Geography education typically appears in school curricula in a didactic or disciplinary manner. Yet, both the didactic and the disciplinary approach to geography education lack a serious engagement with society, politics, and power, or democratic theory. We suggest, from Dewey, that most students, the social studies, and indeed society are not well served by these approaches, particularly as we confront global challenges that demand geographic knowledge and insight.
Purpose
We propose that geography can and should reflect the interests of students and society and thus be what Dewey calls psychologized through a democratic vision of global citizenship education (GCE). Toward that end, we develop a typology of global education to identify those types most congruent with democratic citizenship (cosmopolitan, environmental, and critical justice) and those less congruent (disciplinary, neoliberal, and human relations). Drawing on our typology, we show how GCE can be a point of synthesis in practice, bringing together global education and reconstituted geographic knowledge.
Research Design
The method of this article is a secondary analysis of literature in democratic theory, global citizenship education, and geography education that synthesizes points of overlap.
Conclusions
Based on this analysis, we recommend that geography curriculum should be remade within a vision similar to GCE so that space and place can be socially understood.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtwoodW. W., & ThomasH. G. (1938). The Americas (Vol. 2). Boston: Ginn and Company.
2.
BarberB. (2000). Challenges to the common good in the age of globalism.Social Education, 54, 8–13.
3.
BarberB. (2004). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
BeaneJ. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing a core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.
5.
BednarzR. S. (2002). The quantity and quality of geography education in the United States: The last 20 years.International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 11, 160–170.
6.
BigelowB., & PetersonB. (2002). Rethinking globalization: Teaching for justice in an unjust world. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Press.
7.
BlascoM., & HansenH. K. (2006). Cosmopolitan aspirations: New media, citizenship education and youth in Latin America.Citizenship Studies, 10, 469–488.
8.
BrunerJ. S. (1960). The process of education.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
BullenA., & WhiteheadM. (2005). Negotiating the networks of space, time, and substance: A geographical perspective on the sustainable citizen.Citizenship Studies, 9, 499–516.
10.
BurbulesN. C., & BerkR. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. In PopkewitzT. S. & FendlerL. (Eds.), Critical theories in education (pp. 45–65). New York: Routledge.
DahlR. A. (2001). How democratic is the American Constitution?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
DaviesI., EvansM., & ReidA. (2005). Globalising citizenship education? A critique of “global education” and “citizenship education.” British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, 66–89.
17.
DeweyJ. (1897a). My pedagogic creed.School Journal, 54, 77–80.
18.
DeweyJ. (1897b). The psychological aspect of the school curriculum.Educational Review, 13, 356–369.
19.
DeweyJ. (1990). The child and the curriculum. In JacksonP. W. (Ed.), The school and society and the child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1900)
20.
DownsJ. (1994). Geography for life. Jacksonville, AL: National Council for Geographic Education.
21.
Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Grade level expectations for the sunshine state standards: Social studies eighth grade. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from http://www.fldoe.org/bii/curriculum/sss/pdf/ss8.pdf
22.
FriedmanT. L. (2000). The Lexus and the olive tree. New York: First Anchor Books.
23.
GaudelliW. (2003). World class: Teaching and learning in global times. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
GaudelliW. (2009). Heuristics of global citizenship discourses towards curriculum enhancement.Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 25(1).
25.
GeeJ. P. (2005). It's theories all the way down: A response toScientific Research in Education. Teachers College Record, 107, 10–18.
GrayP. T., HildebrantB. S., & StraussT. R. (2007). Advanced Placement Human Geography: The first five years.The Journal of Geography, 105(3), 99–107.
28.
GruenewaldD. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education.American Educational Research Journal, 40, 619–654.
29.
HeldD. (2004). Democratic accountability and political effectiveness from a cosmopolitan perspective.Government and Opposition, 39, 125–131.
30.
HeldD. (2006). Reframing global governance: Apocalypse soon or reform!New Political Economy, 11, 157–176.
31.
IbrahimT. (2005). Global citizenship education: Mainstreaming the curriculum?Cambridge Journal of Education, 35, 177–194.
32.
KirkwoodT. F. (2001). Our global age requires global education: Clarifying definitional ambiguities.The Social Studies, 92, 10–16.
33.
KohutA., & StokesB. (2006). America against the world. New York: Macmillan.
34.
MunroeS. S., & SmithT. (1998). State geography standards. Washington, DC: T. B. Fordham Foundation.
35.
MyersJ. P. (2006). Rethinking the social studies curriculum in the context of globalization: Education for global citizenship in the U.S.Theory and Research in Social Education, 34, 370–394.
NussbaumM. C. (1996). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In NussbaumM. C. & CohenJ. (Eds.), For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism (pp. 2–20). Boston: Beacon Press.
38.
OslerA., & VincentK. (2002). Citizenship and the challenge of global education.London: Trentham.
39.
PalmerP. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40.
ParkerW. P. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York: Teachers College Press.
