Geographic Education in the Anthropocene: Cultivating Citizens at the Neoliberal University

2021 ◽  
pp. 341-352
Author(s):  
Lindsay Naylor ◽  
Dana Veron
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.N. Novikov ◽  
M.S. Novikova

География это мировоззренческая наука. Сложившаяся за десятилетия структура курса обучения географии в российской средней школе знакома каждому из нас и состоит из четырёх этапов. В университете система обучения будущих учителей географии состоит из тех же самых этапов, однако, это не просто углублённое повторение школьной программы, это совершенно новый, более высокий уровень географического образования. Как на школьном, так и на университетском уровнях изменения происходят в масштабе тем и разделов отдельных этапов, но этапы остаются неизменными. Межэтапный уровень является предельным, его осознание не попадает в область рефлексии педагогов и методистов. Отсутствуют и научные труды по его анализу. В качестве метода исследования выступает диалектика, законы которой срабатывают в виде мировоззренческих формул. В школьном географическом образовании проблема формирования восприятия не проявляется чётко и поэтому не осознаётся. Проблемы начинают проявляться на межэтапном уровне. Мировоззренческая формула дихотомии перестала работать в виде противопоставления отраслевая география районная география, взаимодействие в этой бинарной оппозиции строилось по принципу отраслевой анализ региональный синтез. В разделах районной географии исчезли механизмы (энергопроизводственные циклы) и формы синтеза (природнотерриториальные и территориальнопроизводственные комплексы). Произошла утрата целесообразности изучения районной географии. Новых форм синтеза в постсоветское время на вооружение российской школьной и университетской географией принято не было. В университетском курсе, который был направлен на осознание диалектических знаний школьного курса и развитие их, невозможно провести рефлексию, так как основы географических знаний у абитуриентов бесформенные. Владение мировоззренческими формулами это вопрос отражения географической реальности. В переходе с уровня на уровень возрастает самостоятельность географического мышления и удаление от стереотипов, возрастает эвристический потенциал за счёт сочетания формул, которое даёт вариативность отражения географической реальности. Geography is a worldview science. The structure of the geography course in the Russian secondary school, which has developed over the decades, is familiar to each of us and consists of four stages. At the University, the system of teaching future teachers of geography consists of the same stages, however, it is not just an indepth repetition of the school curriculum, it is a completely new, higher level of geographical education. At both the school and University levels, changes occur in the scale of topics and sections of individual stages, but the stages remain the same. The interstage level is the limit, its awareness does not fall into the field of reflection of teachers and methodologists. There are no scientific papers on its analysis. The method of research is dialectics, the laws of which work in the form of worldview formulas. In school geographic education, the problem of perception formation is not clearly manifested and therefore is not realized. Problems begin to emerge at the interstage level. The worldview formula of dichotomy ceased to work in the form of the opposition sectoral geography regional geography, the interaction in this binary opposition was based on the principle of sectoral analysis regional synthesis. Mechanisms (energy production cycles) and forms of synthesis (naturalterritorial and territorialproduction complexes) have disappeared in the sections of the district geography. There was a loss of expediency of studying of regional geography. New forms of synthesis in the postSoviet period were not adopted by the Russian school and University geography. In the University course, which was aimed at understanding the dialectical knowledge of the school course and their development, it is impossible to reflect, as the basis of geographical knowledge of students formless. The possession of ideological formulas is the question of geographic reality. In the transition from level to level increases the independence of geographical thinking and the distance from stereotypes, heuristic potential increases due to the combination of formulas, which gives variability of reflection of geographical reality.


Author(s):  
Evan Perlman

Although there are dozens of countries with present day border disputes, few have received such unrelenting international focus as Israel. Maps, cartography and geographic education support the developing doctrine of national boundaries that form collective national identity and ideology. Geographically, throughout the past century, the borders of Israel have become a melding of the phenomena of national identity with physical territory – also referred to as territorial socialization. My paper argues that Israel’s use of geographic description of borders specifically through cartography over time is an example of how boundaries are a powerful tool in the naturalization of ideology of Jewish Israelis. This argument is analyzed by examining historical and biblical cartography, territorial evolution, geography curriculum and textbooks, the Atlas of Israel and mental mapping by citizens. Varying portrayals of Israel’s historical, biblical, natural and political boundaries creates an ambiguous definition of Israel’s borders for citizens. In turn, this importantly shapes the present day religious and seculargeographies of the population of Israel as well as the political behaviours by the democratically representative Israeli government.


1949 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-41
Author(s):  
Mary Jo Read ◽  
Harry O. Lathrop ◽  
Alison Aitchison ◽  
George B. Cressey ◽  
Thomas Barton ◽  
...  

1988 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-13
Author(s):  
Masaki ANDO ◽  
Hiromi IWAMOTO ◽  
Toshimitsu TABE ◽  
Kiyoshi TERAMOTO ◽  
Misako MATSUI ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (17) ◽  
pp. 86-108
Author(s):  
Hugo Heleno Camilo Costa ◽  
Phelipe Florez Rodrigues ◽  
Guilherme Pereira Stribel

Considerando a centralidade da Base Nacional Comum Curricular (BNCC) no cenário das políticas de currículo, este trabalho propõe a reflexão sobre o caráter negligente de seus pressupostos para com a pesquisa acumulada ao longo do tempo, nos campos do Currículo e Educação Geográfica. Assim sendo, apropriamos dois convites de trabalhos de Janet Miller e Ivor Goodson, para pensarmos a política em questão. Além destes autores, também pautamos nossa argumentação com os estudos de Elizabeth Macedo e Alice Lopes, nas discussões sobre teoria e política curricular; Lana Cavalcanti e Marcelo Pereira, sobre ensino de geografia; e Ruy Moreira e Milton Santos como acessos ao pensamento geográfico. O texto se inicia pela discussão de currículo, assinalando a dissonância entre a proposta e o debate sobre teoria curricular. Em seguida, a discussão aponta para o caráter antidemocrático que dinamiza a proposta de base, ao negligenciar o debate social acumulado na pesquisa, as experiências cotidianas e a diferença na produção social. Por fim, acenamos para que os argumentos definidos para Geografia não dialogam com o campo e pontuamos que a BNCC desconsidera o caráter transgressor dos processos educativos (e) de produção de sentido sobre e na escola, no e sobre o espaço.PALAVRAS-CHAVEBase Nacional Comum Curricular, Currículo, Educação Geográfica.CURRICULUM THEORY AND GEOGRAPHY: invitations to the BNCC reflectionABSTRACTConsidering the centrality of the National Curriculum Base (BNCC) in the curriculum policy scenario, this paper proposes to reflect on the negligence of its assumptions towards the research accumulated over time in the fields of Curriculum and Geographic Education. So we took two invitations from Janet Miller and Ivor Goodson to think about the policy in question. In addition to these authors, we also set out our arguments with the studies of Elizabeth Macedo and Alice Lopes, in the discussions on theory and curricular policy; Lana Cavalcanti and Marcelo Pereira, on geography teaching; and Ruy Moreira and Milton Santos as access to geographic thought. The text begins with the discussion of curriculum, pointing out the dissonance between the proposal and the debate about curricular theory. Next, the discussion points to the antidemocratic character that invigorates the basic proposal, neglecting the accumulated social debate in the research, daily experiences and the difference in social production. Finally, we stress that the arguments defined for Geography do not dialogue with the field and we point out that the BNCC disregards the transgressor character of the educational processes (e) of production of meaning on and in school, in and on space.KEYWORDSNational Common Curricular Base, Curriculum, Geographic education.ISSN: 2236-3904REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE EDUCAÇÃO EM GEOGRAFIA - RBEGwww.revistaedugeo.com.br - [email protected]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document