CPD Reflections: Leading Learning In Geography

By Lucy Taylor

I hope you have all had a fabulous half-term break! In January, I completed a Master's degree in Educational Leadership and wanted to share a bit about the process and key findings of my dissertation in case it is of interest! My dissertation focussed on exploring the adequacy of the current Geography GCSE curriculum and assessing whether transformational change is needed. Although my topic is Geography specific, I found when conducting my research that lots of issues discussed in the geography education space could be applied to other GCSE subjects and disciplines. 

What does the literature say?

A massive part of my dissertation was to undertake a critical analysis of current academic literature surrounding secondary Geography education. I analysed how powerful knowledge, ideally taught through the pedagogy of Enquiry Based Learning (EBL), is integral in creating successful geographers. However, this has not yet come to fruition due to a strict focus on results and exam-based performance, in addition to classroom practitioners struggling to find time to embed powerful knowledge within students' geographical learning. The concept of powerful knowledge was introduced into educational debates by Young (2008) as he felt this approach enabled pupils to access a richer, knowledge-led curriculum. Young (2008) argues that powerful knowledge allows pupils to gain cultural capital and the ‘cultural literacy’ needed to thrive within society. Furthermore, Young (2008) and Biddulph et al (2020) go as far as to say that pupils' entitlement to this type of knowledge is a matter of social justice, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds… I could talk forever about powerful knowledge so if you are interested in learning more I have listed some additional reading! 

What is also apparent from the literature is the significant gap between university and school geographies. For the last two decades, many academics have admitted that there's a problem in geography education, yet no change has been made. Therefore, I see this as an opportunity for transformational change. Using Lambert and Morgan’s (2010) curriculum-making model to enact Young and Muller’s (2010) Future 3 (F3) curriculum seems a good way to combat this. A ‘F3’ curriculum demands pupils to be aware and engaged with the dynamic and evolving discipline of Geography. Lambert and Hopkin (2014) note that currently, a ‘F3’ curriculum is beyond any national curriculum, stressing that in order for a ‘F3’ curriculum to be effective and successful, it requires high levels of disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge. Young and Muller’s (2010) work is fascinating and also discusses the ideas of Future 1 and 2 curriculums which they believe we currently have in our education system - definitely worth a read so I have put the reference at the end of this post! 

Methodology

Throughout my research process, I constantly reflected on how my thoughts and experiences, as a geography teacher and leader, compared to those in academia and national curricula/specification documents. To do this I used the method of a reflective journal which was an incredibly useful process for my Master's study but also for my general teaching practice - I highly recommend it! 

After reading the literature I conducted a textual analysis of the curriculum documents (see chapter 3.1), using coding to sort key information that arose from the textual analysis. The curriculum documents and exam board specifications I analysed were: WJEC GCSE Geography, Edexcel GCSE Geography A, Edexcel GCSE Geography B, AQA GCSE Geography (8035), OCR GCSE Geography A, OCR GCSE Geography B, and the Department for Education National Curriculum for KS4: Geography GCSE subject content 2014. 

What were the findings and conclusions? 

This research project found that within the GCSE Geography curriculum there are three main issues: Restrictiveness, Disconnect from the discipline, and Curriculum Design. To elaborate, the research highlighted that the GCSE qualification is too restricted in terms of choice for students' learning, and opportunities for teachers to tailor their geography curriculums in schools. Additionally, my research found that there is a significant disconnect between school geography and the academic discipline of geography. Finally, the research identified that the current curriculum design lends itself to a Future 1 or 2 curriculum (Young and Muller, 2010; Lambert et al, 2015) which means students are not gaining powerful knowledge and instead simply learning information to regurgitate in an exam; this does not create successful geographers! However, teachers and curriculum leaders may be restricted in their ability to transformationally lead their departments in making changes due to the issue of restrictiveness caused by the national curriculum and exam specifications. Therefore, to truly revolutionise the GCSE geography curriculum, transformational leadership may be required from a governmental level first.

My position at the end of completing this research is that there were key aspects that arose from the literature review which matched with the experiences and reflections I have felt as a classroom practitioner and geography curriculum leader. Throughout this process, it has become clear that my research aligns particularly with Young and Muller (2010) who discuss the different types of curriculum; Future 1 to Future 3. I particularly agree with their point that we need a Future 3 curriculum to enable our students to develop powerful disciplinary knowledge, however, they find that in the UK only a Future 1 or 2 curriculum is present. Moreover, Hill and Jones' (2010) work accords with my research. Hill and Jones (2010) identify there has been a ‘fossilisation’ of school geography leading to it becoming further detached from the main discipline. This is something I also found when reflecting on my experiences as both a geography student, geography undergraduate, geography teacher, and curriculum leader. Despite this, I believe curriculum leaders within schools could be active change-makers and work within restrictions to create outstanding geographers. This is something further research needs to be conducted upon in order to consider what solutions classroom teachers and curriculum leaders can adopt to deal with the issues within GCSE Geography education highlighted in this research, whilst operating under a restrictive national curriculum and exam specifications. 

To conclude, my research joins the discourse championing for transformational change within the secondary geography education space. My research joins a large group of academics who have also found similar issues with the geography curriculum, GCSE in particular, and yet we are not seeing change. For this to happen, we need transformational leadership at a variety of levels; both at a governmental level and within the schools themselves.

References and Extra Reading!

• Young, M. (2008) Bringing Knowledge Back In, London: Routledge.
• M. Biddulph, T. Bèneker, D. Mitchell, M. Hanus, C. Leininger-Frézal, L. Zwartjes & K. Donert (2020) Teaching powerful geographical knowledge – a matter of social justice: initial findings from the GeoCapabilities 3 project, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 29:3: 260-274.
• Lambert, D. and Morgan, J. (2010) Teaching Geography 11-18 – A Conceptual Approach. MaidenHead: Open University Press
• Lambert, D. and Hopkin, J. (2014). A possibilist analysis of the geography national curriculum in England. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(1): 64-78.
• Young, M. and Muller, J. (2010). Three Educational Scenarios for the Future: lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(1): 11-27.
• Lambert, D., Solem, M. and Tani, S. (2015). Achieving Human Potential Through Geography Education: A Capabilities Approach to Curriculum Making in Schools. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(4): 723-735.
• Hill, J, and Jones, M. (2010). Joined-up geography: Connecting school-level and university-level geographies. Geography, 95: 22–32