Abstract
School geography curricula have been evolving in keeping abreast with the issues that affect humankind in a fast-changing world. Key elements of this evolution include increased focus on topics such as environmental change and globalisation. Furthermore, there is a more explicit articulation on the modes of instruction in curricula documents, often expounding the virtues of technology and field-based learning . This has resulted in a proliferation of ideas in response to a rising demand to prepare teachers to conduct fieldwork and to design technology-enabled lessons. What is intuitive but often ignored is that while the context of learning has been transplanted from the traditional classrooms into new spaces—the field and cyberspace—that the teaching and learning of geography exist within the framework of formal curriculum, in as far as teacher taught activities are concerned. This book provides a collection of critical pieces that support the idea that good teaching and learning of geography in fieldwork and using technology should consider the dimensions of curriculum design, instructional design and resource provision, as well as assessment for such learning activities. Further, the book is organised to clearly describe the thinking, experiences and critical comments to two broad areas of learning outside the traditional classroom —the field and technology.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bednarz, S. W. (2004). Geographic systems: A tool to support and environmental? GeoJournal, 60(2), 191–199.
Béneker, T., & van der Schee, J. (2015). Future geographies and geography education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(4), 287–293.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development: “our common future”. United Nations.
Chang, C. (2014). Is Singapore’s school becoming too responsive to the changing needs of society? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(1), 25–39.
Chang, C. H. (2015). Teaching climate change–a fad or a necessity? International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 24(3), 181–183.
Favier, T., & Van Der Schee, J. (2009). Learning by combining with GIS. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18(4), 261–274.
Gerber, R. (2001). The state of geographical education in countries around the world. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 10(4), 349–362.
International Geographic Union—Comission on Geographical Education. (2016, August). International Charter on Geographical Education. Retrieved August 2016, from International Geographic Union - Comission on Geographical Education: http://www.igu-cge.org/Charters-pdf/2016/IGU_2016_def.pdf
International Geographic Union—Commission on Geographical Education. (1992). International Charter on Geographical Education. Retrieved 2016, from International Geographic Union—Commission on Geographical Education: http://www.igu-cge.org/charter-translations/1.%20English.pdf
Kent, A. (Ed.). (2000). Reflective practice in teaching. Sage.
Kent, M. I., Gilbertson, D. D., & Hunt, C. O. (1997). Fieldwork in teaching: A critical review of literature of approaches. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(3), 313–332
Lambert, D. (2014). Curriculum thinking, “capabilities” and the place of geographical knowledge in schools’, Syakaika Kenkyu (Journal of Educational Research on Social Studies), 81, pp. 1–11.
Lambert, D., & Hopkin, J. (2014). A possibilist analysis of the national curriculum in England. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(1), 64–78.
Laws, K. (1989). Learning through. In J. Fien, R. Gerbe, & P. Wilson (Eds.), The Geography Teachers’ Guide to the Classroom (pp. 104–117). Melbourne: Macmllian.
Leggett, J. (1990). Global warming: the Greenpeace report. Oxford University Press.
Marsden, W. E. (1989). All in a good cause: History and the politicization of the curriculum in nineteenth and twentieth century England. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(6), 509–526.
Maude, A. (2016). What might powerful geographical look like?. Geography, 101(2), 70.
Muller, J., & Young, M. (2008). Three scenarios for the future - lessons from the sociology of knowledge. Retrieved 20 April, 2015, from Beyond current horizons - technology, children, schools & family: http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk
Parkinson, A. (2013). How has technology impacted on the teaching of geography and geography teachers? Debates in geography education (pp. 320). Abingdon: Routledge.
Romey, W., & Elberly, W., Jr. (1989). On being a teacher in the 1990s and beyond. In J. Fien, R. Gerbe, & P. Wilson (Eds.), The Geography Teachers’ Guide to the Classroom (pp. 407–417). Melbourne: Macmllian.
Young, M. (2011). Discussion to Part 3. In G. Butt (Ed.), Geography, and the future. (pp. 181–183). London: Continuum.
Young, M. (2014). Powerful as a curriculum principle. In M. Young, D. Lambert, C. Roberts, & M. Roberts (Eds.), Knowledge and the future school, curriculum and social justice (pp. 65–88). London: Bloomsbury.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chang, CH., Wu, B.S., Seow, T., Irvine, K. (2018). The Where and How of Learning Geography Beyond the Classroom. In: Chang, CH., Wu, B., Seow, T., Irvine, K. (eds) Learning Geography Beyond the Traditional Classroom. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8705-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8705-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8704-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8705-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)