositions

x Preface

chapter because it leads to one of the major problems linked to disciplinary coreideas. The precise comprehension of concepts and skills is not exempt of barrierswhich might obscure the understanding of the foundation of subjects. The readertravels on this conceptual highway through a fixed path of learning progressionsdiscussion that faces a wide turn toward an uncertain progress and futuredevelopment.

In Chap. 3, Mary Biddulph and David Lambert tackle the policy context relatedto learning progressions. They focus on England to make remarks on educationpolicy that involve a story of struggle. Progression is important, yet uncertainty istackled with the presentation of both responsibility and implementation of pro-gression in policy terms. The authors share a key lesson to learn from their expe-rience: successful progression is implementing in planning coupled with teachers’autonomy. It is time to enter into practice.

The next two chapters enter into research and practice that are also a preoccu-pation of the next five contributions. In Chap. 4, Lena Molin and David Örbring,begin to describe the selective traditions based on didactics that give a static viewof the subject content. The authors firmly recommend interdisciplinary research toincrease the integration of knowledge to avoid hierarchical thinking. In Chap. 5,Yushan Duan and other authors see the need for a constant exercise of theory andpractice, framed within the context of the Chinese educational system. Learningprogressions research models are still weak in theoretical armament and practicalverification. Consequently, they point out that research on learning progressionsrequires the collaborative effort of a research group of educators, especially workingin empirical research. The definition and use of core scientific concepts and skills isthe first step to develop learning progressions in the school system.

In Chap. 6, Rafael de Miguel González discusses the compulsory and non-compulsory curriculum within the context of the Spanish school system. The mainchallenge for learning progressions in geography education is the continuity ofgeographic and spatial subjects throughout all of the K-12 grades. He adds thatgeography as a compulsory subject with a renewed curriculum would not be suf-ficient to implement learning progressions. Further research and policy develop-ment must include assessments and changes based on practical experience.

In Chap. 7, curriculum development and geographical learning progressions linkwell with the preceding chapter. Chew Hung Chang focuses on the construct ofgeographical understanding within the schools in Singapore. He uses global climatechange as a frame of reference across different levels of the educational system. Inthis way, knowledge construction requires a strong knowledge based on the phe-nomenon as a whole, yet each element has to be considered simultaneously and asinterconnected units of study.

In Chap. 8, An Steegen, Joris Coppenholle and Lieve Slegers focus theirattention on Flanders, Belgium, to uncover a difficult reality: the discussion onlearning progressions is not a priority. However, a collaboration with colleaguesfrom the French or German parts of Belgium should be considered, given the factthat the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) initiatives aregrowing in impact in the schools. STEM might be the key to catalyze learning

Preface xi

progressions in the educational system, as geography education may take a queuefrom STEM to introduce or continue the development of learning progressionsbased on geographic and spatial knowledge creation and learning.

In Chap. 9, Aubrey Golightly and Christo P. van der Westhuizen continue thediscussion on interdisciplinary research on learning progressions. A clear anddefinitive departure from a static view of the subject content, the authors’ recom-mendations for interdisciplinary research is based on the urgent need for buildingrobust geography content and pedagogical content knowledge. Higher orderthinking is only possible to reach by self-learning processes. Hence, even theassessment stage should be accomplished through self and peer evaluation. This inturn will enhance the process of learning progressions in geography education.

In Chap. 10, Ali Demirci and Fikret Tuna close the book with a critical overviewand prospects for the future. Learning progressions is growing in academic debatesand require foundational data to start the process of implementing practicalstrategies in multilevel and multi-actor educational systems. A research communityis an ideal way to create sustainable programs for learning progressions.Furthermore, improving classroom practices and assessments along with curriculumdevelopment are necessary steps for effective learning progressions.

Collectively, all of the chapters address a fundamental question: What is themeaning of progress in geography education? Within the multifaceted experiencesof society, cultures, institutions, and education, the authors of this book hope toforge an innovative discussion of how learning progressions will impact geographyeducation and improve and strengthen geography’s role in the educational system.

San Marcos, USA Osvaldo Muñiz SolariWashington, D.C., USA Michael SolemSan Marcos, USA Richard Boehm

Disclaimer This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation underGrant No. DRL-1347859. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressedin this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.

xii Preface

References

Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2009). Using a learning progression to inform scientificargumentation in talk and writing. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in ScienceConference, Iowa City.

Heffron, S. G., & Downs, R. M. (Eds.) (2012). Geography for life: National geography standards(2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Council for Geographic Education.

Solem, M., & Lambert D. (2015). Researching progress and sophistication in geography learning:Taking a critical stance. In M. Solem, N.T. Huynh & R. G. Boehm (Eds.), Learningprogressions for maps, geospatial technology, and spatial thinking: A research handbook(pp. 70–78). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Solem, M., Huynh, N. T., & Boehm, R.G. (Eds.). (2015). Learning progressions for maps,geospatial technology, and spatial thinking: A research handbook. Newcastle: CambridgeScholars Publishing.

Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2009). How and when does complex reasoningoccur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complexreasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610–631.

Preface xiii

Contents

1 Australia and New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Margaret Robertson, John Morgan and Jeana Kriewaldt

2 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Péter Bagoly-Simó and Anke Uhlenwinkel

3 England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Mary Biddulph and David Lambert

4 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Lena Molin and David Örbring

5 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Yushan Duan, Jianzhen Zhang, Qian Gong, Liling Qin, Ya Li,Weiguo Zhou and Lianfei Jiang

6 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Rafael de Miguel González

7 Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Chew-Hung Chang

8 Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125An Steegen, Joris Coppenholle, Arjan Goemans and Lieve Slegers

9 South Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139Aubrey Golightly and Christo P. van der Westhuizen

10 Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157Ali Demirci and Fikret Tuna

xv

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors

Osvaldo Muñiz Solari is a professor in the Department of Geography at TexasState University. His major research interests are new technologies for globalcollaboration, online learning methods, and international flows. He is also the maineditor of a book titled Geospatial Technologies in Geography Education in aChanging World, published by Springer in 2015. He is member of the Commissionon Geographical Education of the International Geographical Union and memberof the US National Section and the Geography Commission of the Pan AmericanInstitute of Geography and History.

Michael Solem is a director of Educational Research and Programs for theAssociation of American Geographers. Michael is a principal investigator on sev-eral large-scale, federally funded projects spanning geography at all levels ofeducation, focusing on professional development, internationalization, global edu-cation, and teacher preparation. He currently serves as a codirector of the NationalCenter for Research in Geography Education and is a treasurer for the InternationalGeographical Union’s Commission on Geographical Education. Michael has twicereceived the Journal of Geography in Higher Education’s award for promotingexcellence in teaching and learning.

Richard Boehm presently holds the Jesse H. Jones Distinguished Chair inGeographic Education at Texas State University. He is also the director of theGilbert M. Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education and codirector of the newlyformed National Center for Research in Geography Education. He has receivednumerous awards for this work including ‘Distinguished Geography Educator’ bythe National Geographic Society, the George J. Miller Award for DistinguishedService by the National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE), and GrosvenorHonors in Geographic Education by the Association of American Geographers.

xvii

Contributors

Péter Bagoly-Simó is a professor of geography education and currently holds thechair of geography education at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. His researchinterests are international comparative geography education with emphasis oncurricula, educational media, and education for sustainable development.

Mary Biddulph is a former geography teacher and now assistant professor ingeography education at the University of Nottingham. She is a teacher educatorwho writes on curriculum matters, young people’s geographies, and student agency.She is a member of the Geography Education Research Collective (GEReCo)in England and is a coauthor of Learning to Teach Geography (3rd Edition),published in 2015. She was the editor of the Geographical Association’s (GA)professional journal Teaching Geography (2009–2012) and in 2016–17 will be thepresident of the GA.

Chew-Hung Chang is concurrently the associate dean and associate professor atthe National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.His research interests include climate change education, geography curriculum,teacher professional development in geography, and technologies in geographyteaching and learning. Apart from managing several international and national levelresearch grants, Dr. Chang has published widely in the areas of geography edu-cation. His recent book ‘Climate Change Education—Knowing, Doing and Being’provides a comprehensive take on the issue of addressing the controversial topic ofteaching climate change in classrooms.

Joris Coppenholle is a lecturer of geography at the Department of Educationof the Artevelde University College Ghent, in Flanders, Belgium. He teaches thecourses of teaching skills, geography, project, and teaching practice in the teachertraining program for secondary education. He also organizes trainings for teachers,is a member of the ‘Learning Community for Geography Education,’ and is acoauthor of geography schoolbooks for secondary education.

Ali Demirci is a professor and chair in the Department of Geography at FatihUniversity in Istanbul, Turkey. His major research interests are geospatial tech-nologies, curriculum, and teacher training in geography education. He authored andcoedited many books. The most recent one is titled Geospatial Technologies inGeography Education in a Changing World, published by Springer in 2015. He isalso the coeditor of another book titled International Perspectives on Teaching andLearning with GIS in Secondary Schools, published by Springer in 2012.

Yushan Duan is a doctor and professor in the School of Geographic Sciences atEast China Normal University (ECNU), Shanghai. He is a vice president andsecretary-general of Geography Teaching Society of China, president and editor inchief of Geography Teaching, director of Shanghai Geography Education andTeaching Research Base, and core member of China’s High School GeographyCurriculum Standards Revision Panel. Dr. Duan is also one of the regional repre-sentatives for China at the IGU Commission on Geographical Education.

xviii Editors and Contributors

Arjan Goemans is a lecturer of geography at the Department of Education of thePXL University College in Flanders, Belgium. He teaches in the teacher trainingprogram for secondary education. He is also a part-time assistant lecturer in thegeography teacher training program of the KU Leuven, Belgium. He is a memberof the ‘Learning Community for Geography Education’ that joins lecturers ofdifferent teacher training programs in Flanders. Arjan Goemans is a coauthor ofgeography schoolbooks and learning modules for secondary education.

Aubrey Golightly holds a doctoral degree and is an associate professor in geog-raphy education in the School of Natural Sciences and Technology for Education atthe Faculty of Education Sciences (North-West University, Potchefstroom campus)in South Africa. His research interests are active learning, learner-centeredinstruction, and self-directed learning in geography education. His currentresearch project concerns the implementation of problem-based learning in geog-raphy education to foster students’ self-directedness in learning. He is also the headof the Division for Professional Development in the Faculty of Education Sciences.

Qian Gong is a doctoral student in the School of Geographic Sciences at EastChina Normal University (ECNU), Shanghai. She is a member of Institute ofGeography Education Research, East China Normal University, and a member ofShanghai Geography Education and Teaching Research Base. She is also the editorof Geography Teaching.

Rafael de Miguel González holds M.A. and Ph.D. in urban geography andregional planning, University of Paris (France), and Ph.D. in geographical educa-tion, University of Valladolid. He is an associate professor of geographical edu-cation, University of Zaragoza, Spain, and an executive associate dean of Faculty ofEducation. He done his researches in geographical education (curriculum, inno-vative teaching and learning, and geospatial technologies), and urban geographyand planning: more than 90 publications in those research areas. He is a fellowmember of Spanish Geographers Association and Royal Geographic Society ofSpain. He is a vice president of EUROGEO and regional contact for Spain of theIGU Commission on Geographical Education.

Lianfei Jiang is a doctoral student in the School of Geographic Sciences at EastChina Normal University (ECNU), Shanghai. He is a member of Institute ofGeography Education Research, East China Normal University, and a member ofShanghai Geography Education and Teaching Research Base. He is also the editorof Geography Teaching.

Jeana Kriewaldt is a lecturer in the Graduate School of Education at theUniversity of Melbourne, Australia who specialises in geographical education.Her research interests focus on teaching standards, teacher learning and theirinterrelationships. She is currently investigating the impact of learners’ perspectivesin deepening teacher education programs. She was recently a chief investigator inThe Strengthening Standards of Geography Teaching through Linking Standardsand Teacher Learning, an Australian Research Council Linkages project whichdelivered a set of national standards for teaching geography.

Editors and Contributors xix

David Lambert was a secondary school geography teacher for 12 years, joiningUCL Institute of Education (IOE) in 1986–7. In 2002, he became full-time chiefexecutive of the Geographical Association, returning to the IOE as a professor ofgeography education. Recent publications include Debates in Geography Educationcoedited with Mark Jones (2013) and Knowledge and the Future School: curricu-lum and social justice with Michael Young (2014). He leads the GeoCapabilitiespartnership (www.geocapabilities.org) and is currently chair of the GeographyEducation Research Collective (GEReCo: http://gereco.org).

Ya Li is a master student in the School of Geographic Sciences at East ChinaNormal University (ECNU), Shanghai. She is a member of Institute of GeographyEducation Research, East China Normal University, and a member of ShanghaiGeography Education and Teaching Research Base. She is also the editor ofGeography Teaching.

Lena Molin is a doctor of social and economic geography and senior lecturer at theDepartment of Education, Uppsala University. She is the project leader for thenational test in geography, years 6 and 9, and the vice chairman of the SwedishNational Committee for Geography, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Herresearch involves geography education and sustainable development and values.Her findings are published in Swedish, Nordic, European, and international jour-nals. She is a member of the editorial staff of the journal Nordidactica—Journal ofHumanities and Social Science Education, Karlstad University, Sweden.

John Morgan is a Professor of Education at the University of Auckland, where hespecialises in curriculumstudies. Before that he held posts at theUniversity ofBristol andthe Institute of Education (London). He worked as a geography teacher in schools andtrains new geography teachers. He has written a number of books on geography edu-cation, the latest being Teaching Geography as if the Planet Matters (2012 Routledge).

David Örbring is a doctoral student in educational sciences—Geography Educationin the Department of Educational Sciences at Lund University, Helsingborg, Sweden.He has been a teacher in compulsory school between 2008 and 2012, and morerecently, he was part of the Erasmus teacher exchange at IoE London CollegeUniversity and at Humboldt zu Universität I Berlin in Spring 2015. He is also lecturerin human geography at Linneaus University, Växjö and Kalmar, Sweden.

Liling Qin is a doctoral student in the School of Geographic Sciences at EastChina Normal University (ECNU), Shanghai. She is a member of Institute ofGeography Education Research, East China Normal University, and a member ofShanghai Geography Education and Teaching Research Base. She is also the editorof Geography Teaching.

Margaret Robertson is a Professor of Education at La Trobe University. Theteaching interests in geographical education and innovative pedagogy are reflectedin long-standing research interests in youth studies and cross-cultural differences.Outreach interests include membership of the Steering Committee for theInternational Year of Global Understanding project which is an initiative of theInternational Geographical Union.

xx Editors and Contributors

Lieve Slegers is a lecturer of geography at the Teacher Training Department ofKarel de Grote University College in Flanders, Belgium. She teaches in the teachertraining program for secondary education. She is also one of the cowriters of theFlemish school curriculum of geography and is a member of the 'LearningCommunity for Geography Education.’ Lieve Slegers is also coauthor of geographyschoolbooks for secondary education.

An Steegen is an assistant professor in the geography teacher training programof the KU Leuven, Belgium. In her research, she aims to enhance geographyeducation in secondary schools and at university. Studied topics are misconcep-tions, virtual field trips, and a systems thinking approach. Outside KU Leuven, sheis employed as a teacher manager to support geography teachers of secondaryschools with pedagogical or content questions. She is a chair of the ‘LearningCommunity for Geography Education,’ in Flanders, and a coauthor of geographytextbooks for secondary school students.

Fikret Tuna is an associate professor in the Department of Geography at FatihUniversity in Istanbul, Turkey. And, he is the vice director of Social SciencesInstitute at the same university. His major research interests are learning strategies,teaching methods, and curriculum development in geography education. He haspublished more than 30 articles in national and international journals. The mostrecent article is titled The Importance of Geography Education in ProvidingCitizenship Consciousness. He is also the author of two books and coeditor of abook.

Anke Uhlenwinkel is a professor of geography education, formerly employed atthe University of Potsdam. She currently works as a freelance researcher and writer.She has taken part in research efforts on argumentation competence in the geog-raphy classroom. Her habilitation thesis (accepted in 2006) is on the developmentof the German geography education debate since 1969. She was involved in severalinternational projects such as EVE (European Values Education), YPoGS (YoungPeople on the Global Stage), and GeoCapabilities. Other research interests includegeographical thinking (concepts, argumentation, working with croquis) anddifferentiation.

Christo P. van der Westhuizen holds a doctoral degree and is a senior lecturer inGeography and Environmental Education in the School of Natural Sciences andTechnology for Education at the Faculty of Education Sciences of thePotchefstroom Campus of the North-West University. He is an editorial boardmember of the Journal of Geography in Higher Education (JGHE). His researchfocus is the effective integration of ICT’s in geography education, blended learningenvironments to foster self-directed learning skills, and work integrated learning(WIL).

Editors and Contributors xxi

Jianzhen Zhang is a doctor and associate professor in the College of Geographyand Environmental Sciences, the executive deputy director of InternationalResearch Centre for Geographic and Environmental Education at Zhejiang NormalUniversity. She is a member of the Committee of Geography Teaching Society ofChina and secretary of Celebrated Geography Teachers and Principals League ofZhejiang Province.

Weiguo Zhou is a doctoral student in the School of Geographic Sciences at EastChina Normal University (ECNU), Shanghai. He is a member of Institute ofGeography Education Research, East China Normal University, and a member ofShanghai Geography Education and Teaching Research Base. He is also the editorof Geography Teaching.

xxii Editors and Contributors

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 From bulk learning to exemplary learning. Authors’graphic based on Wagenschein (1999: 30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 2.2 Progression in a regional curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 2.3 Progression in a thematic curriculum (year 5 to 10)

based on structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 2.4 Dimensions of geographic argumentation competence. . . . . . . 25Figure 2.5 Competence levels of the dimension “written argumentation

—production” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 2.6 Argument diagram of a year 7-student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Figure 2.7 Argument diagram of a BA-student close to the end

of his/her studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Figure 2.8 Envisaged progressions in different school levels. . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 3.1 Broad dimensions of progress in school geography.

Adaptation from: The Geographical Association (2014) . . . . . 44Figure 3.2 Example of ‘Benchmark statements’ for student

progression in Key Stage 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Figure 6.1 Spatial and geographical thinking sequence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Figure 6.2 Learning progressions and knowledge structure. . . . . . . . . . . . 96Figure 6.3 Recent economic and demographic growth in Spain. . . . . . . . 106Figure 7.1 Example of levels of achievement for the concept

of space in understanding the causes of climate change . . . . . 118Figure 8.1 Organisation of secondary education in Belgium. . . . . . . . . . . 127Figure 8.2 Continuous and discontinuous learning lines

in geography.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130Figure 9.1 Comparison between geography major and non-geography

in high school for first-year pre-service teachers in 2011 . . . . 149

xxiii

Figure 10.1 LP in geography education articles publishedin the Marmara Geographical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Figure 10.2 Geography questions asked in LYS in previous yearsin Turkey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

xxiv List of Figures

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Learning progression in New Zealand Geography Curriculumin upper years of secondary school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 1.2 Learning progression for Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderPeoples in the Australian Curriculum: geographyand history. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 3.1 A sample of ‘statements of attainment’, purportingto show progression in ‘human geography’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 3.2 The methodology of ‘level description’ (LDs).Level 2 and 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 3.3 Physical and human geography in the 5–19 frameworks . . . . . . 50Table 4.1 Distribution (in percentage) of test grades year 6, 2014. . . . . . . 63Table 4.2 Distribution (in percentage) of test grades in year 6, 2014,

categorized into gender, newly immigrated pupils, parents’highest level of education and municipal and privateschools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Table 4.3 Distribution (in percentage) of test grades in year 9, 2014 . . . . 64Table 4.4 Distribution (in percentage) of test grades in year 9, 2014,

categorized into gender, newly immigrated pupils, parents’highest level of education and municipal and privateschools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Table 5.1 Different definitions of geographic core literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Table 5.2 Classifications of geographic core literacy system views . . . . . . 83Table 5.3 Official definition of geographic core literacy and system . . . . . 83Table 5.4 Performance levels of the human environment

relationship learning progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Table 5.5 Performance levels of holistic thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Table 5.6 Performance levels of the regional identity learning

progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Table 5.7 Performance levels of acting competence learning

progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

xxv

Table 6.1 Grading mapping progressions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Table 6.2 Learning progressions and cognitive tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Table 6.3 Learning progressions and geography curricular contents . . . . . 93Table 6.4 Spatial learning and progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Table 6.5 Learning progressions on urban space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Table 6.6 Geography, history and social sciences progression

in the Spanish curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Table 6.7 Attributes of space and time concepts, according

to Piaget’s theory and others authors’ adaptations . . . . . . . . . . . 97Table 6.8 Grading geographical concepts and learning progressions . . . . . 97Table 6.9 Geography learning standards in Spanish elementary

education, grouped by Bloom’s domain (in percentage) . . . . . . 98Table 6.10 Learning progressions in middle school and geography

curriculum in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Table 6.11 Geography learning standards in Spanish middle school,

grouped by Bloom’s domain (in percentage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Table 6.12 Geography learning standards in Spanish high school,

grouped by Bloom’s domain (in percentage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Table 6.13 Spatial thinking abilities acquired by students during the

instructional intervention about Saragossa Smart City . . . . . . . . 103Table 6.14 Learning progressions and assessment, according

to SOLO taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Table 6.15 Draft Learning Progressions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106Table 8.1 Gradual development of the secondary curriculum

of geography in Flanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Table 8.2 Learning lines as defined in the curriculum

of the catholic educational system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130Table 8.3 Learning lines as defined in the curriculum of the schools

organised by the Flemish community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Table 8.4 Learning lines and research capacities in secondary

education in Flanders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133Table 9.1 Continuity and learning progression in the Geography

curriculum (Grade 10–12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142Table 9.2 Learning progression with specific reference to the subtopics

of geographical skills and techniques, and climate. . . . . . . . . . . 144Table 9.3 Geographical knowledge (the atmosphere) and geographical

skills for GIS (Geographical information systems)for FET phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Table 9.4 Suggested weighting of cognitive levels in the geographyFET band. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Table 9.5 Which form of GIS did the first years of 2014 studyin school (FET=phase from 2011–2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Table 9.6 Percentage frequency table of GIS teaching strategies . . . . . . . . 148

xxvi List of Tables

Table 10.1 The courses teaching geography in primary and secondaryeducation in Turkey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Table 10.2 Contents covered by geography standards at different gradesin K12 education in Turkey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

List of Tables xxvii