GIS Education Weekly: Enhancing Diversity, Expanding Geo in Journalism

Education News

A child's drawing of a scientist from a series of studies
by social scientist David Chambers. 

The Atlantic: What We Learn From 50 Years of Kids Drawing Scientists - The key question: Do they draw men or women? Via @josephkerski.

LinkedIn: Introducing a Framework for High Quality Project Based Learning - Tom Vander Ark introduces a framework. The work is funded by a few different organizations.

KQ2: Local Entrepreneur Works to Jump Start Kids Geography Skills - "... when a name of a state is pulled from the deck of cards, players leap onto the fold out map and correctly match the names of states with the image on the map."

Decide to Make a Difference; Choose Geo-Literacy

Those are not my words, they are the closing words from the two most recent National Geographic Education videos. The first is titled What is Geo-Literacy? and the second is titled Why is Geo-literacy Important?

The first video recaps the three "I"s that define geo-literacy: interactions (systems), interconnections (how one place connects to another, reasoning) and implications (selecting a good choices for the future). The second video suggests why we need to enhance funding and teaching of geo-literacy. If we do not, the video suggests, we are likely to make poor decisions about our personal and global future (and perhaps already have).

The videos present a lot of information, not the least of which is that geography, while selected as a core academic subject by Congress in 2001, has received no funding whatsoever. All of the other core academic subjects have been funded to some degree. (See: 1:57 of Why? video)

I want to challenge National Geographic to do more.

• I want it to answer the logical follow up to the closing words of the videos cited in my title: What would you like viewers to do? What action(s) should they take? 
• These videos seem to be aimed at educators, parents and perhaps Congress. I want National Geographic to suggest with whom it wants viewers to share the videos.
• I encourage National Geographic to add some context to the videos (on Vimeo as of May 1 and YouTube as of May 10). Why were these made? At whom are they addressed? Where are further resources? Neither the Vimeo or YouTube versions have descriptive information as this post goes to press. Such information is very valuable to the press, among others!

The videos are a great start in getting the word out about geo-literacy. I look forward to seeing National Geographic's vision for action on the issue.

Lobbying for Geo Ed: Doomed by Geography's Nature?

It's been tough to lobby for geography education at any level. And, the results have not been heartening. Harvard tossed the degree in 1948 and my own college (U Chicago) shuttered its department (in favor of a committee) in 1986. This year energy is behind a bipartisan bill in Congress to fund K-12 geography education. It was first introduced in 2005 and has gone nowhere through the years, hence its reintroduction again and again.

To be sure, some of us in the field have a hard time giving an elevator pitch for geography. The good news is that a variety of organizations have gathered data to help us. They include the Dept. of Labor, the Association of American Geographers, the Geospatial Information and Technology Association among others. One challenge I find as I read through the supporting documents is a dichotomy that may set these efforts up to fail. It's the simple fact that geography is identified as both social and physical science. Now, those "inside" geography are typically fine with this situation. We happily point to human and physical geography and the art and algorithms behind hand drawn and computer created data visualization. Many would argue the mix makes geography synergistic, unique and vital.

But how does that play out in lobbying (aka "marketing") geography? Not so well I fear. The latest press release from the AAG quotes several former U.S. secretaries of state about the value of geography. Said Madeleine Albright, "Young Americans with an understanding of peoples, places, and cultures have a clear advantage in today’s rapidly-changing global economy..." That suggests that geography is a social science. In the same release, the AAG aims to convince the administration "to include geography education as part of its proposals for improving STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education." That suggests geography is a physical science.

As someone in the field, I have no issue with this potential confusion. But, as someone who considers herself an amateur when it comes to marketing, I feel this confusion could cloud the issue and weaken, not strengthen, the case for geography. If the response to the AAG's well-meaning effort is "These folks don't even know what they are talking about!" the lobbying effort may stop in its tracks.

What to do? It may be in the best interest of those lobbying for those federal dollars not to fully abandon one or the other of the natures of geography, but rather to focus like a laser on one or the other for the purpose of marketing. Which one? My gut says that right now STEM is buzzier so I'd lean that way. However, it really doesn't matter. I think a single focused message will take this effort further than trying to make geography all things to all people, even if in reality, it is just that.