This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 30 October 2014, At: 06:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjog20

Mastery of Content and Pedagogy: Evaluation ofStrategies for Teacher InstitutesMichael C. Jurmu , Jacqueline Maclnnis Jurmu & Judith W. MeyerPublished online: 16 Aug 2007.

To cite this article: Michael C. Jurmu , Jacqueline Maclnnis Jurmu & Judith W. Meyer (1999) Mastery ofContent and Pedagogy: Evaluation of Strategies for Teacher Institutes, Journal of Geography, 98:1, 14-22, DOI:10.1080/00221349908978849

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221349908978849

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Mastery of Content and Pedagogy: Evaluation of Strategies for Teacher Institutes

Michael C. Jurmu, Jacqueline MacInnis Jurmu, and Judith W. Meyev

ABSTRACT Considerable attention has been

paid to the evaluation of the effective- ness of various components of summer institutes conducted by many state alliances, but little attention has been focused on the mastery of geography content. This study shows that six minor modifications in the standard format for such institutes can modestly increase the mastery of geography con- tent by participants. Outcomes were compared between two summer insti- tutes in successive summers, both of which focused on similar environmen- tal geography topics. Changes were made in the format for inservice lessons, the daily evaluation form, the group investigation process, staff-pre- sented demonstration lessons, consulta- tion by faculty and geography students as participants prepared inservice lessons, and geography material avail- able.

Key Words: program evaluation, geo- graphic content, inservice training

Michael C. Jurmu is Visiting Lecturer in the Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley, Menasha, Wisconsin 54952 USA and a Ph.D. candi- date in the Department of Geography, lndiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana. 47809 USA.

Jacqueline Maclnnis Jurrnu is a geographic consultant in Menasha, Wisconsin, 54952 USA.

Judith W. Meyer is Professor in the Department of Geography, University of Connecticut, Stows, Connecticut 06269- 2148 USA.

For slightly more than a decade geographers have been using a model for inservice training for K-12 teachers initially designed by the National Geographic Society’s Geography Education Program. These teachers are being expected to teach more geography content, in part because of national and state movements to increase such instruction. However, many of them have limited preparation for teaching geogra- phy, either in terms of knowledge of geography content or knowledge of geography pedagogy. Geography inservice programs and summer ”trainer of trainers’’ institutes for teachers supported by the National Geographic Society have thus had a dual focus-content and pedagogy.

Cole and Ormrod (1995) have explored the characteristics of effec- tive teacher inservice training and concluded that the model used by the geographic alliances for their summer training programs is respon- sive to best practice for inservice programming and addresses Shulman’s three critical areas of knowledge (pedagogical, content, and pedagogical content) (Shulman 1986). The National Geographic Society has conducted careful evaluations of many of these summer institutes, and surveys conducted of participants in the institutes indicate that most of the respondents have made changes in the way they teach geography (Katzenmeyer 1994).

Most of the evaluations conducted of summer institutes have focused on Shulman’s pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge. Evaluators have paid less attention to mastery of content knowledge, and the participants in alliance summer institutes do not stress content mastery in their recollections of the value of the program in which they have participated (Cole and Ormrod 1995). Anecdotal discussions among alliance leaders also suggest that they are less than satisfied with the geography content mastery of many of their novice teacher consul- tants. Evidence from case studies of both high school and elementary teachers suggests that the teacher’s content comprehension impacts on the styles of teaching employed in the classroom (Leinhardt and Greeno 1985, Shulman 1987), so content mastery is as important as mastery of new pedagogy.

This study examines the impact of minor modifications in the for- mat of an inservice institute on teachers’ mastery of geography content by identifying differences in teacher behavior between two summer institutes, the second of which incorporated modifications to emphasize content mastery. The overall purpose is to measure if participants’ per- ception and use of geography content and their pedagogical geography knowledge improved if they participated in the modified institute.

Journal of Geography 98:14-22 01999 National Council for Geographic Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

6:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

New Strategies for Summer Geography Institutes 15

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The two summer institutes, taught in 1993 and 1994, both focused on an environmental themel. Each summer the two-week training experience exposed the participants to the various nuances of geography through content lectures, field activities, lesson demonstrations, group-interaction sessions, and individual instruction by the institute staff. The participants in turn demonstrated their newly acquired abilities by conducting an inservice pre- sentation for the other participants based on the environmental theme.

by participants in the first institute revealed that many of them did not specifically incorporate geog- raphy content, focusing instead on more nebulous environmental topics, despite the focus by expert geography presenters on the key elements of physi- cal systems and environment and society. In addi- tion, the pedagogical geography content used in the lessons was primarily at the simplest cognitive level-knowing, rather than understanding or applying. Without increasing the time devoted to content presentations during the institute itself, the following six modifications were made for the sec- ond institute to support increased mastery of con- tent as well as enhanced pedagogical content.

Observation of the inservice lessons presented

1. The format for the participants’ inservice lessons (and for the demonstration lessons) was more explicitly focused on geography content. The lesson had to pertain to a geographic content topic of the institute (energy, forests, water); incorporate any, or all, of the 5 Themes in Geography that were a focus in the insti- tute; and follow a standardized outline. To measure the impact of this modifica- tion, we analyzed the packets prepared by each participant, using a standardized format for content analysis2. Individual authors separately analyzed each year’s packets, but two authors conducted duplicate analyses of approximately 25% of the packets; this triangulation yielded identical content analysis results.

Incorporation of an appropriate topic, incorporation of geographic vocabulary, and method/tools presented by the par- ticipants were self-evident within the inservice materials. Determining if the materials were presented as a geography

lesson was based upon its explicit inclu- sion in the purpose or objectives, and/or mention within some aspect of the les- son. If geography was incorporated into the purpose or objectives, the materials were assessed to determine if all, some, or none of the objectives would be attained based on the content presented.

The cognitive levels of learning expected from the students were measured using the levels identified by geographers in developing the National Assessment of Educational Progress in Geography (NAEP Geography Consensus Project 1994). The cognitive level the inservice materials fostered was assigned the knowing level if the content required simple recognition of geographical top- ics, terms, or locations (e.g., students describe the physical characteristics of a place). The next level, understanding, was assigned to materials that encour- aged perception and comprehension of the significance of geographical themes or relationships (e.g., students explain why a species grows in a particular area). An inservice lesson achieved the cogni- tive level of applying when it contained materials and exercises that allowed demonstration of the ability to identify, discern, and then accurately utilize geo- graphic concepts (e.g., students redesign a throw-away society to make it more sustainable). The daily evaluation form was modified to explicitly ask for two content ideas participants had learned from lectures and discussions, as well as for two new ideas for use in the classroom. The previ- ous form simply asked them to list ideas they could implement. We summarized these forms for the types of geography content discussed, the relevant geograph- ic elements, and the cognitive level that participants expected from their stu- dents; the same standards were used to assign cognitive level that were used in the inservice packet analysis. The group investigation process, a small group discussion following content lec- tures, was more structured in the second institute. A form was used to guide dis- cussion which explicitly identified the

2.

3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

6:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

16 lurmu, Jurmu, and Meyer

geographic standards within the key ele- ments of physical systems and environ- ment and society, and then raised ques- tions regarding key ideas, level of cogni- tive learning (knowing, understanding, applying), and teaching strategies. These discussions were taped, transcribed, and distributed to the participants as quickly as possible. We summarized these dis- cussions, linked them to Geography for Life standards, and again assigned a cog- nitive level to the key ideas.

4. Staff-presented demonstration lessons were tied directly to the content lectures.

5. A geography faculty member and two geography graduate assistants met with the participants as they prepared their own inservice lessons. We assembled articles from nontechnical journals containing geography content topics covered in the institute for use by the participants as reference in develop- ing their inservice presentations.

6.

In addition to the analysis of inservice materi- als, daily evaluations, and group investigations, we employed a fourth measure to estimate the impact of the six modifications. A standard pre/post effica- cy instrument, using a five-point Likert scale, asked participants to rate their ”preparedness” on several dimensions of content, pedagogy and leadership that were addressed during the institute?

qualitatively, primarily through content analysis of daily evaluation forms, transcripts of small-group discussions, and the packets produced by partici- pants for their personal inservice presentation, com- bined with the pre/post efficacy instrument. The latter two measures were available for both insti- tutes and allow for direct comparison. The other two measures provide additional confirmation of the attention to content by the participants in the second institute.

The impact of the six modifications is measured

RESULTS

Inservice Material Analysis

Twenty-three inservice packets were available from Summer 1 and 24 packets were available for Summer 2, the institute with the modifications. The percentage of lessons containing a geography topic from the institute increased in Summer 2 from 55%

to 83%, a significant difference (p < 0.05) based on a T test of differences between proportions (Table 1). Although the differences were not statistically sig- nificant between the two years on the remaining measures of the inservice material, they did show evidence of positive change. Those lessons where an aspect of geography was expressed in the objec- tives or purpose rose from 60% to 71%. Achievement of all the geographic objectives in a lesson (if given) also increased, but only slightly. The overall cognitive learning levels (knowing, understanding, and applying) for the inservice materials remained relatively similar for each year, with only understanding levels rising 4%. The pri- mary emphasis in the inservice lessons was on knowing levels of cognition, but high school teach- ers did place more emphasis on understanding and applying than did teachers of younger children.

Participant Confidence

The pre/post efficacy test asked participants their perceptions concerning level of confidence in performing several tasks using geographic knowl- edge. The results were initially used to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the institutes, and both years showed a normal distribution of responses to each item prior to the institute and a skewed distri- bution after the institute at the ”prepared” or ”extremely prepared” level. Selected items also pro- vide some information about the impact of the six modifications on participants’ confidence in using geographic content, but none show statistically sig- nificant differences, based on a test of differences between proportions.

to write geography curricula, most participants expressed some level of preparedness. Post-institute levels increased for both years (Figure 1). Confidence in developing geographical classroom activities (Figure 1) rose from pre- to post-institute for both summers. More Summer 2 participants felt extremely prepared to create activities and the actu- al percentage increase was slightly higher than in Summer 1. Confidence prior to the Summer 1 insti- tute regarding assessment of students’ geographic work was somewhat higher than Summer 2 (Figure 1). After the institute, a larger percentage of Summer 2 participants felt extremely prepared to assess students’ geographic work and that percent- age of change was also higher than for the Summer 1 group.

When questioned on their pre-institute abilities

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

6:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

New Strategies for Summer Geopaphy Institutes 17

Table 1. Inservice lesson materials: Evaluation summary.

Evaluation Issue Possible Evaluation Results (%) Summer 1 Summer 2

Did lesson incorporate institute geographic content lecture topic?

Percentage of geographic content topics covered in lesson (note that some lessons incorporated more than one topic)

Presented as geographic lesson (stated in purpose or objective)

Were geographic objectives achieved (if given) in lesson?

Overall cognitive learning level achieved in lesson

Breakdown of cognitive learning level by instructional level

Yes No

Energy Forest Water Pollution Other

Yes No

All achieved Some achieved None achieved

Applying Understanding Knowing

9-12 Grade Applying Understanding Knowing

4-8 Grade Applying Understanding Knowing

K-3 Grade Applying Understanding Knowing

55 45

10 15 20 45 45

60 40

67 33 0

5 25 70

50 0

50

0 56 44

0 0

100

83 17

4 29 50

NA 17

71 29

71 29 0

4 29 67

20 40 40

0 15 85

0 20 80

Daily Evaluations

Each participant completed a daily evaluation regarding the events conducted that day; the prima- ry purpose of these evaluations was feedback to the directors for immediate adjustment in problem areas, but the results also provide insight into con- tent learning by participants. Table 2 combines all the participants’ responses regarding the content topic of forests and deforestation. Comparison between the two summers was not possible because each institute had different lecturers who focused on various subjects within the designated topic. Each Summer’s participants identified subject mat- ter relevant to the geographic topic, mentioned con- cepts or ideas that covered all five geographic themes, and incorporated a range of cognitive learning levels within the subject matter and learn-

ing strategies. The participants showed a relative progression from the cognitive learning level of knowing for the themes of location and place to the understanding level for region, movement, and human/environment interaction in their daily eval- uation.

Group Investigations

Upon completion of a content lecture, partici- pants in the Summer 2 institute met in small groups based on their level of instruction. With guidance from the institute staff, they developed concepts relating to the content material, decided what facts and concepts their students should know or under- stand, and generated strategies to accomplish those learning goals. Comparisons with the first summer were not possible because the structure of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

6:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

18 Jurrnu, Jurrnu, and Meyer

Figure 1. Resultsfrorn pre- and postsurveys of participants concerning their level of confidence (efficacy in performing tasks using geographic knowledge).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

6:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

New Strategies for Summer Geography Institutes

Table 2. Geography content assessment of daily evaluations (lecture topic: forest/deforestation)

19

Geographic Theme Subject Matter Cognitive Level

Location -absolute and relative location

(physical and human characteristics of places)

Place -physical characteristics (physical processes that shape patterns; spatial distribution of ecosystems)

Region -comparison across physical and cultural realms (characteristics and spatial distribution of ecosystems)

Movement -of goods and conditions (patterns, net- works of economic interdependence)

Human/Environment Interaction -use of resources (changes in resources) -impact of humans (human actions modify physical environment)

-deforested areas of the world 4 . S . vs. South American forests -vegetation below tropical rainforest canopy

Knowing

-species diversity within a single forest Knowing -different tree growth in different areas -fires enriching an area -local jobs vs. forest

-why doesn‘t a large quantity of high quality wood

-why a species grows in area? -compare U.S. vs South American deforestation -transition areas as bird habitats -use of slash and burn

Understanding grow in Connecticut?

-wood products exported to Pacific Rim -process from tree in forest to finished product

Understanding

-desertification Knowing -different types of forest harvesting -replacement of complex systems with lesser systems -utilization of complete tree

Understanding

groups (mixed grade levels in Summer 1) and the structure of the discussion changed significantly. The summary of one of these investigations (Table 3) does show that, within group settings immedi- ately following content presentations, the partici- pants evidenced considerable content understand- ing, recognized appropriate cognitive levels for dif- ferent material, and were actually dealing with a wide range of the Geographyfor Life standards.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The six modifications introduced into the sec- ond summer institute to increase participants’ mas- tery of content had some measurable effect, although most of the differences in perceptions and behavior were not statistically significant. Participants still had flexibility to develop pedagog- ical strategies for teaching, but focused those strate- gies more clearly on geography content and geo- graphic themes in their discussions. They increased geography content and geographic objectives in their inservice materials, compared to participants in the previous institute, and attained a higher level

of confidence in their ability to perform certain geography-related educational tasks.

teachers still require mostly a knowing cognitive learning level from their students. They expressed a higher expectation of cognitive learning in their daily evaluations and group investigations, but these levels were not reflected in their inservice materials, even though they received printed sum- maries of their group investigations within a day or two of the discussion.

The modest positive changes occurring in par- ticipants’ performance on a variety of measures between the two institutes suggest that the modifi- cations introduced for the second institute are worth considering further, but more modifications are clearly needed.

The inservice packet assessment indicates that

1. Research on enhancing the teaching of science has shown that engaging the inservice teachers in ”doing science,” rather than just talking about science, was a critical component in changing behavior (Radford 1998).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

6:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Tabl

e 3. G

roup

inve

stiga

tions

of lec

ture

on

ener

gy.

!2

Wha

t fac

tsko

ncep

ts d

o yo

u w

ant s

tude

nts t

o kn

ow?

Stra

tegi

es to

inco

rpor

ate

thos

e fa

ctsk

once

pts

Nat

iona

l Geo

grap

hy S

tand

ards

Ele

men

tary

Sch

ool G

roup

Inv

estig

atio

n A

war

enes

s -e

nerg

y co

nsci

ousn

ess

-bet

ter s

ourc

es a

nd a

ltern

ativ

es

-eas

y th

ings

are

not

alw

ays b

ette

r -la

bor-

savi

ng d

evic

es th

at u

se e

nerg

y Kn

owin

g an

d un

ders

tand

ing

Agr

icul

ture

and

tran

spor

tatio

n Kn

owin

g

Was

te of

ene

rgy

Und

ersta

ndin

g

Idea

of

perp

etua

l, re

new

able

and

non

rene

wab

le

Know

ing

Mid

dle

Scho

ol G

roup

Inv

estig

atio

n H

uman

/env

iron

men

t in

tera

ctio

n-us

e of

ener

gy

Appl

icat

ion

sour

ces

Mak

e st

uden

ts a

war

e-co

nsci

ous

of en

ergy

Und

ersta

ndin

g co

nsum

ptio

n

-tur

ning

off

light

s; h

ave

them

do

at h

ome

-info

rm p

aren

ts of

ene

rgy

was

tes

-mak

e pos

ters

of d

evic

es n

ow a

nd w

hat w

as u

sed

in p

ast

-map

ping

of a

reas

: ene

rgy

sour

ces,

uses

, etc

. -f

ield

trip

s to

loca

l pow

er p

lant

or o

ther

sour

ce of

alte

rnat

ive

1. H

ow to

use

map

s and

oth

er

geog

raph

ic re

pres

enta

tions

... to

acqu

ire, p

roce

ss a

nd re

port

in

form

atio

n fr

om sp

atia

l per

spec

tive

17. A

pply

geo

grap

hy to

inte

rpre

t pas

t en

ergy

-com

pare

with

ano

ther

cou

ntry

(US

vs ...)

-u

se of

com

pute

r gra

phic

s in

clas

s 3.

How

to a

naly

ze sp

atia

l org

aniz

atio

n of

peop

le, p

lace

s, e

nvir

onm

ents

-wri

te le

tter t

o pl

aces

whe

re th

ey th

ink

ener

gy is

was

ted

-che

ck fo

r was

te a

roun

d sc

hool

; be

“Env

iroga

tors

“

-exp

lain

diff

eren

ces b

etw

een

sun,

coal

, win

d, n

ucle

ar e

nerg

y

14. H

ow h

uman

act

ions

mod

ify

(invo

lvem

ent i

n co

mm

unity

) ph

ysic

al e

nvir

onm

ent

15. H

ow p

hysi

cal s

yste

ms a

ffec

t hum

an

syst

ems

-use

map

s an

d de

mog

raph

ics t

o re

desi

gn m

ore

effic

ient

bu

s ro

ute

for s

choo

l, ba

sed

on st

uden

ts in

cla

ss

-rea

d el

ectri

c met

ers,

com

pare

am

ount

s and

life

styl

es

with

in d

iffer

ent h

omes

, diff

eren

t era

s -tr

ace e

lect

ricity

back

to s

ourc

e (i.

e. co

al, w

ater

, etc

.- us

ually

som

e ty

pe of

nat

ural

form

cre

atin

g so

urce

)

1. H

ow to

use

map

s and

oth

er g

eo-

grap

hic r

epre

sent

atio

ns ...

2. H

ow to

use

men

tal m

aps t

o or

gani

ze

info

rmat

ion

abou

t peo

ple,

pla

ces ..

.

6. H

ow c

ultu

re an

d ex

perie

nce i

nflu

- en

ce p

eopl

e’s p

erce

ptio

ns of

pla

ces

11. P

atte

rn a

nd n

etw

orks

of e

cono

mic

in

terd

epen

denc

e 14

. How

hum

an a

ctio

ns m

odif

y....

15. H

ow p

hysi

cal s

yste

ms a

ffec

t ....

16. C

hang

es th

at O

CC

UT

in m

eani

ng, u

se,

dist

ribu

tion,

and

impo

rtan

ce of

re

sour

ces

pret

pas

t 4

3 s 4 3 E: E: = s2 3

R

17. H

ow to

app

ly g

eogr

aphy

to in

ter-

18. H

ow to

app

ly g

eogr

aphy

to in

ter-

pr

et p

rese

nt a

nd p

lan

futu

re

3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

6:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Tabl

e 3. C

ontin

ued.

2

2

Wha

t fac

ts/c

once

pts d

o yo

u St

rate

gies

to in

corp

orat

e th

ose

fact

s/co

ncep

ts

Nat

iona

l Geo

grap

hy S

tand

ards

ii

wan

t stu

dent

s to

kno

w?

9.

Hig

h Sc

hool

Gro

up In

vest

igat

ion

3

Kno

win

g, un

ders

tand

ing,

appl

icatio

n -s

imul

atio

n ga

me

(red

esig

n thr

ow-a

way

soci

ety)

pr

et p

rese

nt a

nd p

lan

futu

re

s Tw

o m

odel

s: th

row

-aw

ay v

s. su

stai

nabl

e -o

verh

eads

and

disc

ussi

on of

bot

h m

odel

s 18

. How

to a

pply

geo

grap

hy to

inte

r v, i.!

Ener

gy a

ltern

ativ

es w

ith p

ros/

cons

U

nder

stand

ing

and

appl

icatio

n

Han

dlin

g of

was

te m

ater

ial

Ato

mic

pow

er g

ener

atio

n Kn

owin

g

Lack

of

ener

gy p

lan

Und

ersta

ndin

g and

app

licat

ion

Co-

gene

ratio

n U

nder

stand

ing

Com

pari

son

of U

.S. w

ith o

ther

cou

ntri

es

Know

ing

Polit

ical

, eco

nom

ic a

nd c

ultu

ral a

spec

ts

Know

ing

-i n 09

3

-inve

stig

atio

n in

to p

ract

ical

appl

icat

ions

for e

ach

type

14

. How

hum

an a

ctio

ns m

odif

y....

-Dile

mm

a ca

rds

16. C

hang

es th

at o

ccur

in m

eani

ng, u

se,

8 di

stri

butio

n. an

d im

port

ance

of

a 9

3

$. i$ di

stri

butio

n, an

d im

port

ance

of

2

reso

urce

s

14. H

ow h

uman

act

ions

mod

ify. ...

16

. Cha

nges

that

occ

ur in

mea

ning

, use

, .-I.

reso

urce

s

-cla

ss p

roje

ct to

dev

elop

ener

gy p

lan

-inve

stig

atio

n, di

scus

sion

of a

pplic

atio

n

-ove

rhea

ds, i

nves

tigat

ion

on c

ause

s, le

ctur

es

-com

paris

ons,

eval

uatio

ns, in

vest

igat

ions

18. H

ow to

app

ly g

eogr

aphy

to in

ter-

pr

et p

rese

nt a

nd p

lan

for f

utur

e

16.

Cha

nges

that

occ

ur in

mea

ning

, us

e, d

istr

ibut

ion,

and

impo

rtan

ce of

re

sour

ces

2. H

ow to

use

men

tal m

aps

6. H

ow c

ultu

re a

nd e

xper

ienc

e in

fluen

ce pe

ople

's pe

rcep

tions

of

plac

es/r

egio

ns

3. H

ow to

ana

lyze

spat

ial o

rgan

izat

ion

of pe

ople

, pla

ces,

and

env

iron

men

ts

6. H

ow c

ultu

re a

nd e

xper

ienc

e ....

11. P

atte

rn a

nd n

etw

orks

of e

cono

mic

in

terd

epen

denc

e

Env

ironm

enta

l cos

ts

-inve

stig

atio

ns

14. H

ow h

uman

act

ions

mod

if y..

.. U

nder

stand

ing

15. H

ow p

hysi

cal s

yste

ms a

ffect

....

16. T

he c

hang

es ... o

f re

sour

ces.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

6:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Jurmu, Jurmu, and Meyeu 22

2.

3.

4.

5.

Teacher consultants who are providing demonstration lessons should emphasize a geographic content topic from the insti- tute and stress higher levels of cognitive learning. Many participants do not have an in-depth background in geography and they need continued reinforcement of these concepts and instructional proce- dures to implement them accurately in the classroom. Institute directors may want to require inservice topics chosen by participants to directly relate to one of the content lec- tures, and challenge participants to incor- porate higher levels of cognitive learning, as appropriate for the targeted grade level. This insures attentiveness during the lectures and discussions and encour- ages participants to create a geographic lesson strategy strictly from their new learning experiences. Such a requirement will also give the participants experience that is applicable in developing geo- graphic curricula. Using geography content experts (faculty and/or graduate students) to consult with participants as they develop their lessons can help increase the geography content in classroom lessons or inservice presentations. Focusing daily evaluations and discus- sion guides on geographic content and knowledge of pedagogical geographic content (levels of cognitive learning) reg- ularly reminds the participants of the focus of the institute.

These modifications to a fairly standardized approach to alliance summer institutes can result in increased attention to both geography content and pedagogical geography knowledge without sub- stantially increasing the amount of time directly devoted to presentations of geography content. That is important, since these Alliance institutes typically serve three purposes-improving the understanding of geography content, enhancing the pedagogical skills, and preparing for being an edu- cational leader through inservice presentations.

Alliances are rarely able to conduct the type of quasi-experimental effort described in this research, because the foci of summer programming changes regularly. Nevertheless, the geography content and levels of cognitive learning proposed by partici- pants can be compared, based on participants’ pre- vious experience with geography, either through summer institutes or college level courses. If signifi- cant differences are apparent, evidence is available for the importance for teachers of continued educa- tion in geography content, not just in pedagogy.

NOTES Subsequent summer institutes sponsored by the Connecticut Geographic Alliance focused on interdiscipli- nary perspectives, in response to demand from K-12 teach- ers in the state. Findings from this research were incorpo- rated in the design of those institutes, but no further opportunity was available for a follow-up quasi-experi- mental study. The scoring instrument is available from the Connecticut Geographic Alliance. The efficacy instrument, developed by the Connecticut Geographic Alliance with assistance of Steven Owen, Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Connecticut, is available from the Alliance.

REFERENCES Cole, D. B., and J. E. Ormrod. 1995. Effectiveness of teaching

pedagogical content knowledge through summer geography institutes. Journal of Geography 94:427433.

Katzenmeyer, M. 1994. ASGI Follow-up Survey Results. Washington, D.C: National Geographic Society.

Leinhardt, G., and J. G. Greeno. 1985. Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational P s y c h o k ~ 77247-271.

NAEP Geography Consensus Project. 1994. Geography Framework for the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington D.C: National Assessment Governing Board of the US. Department of Education.

for professional development for science education reform. journal of Research in Science Teaching 3573-88.

in teaching. Educational Researcher 15:4-14.

the new reform. Harvard Educational Review 571-22.

Radford, D. L. 1998. Transferring theory into practice: a model

Shulman, L. S. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth

Shulman, L. S. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

6:28

30

Oct

ober

201

4