This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in
International Research on Geographical and Environmental Education on 26th
January 2019 available online:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10382046.2018.1561637
Powerful knowledge and the significance of teaching geography for inservice
upper secondary teachers – a case study from Northern
Finland
Eerika Virranmäkia
*, Kirsi Valta-Hulkkonenb
and Jarmo Rusanenc
a
*Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Finland; b
Teacher Training School,
University of Oulu, Finland; c
Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Finland
Eerika Virranmäki, Geography Research Unit, P.O. Box 3000, 90014 University of
Oulu, Finland, +35829 448 1713, eerika.virranmaki@oulu.fi
Kirsi Valta-Hulkkonen, Teacher Training School, P.O. Box 9300, 90014 University of
Oulu, Finland, kirsi.valta-hulkkonen@oulu.fi
Jarmo Rusanen, Geography Research Unit, P.O. Box 3000, 90014 University of Oulu,
Finland, jarmo.rusanen@oulu.fi
Funding details: This work was supported by the LUMA (STEM) Centre of the University of
Oulu.
Disclosure statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments
on this paper.
Powerful knowledge and the significance of teaching geography for inservice
upper secondary teachers – a case study from Northern
Finland
Abstract
The aim of this research is to ask what kind of geography is taught in Finnish
upper secondary schools and whether this knowledge is powerful knowledge.
This is achieved by analysing 11 in-service geography teachers’ concept maps
and in-depth interviews with qualitative data analysis. The results indicate the
dominance of three terms: spatiality, phenomena and a holistic approach running
through the teachers’ conceptions of geographical knowledge, skills and
assessment. Geography is described by the teachers as a science which studies
extensive spatial phenomena with the help of concepts and a holistic approach
and in which values and students’ own lived experiences play a major role. We
conclude that the in-service Finnish upper secondary teachers’ perceptions of
geography are a form of powerful knowledge because they: 1) urge students to
form new geographical thinking about the world, 2) give possibilities for students
to study geographical phenomena and 3) evaluate their own knowledge, 4)
encourage students to follow topical debates in different scales, 5) open up the
students’ world views and 6) support the general objectives of Finnish upper
secondary schools by applying four of the six cross-curricular themes to a great
extent in teaching geography, particularly sustainable development.
Keywords: powerful disciplinary knowledge; powerful knowledge; teacher
conceptions; geographical knowledge; geography education
1. Introduction
1.1. Powerful (disciplinary) knowledge
The concept of powerful knowledge (PK) has received a great deal of attention in the
research into geographical education during the past years (see, e.g., Catling, 2014;
Catling & Martin, 2011; Chang & Kidman 2018; Huckle, 2017; Lambert, 2014, 2016;
Maude, 2015, 2016, 2018; Morgan, 2011; Puttick, Paramore, & Gee, 2018; Roberts,
2014; Slater & Graves, 2016; Stoltman, Lidstone, & Kidman 2015; Uhlenwinkel,
Béneker, Bladh, Tani, & Lambert, 2016). PK “is part of a broader argument for the
importance of subject knowledge in the school curriculum, in opposition to a focus on
generic skills and learning outcomes” (Maude, 2016, p. 70). In the field of geography
education, there is raised a concern that teachers do not think critically what to teach but
ensure that their students are able to “learning to learn” (Mitchell, 2016, p. 123; see also
Mitchell & Lambert, 2015, p. 372; Morgan, 2011, pp. 90–91).
The concept of PK was originally defined almost decade ago by Michael Young
(2014) as “...(1) features of the particular knowledge itself that is included in the
curriculum and (2) what it can do for those who have access to it” (p. 74). In this view,
knowledge should be 1) separated from everyday experiences; 2) systematic, in the
form of concepts, that form subjects or disciplines and 3) specialised, produced by
different groups, e.g. universities (Young, 2014, pp. 74–75).
Lambert define PK to be:
1) evidence based; 2) abstract and theoretical; 3) part of a system of thought; 4)
dynamic, evolving, changing but reliable; 5) testable and open to challenge; 6)
sometimes counter-intuitive; 7) exists outside the direct experience of the teacher
and the learner and 8) discipline-based (Stoltman et al., 2015, p. 3).
Slater and Graves (2016) have accepted Lambert’s definition of PK but noted that he
did not specify PK and described, “what it actually is” (p. 191). Lambert (2016)
responded that it is not primarily the content in the curriculum that matters most, but “in
what way is geography powerful knowledge” (p. 192). This raises the question of
whether teachers’ conceptions of geography are a form of PK.
Lambert, Solem, and Tani (2015) use the term powerful disciplinary knowledge
(PDK) in their project GeoCapabilities. They conclude that:
…the powerful disciplinary knowledge in all four countries is described in terms of
world knowledge and understanding the world using geographical perspectives
such as looking at human and nature interactions, using the concepts of scale and
of local-global relationships, studying geographical issues (e.g. climate change)
and linking these to personal (or individual or communal) choices (Uhlenwinkel et
al., 2016, p. 10).
Maude (2015) states that the literature on PK has focused on the characteristics
of the knowledge (thus, all disciplinary knowledge could be identified as powerful), and
little has been written about the nature of geographical knowledge that might be
powerful (however see Lambert 2011; Maude, 2016, 2018; Uhlenwinkel et al., 2016).
Maude (2018) takes a different approach in interpreting Young’s idea by considering,
“what powerful knowledge can do for those who have it” (p. 2). He (2018) suggests five
types of powerful geographical knowledge (PGK) and compares them to PDK presented
in the GeoCapabilities project (Table 1). These five types of geographical knowledge
describe what geography enables students to learn and they could act as selection
criteria for teachers when selecting content for teaching PGK (Maude, 2018, p. 7).
Maude (2015, p. 25) concludes that all five types of PGK can be taught using the
content of the Australian geography curriculum. The concept of PK does not produce a
list of what to teach, but rather “ways of thinking that should be developed” (Maude,
2016, p. 75). There has been some criticism towards the concept of PK (see, e.g.,
Catling, 2014; Catling & Martin, 2011; Huckle, 2017; Roberts, 2014), but due to
limitations of space this article does not discuss these arguments.
Table 1. Five types of powerful geographical knowledge.
1.2. Conceptions of (teaching) geography
There has been wide range of research on geography teachers’ perceptions or
conceptions about geography and the teaching of geography in the last two decades
(Puttick et al., 2018). Research into pre-service (Catling, 2004; Martin, 2000, 2008;
Morley, 2012; Preston, 2014; Puttick et al., 2018) and in-service (Preston, 2015)
teachers’ conceptions in primary level education conclude that pre- and in-service
(especially early career) teachers’ conceptions of geography are limited to an
Powerful geographical knowledge (PGK) Powerful disciplinary knowledge (PDK)
1) “Knowledge that provides ‘new ways
of thinking about the world’” (e.g., if
students change their thinking about their
relationship with the environment, it
could change their behaviour)
2) “Knowledge that provides students
with powerful ways of analysing,
explaining and understanding” (analytical
methods when examining relationships
between phenomena; relative location
and explanatory power; generalisations of
phenomena)
2) “A critical conceptual knowledge that
has explanatory power and systematicity,
providing a relational understanding of
people living on the planet” (emphasises
a holistic approach)
3) “Knowledge that gives students some
power over their own geographical
knowledge” (to be a critical and
independent thinker, geographical
reasoning, how knowledge is created,
tested and evaluated)
4) “Knowledge that enables young people
to follow and participate in debates on
significant local, national and global
issues” (the ability to follow and
participate in public debates)
3) “A propensity to think through
alternative social, economic, and
environmental futures in specific place
and locational contexts” (the world is not
“given” and is thus open to change)
5) “Knowledge of the world” (teaching
about unfamiliar places and helping to
understand world’s diversity)
1) “A deep descriptive world knowledge”
(includes the idea of deep description and
explanation)
(Maude, 2018, pp. 3–7) (Lambert et al., 2015, p. 732, the
GeoCapabilities project)
informationally oriented view of the subject. This centres on the human-physical
features of the world but lacks the interactions between the features and processes that
shape them. Environmental issues are also invisible.
Research into pre-service (Alexandre, 2009; Alkis, 2009; Béneker, Palings, &
Krause, 2015; Seow, 2016; Waldorf, 1996) and in-service (Alexandre, 2016; ArenasMartija,
Salinas-Silva, Margalef-García, & Otero-Aurinstondo, 2017; Brooks, 2006,
2010; Clausen, 2017; Lane, 2009, 2015; Uhlenwinkel et al., 2016; Walshe, 2007)
teachers’ conceptions in secondary level education has been broad. Waldorf (1996) and
Alkis (2009) report that pre-service teachers’ views can be described as “interactionist”,
which supports the same human-physical view of geography as the primary level
teachers have. However, when examining the purpose of teaching of geography, Alkis
(2009, p. 126) states that environmental conceptions dominate the views of secondary
level teachers. Béneker et al. (2015) conclude that “teachers do not have clear, inspiring
visions about geography education” (p. 366). They found that the rationale for teaching
geography was mainly to raise citizenship and geographical awareness and to prepare
young people for further studies.
Research into the conceptions of in-service secondary school teachers’ are much
more diverse in their nature: they relate to pedagogical content knowledge (ArenasMartija
et al., 2017; Clausen, 2017; Lane, 2009, 2015), conceptions related to teaching
geography (Brooks, 2006, 2010; Uhlenwinkel et al., 2016; Walshe, 2007) or geography
teachers’ social representations (Alexandre, 2016). However, they conclude that
teachers’ experiences, personal values and professional training affect their
understanding of geography (Alexandre, 2016; Arenas-Martija et al., 2017, Clausen,
2017; Brooks, 2006; Walshe, 2007) and that a well-developed knowledge of the subject
content affects the success of teachers (Brooks, 2010; Lane, 2009).
In the research by Uhlenwinkel et al. (2016) in the GeoCapabilities project, six
Finnish geography teachers among others “were asked what geography education
enable students to know, understand, and be able to do” (p. 5). These teachers said that
acquiring knowledge is important so that students can act responsibly, construct wholes
from facts and develop thinking skills and competencies. Analysing the similarities
between four European countries they conclude that a common reason to teach
geography is “to increase the capability of young people as (responsible) citizens” and
“link geography education to values such as sustainability and diversity” (Uhlenwinkel
et al., 2016, p. 9). These results are in line with Béneker et al. (2015) and Alkis (2009).
Walshe (2007) points out that her results on teachers’ conceptualisations of geography
can be organised into one theme, global citizenship, which includes the three big
concepts of: planning, place and process.
1.3. Aim and research questions
In reference to the above discussion there is need for more research into teachers’
conceptions of geography focusing clearly on the in-service upper secondary teachers.
Our aim is to study Finnish in-service upper secondary school teachers’ conceptions of
geography – and especially focus on what kind of geography (see, e.g., Lambert &
Biddulph, 2015; Mitchell, 2016; Mitchell & Lambert, 2015) they currently teach in
Finnish upper secondary schools. By presenting the view of geography that in-service
upper secondary teachers hold we can determine whether some of the knowledge that
teachers hold and teach is already a form of PK. The editors of IRGEE have encouraged
scholars to contemplate aspects of PK in geography (most recently in Chang & Kidman,
2018). This article contributes to the debate on PK in geography by examining what
form PK can take by analysing teachers’ conceptions of geographical knowledge. By
doing this we can answer the questions about PK presented by Slater and Graves (2016)
to determine “what it actually is” (p. 191) and by Lambert (2016) we examine “in what
way is geography powerful knowledge” (p. 192) by applying Maude’s (2018) five
knowledge types.
1.4. Geography in upper secondary schools in Finland
Unlike in most other countries, school geography belongs to the natural sciences in
Finland and most geography teachers have a background in natural sciences (Tani,
2014, pp. 94–95). Teachers have a high degree of autonomy in carrying out their
teaching in Finland. Alexandre (2016, p. 180) point out that greater autonomy could
allow teachers to form their conceptions and practices better in line with their true
beliefs about teaching. There is one compulsory course (GE1) for all students and three
national specialisation courses (GE2–4) in the geography curriculum in upper secondary
schools (Table 2, Finnish National Board of Education [FNBE], 2016). Before the
national core curriculum was rewritten in 2015, there were two compulsory courses. In
this reform, the order of the four geography courses was changed, but the content of the
courses was mainly retained.
Table 2. Content of the school geography syllabus in Finnish upper secondary schools.
Source: Finnish National Board of Education, 2016, pp. 155–160.
2. Data and methods
Our research data consist of mind maps and interview data gathered from 11 in-service
geography teachers working in upper secondary schools in Northern Finland. Four of
the teachers were male and seven were female. They were between 32 and –59 years of
age (average 46) and they had between 5 and 33 years of teaching experience (average
18) at the time of the data gathering. They studied geography at Finnish universities
during the years 1976–2013.
During December 2014 and the beginning of February 2015, the teachers were
assigned to take a blank sheet of paper or use the cMapTools concept mapping software
to produce a concept map on the topic “What is geography?”. We also conducted inGE1.
The world in change
Geography as a field of science
Key global risks areas related to the system of
nature
Key global risks areas related to natural
resources and the environment
Global risk areas and essential development
questions of humankind
GE2. The blue planet
Geographical thinking related to physical
geography
Planetary movements of the Earth and
phenomena caused by these
The atmosphere and hydrosphere in motion
The structure and variable topography of the
Earth
The use of physical geographic data in the
society and daily life
GE3. A Common world
Geographical thinking related to human
geography
Population and settlements
Primary production and the environment
Industry and energy
Services, movement and interaction
The regional structure of human activity
The use of human geographic data in the
society and daily life
GE4. Geomedia – explore, participate, and
get involved
The use of geomedia in daily life, the world of
work, and the promotion of sustainable
development
Geomedia and geographic research skills
Development control and sustainable
development
A geographic study or a participation and
involvement project
depth interviews afterwards, which were conducted in February and March 2015. These
were semi-structured with themes that guided the otherwise very free discussion
between the interviewer and interviewee (see Brinkmann, 2017, pp. 579–580;
Lichtman, 2013, pp. 195–206). The average duration of the interviews was 2 hours and
18 minutes and after each interview, the interview was transcribed using the Nvivo
qualitative data analysis software. As a result, there were 403 pages of text in Microsoft
Word format to be analysed. The aim of the interviews was to secure our interpretations
about the respondents’ concept maps and to gather additional data about the teachers’
conceptions of geography.
The research material was analysed with qualitative data analysis, first for the
concept maps and then the interviews. We applied Lichtman’s (2013, pp. 250–255)
analysis method by using what she calls the three Cs: coding, categorising and concepts.
First, we coded concept maps and interview transcripts by initial coding, without any
guiding principles from theory. Then we revisited it and developed categories and
concepts. Finally, we divided the concepts into three themes.
3. Results
Figure 1. The main results of this article under three themes: geographical knowledge,
skills and assessment.
3.1. Geographical knowledge
3.1.1. The character of geography
The results show that above all, teachers define geographical knowledge as spatial
knowledge. Eight teachers’ concept maps and ten teachers’ interviews mention the
“spatial aspect” (teacher 9, T9). From the teachers’ point of view, geography differs
from other sciences because of its’ spatial approach to examining phenomena. Two
teachers also mention the geographical relationship between humans, places and space,
as well as humans’ lived experiences in the world they live in. Geographical knowledge
is usually presented and interpreted in the form of maps. The teachers feel that “maps
are the most important tools for geographers” (T3) and with maps they can conceive
the world and help students’ geographical thinking to develop. The teachers take into
account different geographical scales when illustrating geographical phenomena.
According to the teachers, observing and explaining different phenomena is a
characteristic of geographical knowledge. In geographic research, the causalities
between phenomena existing in our world are examined: “we always have to look for
causalities. How these phenomena link to each other” (T4). In the understanding of
geographical phenomena, geographical concepts play a vital role acting as a language of
geography and teachers themselves consider that they play an important role when
students are acquiring new concepts. The teachers believe that without the help of a
teacher, the students would just memorise new concepts and not develop a good,
geographical understanding of them.
“Above all, for me, it is holistic. This is a rare kind of science. And this must be
its power and weakness” (T7). This holistic approach to exploring the world is based on
the nature of geography as a multidisciplinary science to link social and natural sciences
together. The teachers point out that the human-nature relationship and the
understanding of their meanings and the way they affect each other is a key aspect in
teaching geography.
The teachers see geography as an enquiry-based science. They want their
students to ask questions and make observations regarding the world around them. The
teachers report that they try to form entities from scattered pieces:
That you wake up the inner three-year-old, who always asks what, where, why and
why there. So that they get an understanding that if something happens somewhere
-- they realise why it happens just there and they start to realise what probably
happens next and what impacts it has on local, regional and global level. (T9)
“Then I have this sustainable development as a… ideological thing, that is sort
of running through… running through my teaching all the time” (T9). From the
teachers’ point of view, what is important for geographical knowledge is the
understanding of values, especially sustainable development that urges students to
reflect on their own perceptions.
3.1.2. Content of geography
In relation to geographical knowledge, seven of the teachers explained the content of
geography they are teaching in more depth. It is clear that the content of geography held
by the teachers comes from the national core curriculum (Table 2). The teachers
describe how they divide geography into natural and human geography (seven
teachers):
One course of geography is about natural phenomena -- seasons and time of the
day and those phenomena, that this, the planet is moving in space -- and there is an
atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere for the basis for all geography. (T2)
In addition, we have a population geography, the emphasis of cultural geography
on population and settlement. -- Then, of course the structure of regions, industry,
industrial areas and cores and peripheries, the city structure. (T6)
Teachers also divide geography into hazard geography and regional geography
(five teachers). This classification is the same as the one used in the national core
curriculum. The teachers also mention that geographical content is dependent on the
teacher’s point of view or emphasis, i.e. the teacher’s own knowledge and interests
affect the content they teach.
3.1.3. Teachers’ understandings of the background to the knowledge
When the teachers ponder their understanding of the background to their geographical
knowledge, they mention three different categories: their work as a teacher, their own
lived experiences and the surrounding world. The most significant source of knowledge
is their work as a teacher. All teachers mention that textbooks and curriculums have
affected their geographical knowledge, so these two are considered to be the most
important factors. These are experienced as guiding principles to their teaching along
with the assignments of the matriculation examination: “Well yes they guide you so that
you have to teach those specific things that are required in the matriculation
examination” (T1).
The second category includes free time activity (including, e.g. walking in the
forest, an interest in astronomy, GPS-tracking, travelling), their own understanding of
the world and their studies at university. The teachers say they enrich their teaching by
telling stories and showing their own pictures. The teachers’ own studies are mentioned
as a basis for the formation of their knowledge, i.e. what they have studied in university
had affected their geographical knowledge.
The surrounding world is the third source of their geographical knowledge. For
half of the teachers this means “everything that happens in science, in Tiede-magazine
(magazine popularising science) and in Helsingin Sanomat (Finland’s leading
newspaper) science- and environment sections. And then the documentaries on
television and also things that can be found on the Internet” (T1). The teachers
regularly follow different media sources in order to gain new geographical information
and to update their own understanding. The teachers also mention that following the
news is important when they teach geography because geography should be about
teaching globally topical issues. More than half of the teachers say that they do not
know what is happening within the discipline of geography. They feel that they do not
know where to find scientific information. Only one teacher mentions science and
scientific articles as a source of teaching.
3.2. Geographical skills
3.2.1. Skills related directly to geography
The skills related to geography mentioned by the teachers can be grouped into two
categories. First, they mention that geography expands one’s understanding of the world
and one’s world view: “some kind of understanding of the world is developed slowly”
(T6). The teachers feel this can be done by helping students to understand everyday
phenomena. The teachers hope that their students would get the chance to know their
own surroundings and to develop the ability to read their world, for example, by
following the news on various media channels.
A second skill mentioned by the teachers was thinking geographically, since it
was thought to be an important skill to be able to understand geographic phenomena
and the causality between phenomena. They mention that it is important to be able to
understand the world as a diverse place and maps were the most effective teaching
method for achieving this. Maps are both produced and interpreted: “it is important that
they have some kind of understanding how to make and understand maps. And above all
I encourage them to draw maps” (T9). The teachers say that they want their students to
think geographically, not just to memorise facts: “If you understand this geographical..
well.. everyday reality and geographical phenomena, it will enrich your world and
make it more interesting” (T9).
3.2.2. Broader educational aims
The teachers also emphasise geography’s importance in supporting broader educational
aims. The teachers think it is important to educate young people for life and for their
future studies, i.e. students’ own life skills, active citizenship.
Another significant broader educational aim is to teach social skills and provide
an all-round education. The teachers hope that by teaching geography, their students
understand their own ability to affect things and take part in society: “So something that
makes them believe in the future” (T3).
3.3. Assessment in geography
When describing their assessment methods in teaching geography, the teachers point
out four different aspects related to geography: 1) Spatial conceptualisation is the most
mentioned aspect. It means that students are able to show their understanding of the
spatial dimension in their answers. Seven teachers tests students’ ability to interpret or
produce maps, diagrams and charts.
Another important aspect of assessment is the students’ ability to 2) apply
information. This is mentioned by nine teachers and means that teachers assess whether
students could use information studied in new situations. Typical assignments askes
students to interpret maps or connect information from many sources. One way to
assess this is also to clarify how students could express values related to geography, i.e.
assess whether students have adopted a view of a sustainable way of life.
Seven teachers also evaluate their students’ ability to 3) understand and
remember information. This can be done by “...testing how they can define concepts and
use them in a proper way, otherwise, how can they speak about geography” (T9).
Lastly, five teachers point out that 4) understanding entities and causality is also an
important aspect to be evaluated. Two teachers mention that they evaluate the layout
and spelling of the answers, because it develops skills that students need in their future
studies.
4. Discussion and conclusion
4.1. Conceptions of geography
This study shows that in-service geography teachers in Finnish upper secondary schools
hold quite an extensive understanding of geography. The results of this study are in line
with the earlier research results of teachers’ conceptions of geography in upper
secondary level (e.g., Alexandre, 2016; Arenas-Martija et al., 2017, Clausen, 2017;
Béneker et al., 2015; Brooks, 2006; Uhlenwinkel et al., 2016; Walshe, 2007) but in
contrast to earlier research results in primary level education (e.g., Catling, 2004;
Martin, 2000, 2008; Morley, 2012; Preston, 2014, 2015; Puttick et al., 2018).
What is notable in our results is the dominance of three terms: spatiality,
phenomena and a holistic approach that occurred throughout the teachers’ conceptions
of geographical knowledge, skills and assessment. We will now summarise our results
by examining these terms and comparing them to what Alexandre (2009) has said to be
the meaning of geography according to newly qualified teachers in Portugal (three
principles). Although he (2009) has said that “they also tend to recapture a certain kind
of idiographic geographical education” (p. 257).
Geographical knowledge is seen above all as spatial knowledge, e.g. different
scales, the human-place-space relationship and human’s lived experiences (for similar
results see Uhlenwinkel et al., 2016; Walshe, 2007). This corresponds to Alexandre’s
(2009, p. 257) third principle, in which geography is described to have a spatial
perspective. Understanding maps is part of geographical knowledge and skills. Spatial
conceptualisation is emphasised in teachers’ assessment and producing and interpreting
maps are also evaluated by the teachers in this study (see also Alexandre, 2009, p. 257).
Geographical knowledge is about investigating and understanding phenomena
and causalities between them with the help of geographical concepts (for similar results
see Uhlenwinkel et al., 2016). These are also worth evaluating. Teachers aim to help
students develop skills to think geographically and expand their understanding of the
world by encouraging them to understand everyday geographical phenomena and to be
interested in following the surrounding world. This corresponds to the Alexandre’s
(2009, p. 257) second principle, in which geography is said to present the world as it is
and identify today’s problems and to predict the future. Similar results can be also seen
in the work of Béneker et al. (2015) in which teachers report that “the relevance of the
content is related to news and current events, to what students can learn about their local
environment” (p. 362). However, Lambert (2011) points out that teaching geography
should not be just about “current events” (p. 250). It is also important that students can
make “meaning for themselves” (Lambert et al., 2015, p. 727). Clausen (2017, p. 11)
found that three out of four Danish secondary geography teachers tries to bridge the gap
between the daily life of their students and the discipline of geography. Lane (2015, p.
54) reports results where 12 out of 16 experienced geography teachers do not see any
value in exploring their students’ conceptions of geography.
Geographical knowledge is holistic in nature and it relates to different fields of
science, e.g. human and natural sciences. It has an enquiry-based approach to
investigating the world and understanding entities, causality and human-nature
relationships. Teachers also evaluate their students’ ability to apply and use information
in new situations. This corresponds to the Alexandre’s (2009, p. 256) first principle in
which geography is seen to produce synthesis and to help explain and understand
relationships. Furthermore, in the research by Béneker et al. (2016, p. 362) it is found
that teachers want to make their classes more enquiry-based, encouraging students to
find answers for themselves.
Teachers associate geography with values such as sustainable development (for
similar results see Alkis, 2009; Uhlenwinkel et al., 2016) and with the broader
educational aims of education such as students’ life and social skills (for similar results
see Béneker et al., 2015; Walshe, 2007). According to teachers in this research, it is
important that students become aware of their own ability to influence their own lives.
These aspects also form the ground of the GeoCapabilities approach in which is
attempted to form bridges between geographical education and broader educational
aims (see Lambert et al., 2015; Uhlenwinkel et al., 2016). As our results show, teachers
form these bridges by saying that their teaching of geography contains aspects of
broader educational aims.
It is clear that the content of geography held by the researched teachers comes
from the national core curriculum (see Table 2) (similar results in different national
context see Béneker et al., 2016; Seow, 2016). However, in our research teachers see
themselves as playing an essential role when choosing what to emphasise and what to
teach. It is interesting, although not surprising, (see earlier research findings by
Alexandre, 2016; Arenas-Martija et al., 2017, Clausen, 2017; Brooks, 2006; Walshe,
2007) to find out that teachers’ conceptions and understanding of geographical
knowledge comes mainly from their work as teachers, from their own life experiences
and from the media, not from the discipline of geography. Arenas-Martija et al. (2017,
p. 60) found that only one teacher is using scientific material as a resource in her
teaching and Alexandre (2016, p. 178) also points out in his research that university has
little effect on teachers’ understandings.
4.2. Is teachers’ geographical knowledge powerful knowledge?
We have concluded that the teachers we researched hold broad conceptions of
geography and next we turn our view towards how this knowledge can be regarded as
powerful. What kind of knowledge does PK resemble?
Following Young’s (2014) first definition of PK, we can say that the teachers’
knowledge of geography is only partly powerful because it does not originate from the
discipline of geography. However, this view can be questioned because the knowledge
that a school produces is different from the knowledge of the discipline (Young, 2014,
p. 76; see also Lambert, 2014, p. 163; Lambert et al., 2015, p. 727; Maude, 2016, p. 72).
We follow Maude’s example of adopting Young’s second definition of PK, what it can
do for those who have it, and we conclude that this research shows that teachers in this
data do indeed display PDK (see five knowledge types by Maude, 2018; see also
Lambert et al., 2015 and Table 1 in this research):
1. The teachers describe that they provide “new ways of thinking about the world”
by taking students’ daily lives and topical phenomena that occur in the world at the core
of their teaching. They do this with the aid of scientific concepts and a range of
geographical skills so that students can form a bridge between their own geographical
experiences and the discipline of geography. The teachers in our study use geographical
concepts to help their students make sense of geographical phenomena and in that way
students are able to access knowledge beyond their experience, which is a clear
indication of PK (Young, 2013, p. 110). Knowledge is powerful when combining the
students’ own experiences with the discipline of geography (see Catling, 2014; Roberts,
2014).
2. The teachers provide “powerful ways of analysing, explaining and
understanding” the world and its phenomena, spatiality and causal relationships. The
teachers think that geographical knowledge operates on different scales to understand
the relative location of things. The teachers in this study feel that they help their
students to apply geographical information and use information in new situations.
3. The teachers give “students some power over their own geographical knowledge”
by enabling them to evaluate, produce and create new geographical knowledge, for
example, in the form of maps.
4. The teacher emphasise the students’ own experiences and the surrounding world
around them by encouraging students “to follow and participate in debates on
significant local, national and global issues”.
5. The teachers provide geographical “knowledge of the world”, by teaching
students something that they do not already know about the world, opening up their
view of the world with the help of a holistic approach.
6. We also add number 6 to Maude’s list of knowledge types by presenting that
geographical knowledge can be seen as PK when it is related to the broader educational
aims of schooling (see Uhlenwinkel et al., 2016). As a result of this research, we
discovered that the geography teachers we interviewed teach geography which supports
the idea of building a sustainable way of life and developing eco-social knowledge (see
FNBE, 2016, p. 13, the underlying value). Their teaching also “reinforces the student’s
awareness of the impacts of human activities on the state of the environment” (FNEB,
2016, p. 34, the general objectives of education). Four out of the overall six crosscurricular
themes of the Finnish National Core Curriculum for General Upper
Secondary Schools (see FNEB, 2016, p. 35) can be applied to a great extent to
geography according to this research, including: active citizenship; a sustainable way of
life and global responsibility; knowledge about cultures and internationality; as well as
multiliteracy and the media.
It is important to notice that we should be cautious when interpreting these
aspects because it is a “matter of subjective judgement” whether these presented
knowledge types can be regarded as powerful (Maude, 2016, p. 72). Thus, PK in
geography can be difficult to define in the form of a curriculum, for example, because
teachers are the real interpreters of a curriculum (see Lambert, 2014, p. 169; Lambert &
Morgan, 2010, p. 50) and teachers’ conceptions “shapes how that subject is actually
taught” (Alexandre, 2016, p. 168). If teachers’ have a clear vision of their subject, it will
affect their success (Brooks, 2010; Lane, 2009) and for that reason, our research tried to
support the teachers accompanied in this study reflect upon their own teaching and
geographical understanding. This can also be regarded as powerful.
This paper has shown that we need specialised teachers who know the discipline
of geography well (see also Lambert & Hopkin, 2014) if we want to ensure that students
have access to PK in geography. Previous research has shown that teachers at primary
level and also pre-service teachers at secondary level do not possess clear enough
knowledge of the discipline of geography to make their teaching powerful in the PK
sense. Lambert (Stoltman et al., 2015) point out that PK “needs to be taught” (p. 2).
Thus, in this research we have added to the previous research on teachers’ conceptions
of geography. We have examined the views of Finnish in-service upper secondary
schools teachers’ and found that experienced, qualified teachers with a disciplinary
background in geography hold a clear understanding of geography which can be
regarded as PDK. Our research has only grasped the surface of teachers’ conceptions
and there is a need for future research into teachers’ understanding of powerful
geographical knowledge.
References
Alexandre, F. (2009). Epistemological awareness and geographical education in
Portugal: the practice of newly qualified teachers. International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, 18(4), 253–259.
Alexandre, F. (2016). The standardization of geography teachers’ practices: a journey to
self-sustainability and professional identity development. International Research
in Geographical and Environmental Education, 25(2), 166–188.
Alkis, S. (2009). Turkish geography trainee teachers’ perceptions of geography.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18(2),
120–133.
Arenas-Martija, A., Salinas-Silva, V., Margalef-García, L., & Otero-Auristondo, M.
(2016). Fragility of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Geography. Journal of
Geography, 116(2), 57-66.
Béneker, T., Palings, H., & Krause, U. (2015). Teachers envisioning future geography
education at their schools. International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education, 24(4), 355–370.
Brinkmann, S. (2017). The Interview. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) (2017)
The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 576–599). USA: SAGE
publications.
Brooks, C. (2006). Geographical Knowledge and Teaching Geography. International
Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 15(4), 353–369.
Brooks, C. (2010). Why geography teachers’ subject expertise matters. Geography,
95(3), 143–148.
Catling, S. (2004). An understanding of geography: The perspectives of English
primary trainee teachers. GeoJournal, 60(2), 149–158.
Catling, S. (2014). Giving younger children a voice in primary geography: empowering
pedagogy – a personal perspective. International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education, 23(4), 350–372.
Catling, S., & Martin, F. (2011). Contesting powerful knowledge: the primary
geography curriculum as an articulation between academic and children’s
(ethno-)geographies. The Curriculum Journal, 22(3), 317–335.
Chang, C-H., & Kidman, G. (2018). Reflecting on recent geographical and
environmental education issues. International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education, 27(1), 1–4.
Clausen, S. W. (2017). Exploring the pedagogical content knowledge of Danish
geography teachers: teaching weather formation and climate change.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education,
Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/10382046.2017. 1349376
Huckle, J. (2017). Powerful geographical knowledge is critical knowledge underpinned
by critical realism. . International Research in Geographical and Environmental
Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/10382046.2017.1366203
Lambert, D. (2011). Reviewing the case for geography, and the “knowledge turn” in the
English National Curriculum. Curriculum Journal, 22(2), 243–264.
Lambert, D. (2014). Subject teachers in knowledge-led schools. In M. Young, D.
Lambert, C. Roberts, & M. Roberts (Eds.) (2014) Knowledge and the future
school: curriculum and social justice (pp. 159–187). London, Bloomsbury
Academic.
Lambert, D. (2016). A response to Graves and Slater. International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, 25(3), 192–193.
Lambert, D., & Biddulph, M. (2015). The dialogic space offered by curriculum-making
in the process of learning to teach, and the creation of a progressive knowledgeled
curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 210–224.
Lambert, D., & Hopkin, J. (2014). A possibilist analysis of the geography national
curriculum in England. International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education, 23(1), 64–78.
Lambert, D., & Morgan, J. (2010). Teaching Geography 11-18 – A Conceptual
Approach. England: Open University Press.
Lambert, D., Solem, M., & 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.
Lane, R. (2009). Articulating the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Accomplished
Geography Teachers. Geographical Education, 22, 40–50.
Lane, R. (2015). Experienced geography teachers’ PCK of students’ ideas and beliefs
about learning and teaching. International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education, 24(1), 43–57.
Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative Research in Education: A User´s Guide. USA: Sage
publications.
Martin, F. (2000). Postgraduate Primary Education Students’ Images of Geography and
the Relationship between these and Students’ Teaching. International Research
in Geographical and Environmental Education, 9(3), 223–244.
Martin, F. (2008). Knowledge Bases for Effective Teaching: Beginning Teachers’
Development as Teachers of Primary Geography. International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, 17(1), 13–39.
Maude, A. (2015). What might powerful geographical knowledge look like?
Geography, 101(2), 70–76.
Maude, A. (2016). What is Powerful Knowledge and Can It Be Found in the Australian
Geography Curriculum? Geographical Education, 28, 18–26.
Maude, A. (2018). Geography and powerful knowledge: a contribution to the debate.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 27(2),
179–190.
Mitchell, D. (2016). Geography teachers and curriculum making in “changing times.”
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 25(2),
121–133.
Mitchell, D., & Lambert, D. (2015). Subject knowledge and teacher preparation in
English secondary schools: the case of geography. Teacher Development, 19(3),
365–380.
Morgan, J. (2011). Knowledge and the school geography curriculum: A rough guide for
teachers. Teaching Geography, 36(3), 90–92.
Morley, E. (2012). English primary trainee teachers’ perceptions of geography.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 21(2),
123–137.
Finnish National Board of Education (2016). National Core Curriculum for General
Upper Secondary Schools 2015. Helsinki: Next Print Oy.
Preston, L. (2014). Australian primary pre-service teachers’ conceptions of geography.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(4),
331–349.
Preston, L. (2015). Australian primary in-service teachers’ conceptions of geography.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(2),
167–180.
Puttick, S., Paramore, J., & Gee, N. (2018). A critical account of what “geography”
means to primary trainee teachers in England. International Research in
Geographical and Environmental Education, 27(2), 165–178.
Roberts, M. (2014). Powerful knowledge and geographical education. Curriculum
Journal, 25(2), 187–209.
Seow, T. (2016). Reconciling discourse about geography and teaching geography: the
case of Singapore pre-service teachers. International Research in Geographical
and Environmental Education, 25(2), 151–165.
Slater, F., & Graves, N. (2016). Editorial: Geography and powerful knowledge.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 25(3),
189–192
Stoltman, J., Lidstone, J., & Kidman, G. (2014). Powerful knowledge in geography:
IRGEE editors interview Professor David Lambert, London Institute of
Education, October 2014. International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education, 24(1), 1–5.
Tani, S. (2014). Geography in the Finnish school curriculum: part of the “success
story”? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education,
23(1), 90–101.
Uhlenwinkel, A., Béneker, T., Bladh, G., Tani, S., & Lambert, D. (2016).
GeoCapabilities1 and curriculum leadership: balancing the priorities of aimbased
and knowledge-led curriculum thinking in schools. International Research
in Geographical and Environmental Education, 26(4), 327–341.
Waldorf, R. (1996). “What is Geography?” An analysis of Definitions Provided by
Prospective Teachers of the Subject. International Research in Geographical
and Environmental Education, 5(1), 69–76.
Walshe, N. (2007). Understanding Teachers’ Conceptualisations of Geography.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 16(2),
97–119.
Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: a knowledge-based
approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101–118.
Young, M. (2014). Powerful knowledge as a curriculum principle. In M. Young, D.
Lambert, C. Roberts, & M. Roberts (Eds.) (2014) Knowledge and the future
school: Curriculum and social justice (pp. 65–88). London: Bloomsbury
Academic.