• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

72-4425 BLOOMER, Francis Eldon, 1925- SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS* PERCEPTION OF TOPICS IN GEOGRAPHY. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 Education, general U n iv e rs ity M ic ro film s . A XEROXCompany , Ann Arbor. Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHERS' PERCEPTION OF TOPICS IN GEOGRAPHY DISSERTATION Presented In tartlal Fulfi I Intent of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Phllosphy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University BY Francis Eldon Bloomer, A.B., M.Ed. The Ohio State University 1971 Approved by PLEASE NOTE: Some Pages have Indistinct print. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer has accrued both an Intellectual debt and a debt of gratitude to many people while at The Ohio State University. A debt which can never be fully repaid. The writer Is especially grateful to Professor S. Earl Brown whose kindness and encouragement were of inesttmatlble value. Special thanks are due to Professor Paul Klohr, the most knowledgable and humble of men, who was never to busy to help and also to Professor M. Eugene G. 611 Horn for his aid and suggestions. To my major advisor, Professor Robert E. Jewett whose bottom­ less reservlor of patience and understanding helped bring this disser­ tation to fruitatIon, the writer will be forever indebted. To my wife DeanIe and to my sons Jeffrey and Scott who suffered in silence during my more trying of times, thanks for understanding. Finally, to Albert Ogren and Joseph Clrrinclone Is extended gratitude for their unwavering friendship. ii VITA February 14, 1925.............. B o m - Walnut Grove, Missouri 1955 .......................... AB In Social Studies, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas 1961..........................M. Ed. Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas 1956*1969.................... Teacher Secondary Social Studies, Wichita, Kansas 1966*1967 N.E.E.A. Fellowship in Geography, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1969-1971.............. Teaching Associate, Department of Humanities Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1969-1971...................... Instructor In Geography. Urbana College, Urbana, Ohio 1971..........................Assistant Professor Professor of Education, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Social Studies Education Social Studies Education Professor Robert E. Jewett Geography Professor S. Earl Brown Curriculum FV*ofessor Paul Klohr i ill TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................... I i VITA ................................. ill CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION....................................... I Purpose of the Study Methods of investigation Limitations of Investigation Definition of Terms Overview of Dissertation II. REVIEW OF THELITERATURE ............................... 15 Growth of the Discipline The Spatial Tradition The BASS Report Geographic Education Historical Development The Social Studies Era Changing Viewpoints ill. THE HIGH SCHOOL GEOGRAPHY PROJECT...................... 74 The Materials Reflections on the HSGP Conclusions IV. TfC STUDY.......................................... 99 The Survey The Questionnaire Investigation Method The Cross-Tabulation Standards for Evaluation Hie Findings iv The Cross-Tabulations Tables Social Studies Teachers' Perceptions Curriculum and Definition Choices Teachers-!n-Tralnlng Perceptions V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............... 152 APPENDIX A ............................................. 159 The Cover Letter I60 The Questionnaire 162 APPENDIX B ............................................. 166 Cross-Tabulations 167 APPENDIX C ............................................. 189 Teachers-ln-Trainlng 190 Curriculum-DefIn)tlon Choice Matrix 190 Perception of Topics 192 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................. 196 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page Teaching Level Break-Down 119 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Urban Areas 120 Teaching Level and Longitude and Latitude 120 Teaching Level and Landforms 121 Years In Teaching Break-Down 121 Urban Analysis 123 Agricultural fYoductlon and Exchange 123 Atmosphere and Weather 124 Models of City Form 124 Soils and Landforms 125 TIme-01stance Concept 125 FVoblems of World Hunger 127 Number of Academic Hours Taken in Geography 129 I solines 131 Atmosphere and Weather 132 Regional Distributions 133 Site and Situation 134 Central Place 135 nrobablistic Inference 136 vl 20. Dlstance-Decay Factors 137 21. Year of Last Course of Geography 139 22. Curriculum and Definition Combinations 149 23. Seale, Distance, Direction 167 24. Climate Regions 168 25. Cultural Diffusion 169 26. Cultural Regions 170 27. Manufacturing Regions 171 28. Differences Among Areas 172 29. Cultural Change 173 30. Industrial Izatlon 174 31. Rower Potential 175 32. Poverty 176 33. Place Locations 177 34. Urbanization 178 35. Cultural Change 179 36 Differences Among Areas 180 37. Transportation let 38. Transportation 182 39. 01fferences Among Areas 183 40. Manufacturing Regions 184 41. Cultural Barriers 185 42. Regional Distribution 186 43. Latitude and Longitude 187 44. Importance of Manufacturing 188 45. Curriculun-DefInltton Matrix 190 46. Teacher*In-Training Importance of Topics: Mean Values 192 vtti CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In recent years high school geography courses have seldom sparked much interest among students or teachers. The revolution in content and methods that so dramatically affected some other curriculum areas seemed to evade geography. Courses consisted mainly of memorizing names of countries and their capitals, the kinds of products produced in different areas, and the locations of mountain ranges and rivers. There was a sprinkling of other more important and meaningful informa­ tion, but typically the student has been submerged in a flood of un­ related, Insignificant data. One writer was led to observe: High school geography is in a miserable state: materials on the whole are inadequate, and the supply of competent teachers is quite insufficient to meet current needs, let alone those that emerge when school systems attempt to improve the intellectual quality of the rather pedestrian work that goes on under the name of geography of the geographic aspects of the social studies.1 Concerning the state of teaching in geography another writer said: There are about 20,000 high schools In the United States... One may say, accepting any current defini­ tion of geography, that probably in alt of them some ^Gilbert White, "Critical Issues Concerning Geography in the Public Service," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 52 (September, 1962), p. 279. I geographic Instruction takas place. But only a minority of these Institutions offer clearly Iden­ tifiable geography courses. Of these courses, relatively few are believed to reflect our field's current trend of thought. Dissatisfaction with the quality of teaching and the lack of geo­ graphical knowledge possessed by high school students has been a chronic condition for a number of years. While addressing the National Edu­ cation Association In 1914, Whitback revealed that ninety percent of the students who enter noma I schools and colleges were deficient in the elements of general geography.^ in the same year, Dodge complained of poor teaching In the subject and stated that geography In the schools 4 lacked unity and purpose. Two years later Kirchway voices similar 5 complaints in The Journal of Geography. By 1919, Robert Brown concluded: ...geography...appears to be the most generally ill-taught subject... It has been so long considered the "sick man of the curriculum", that supervisors have been persuaded that the condition is chronic and remedies to Increase its vitality are sought 2 William I. Pattison, "Geography In the High School," Anna is of the Association of American Geographers. 52 (September, 1962), p. 280. 3R. H, Whitback, "Geography in the Large Secondary Schools," National Education Association-Addresses and Proceedings (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1914), p. .32. 4 Richard E, Dodge, "Some Problems In Geographic Education with Special Reference to Secondary Schools," Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 6 (October, 1916), p. 14. ^Clara B. Kirchway, "Geography (n the Junior High School," Journal of Geooraphv. 14 (April, 1916), p. 291. over assiduously.^ A 1924 article In School and Society reported the lack of competence related to geographic understanding of Stanford University freshmen,7 in 0 1938 Herman Levi spoke to substantially the same issue and in 1947, Kendel referred to geography as "a neglected subject" in the secondary 9 schools of the country. The plight of geographic education received more attention in the 1950's. Benjamin Fine reported in the New York Times a study of nearly 5000 college students revealing a dearth of geographic sophistication.*^ In 1955 a survey of 178 high schools revealed that only 19 percent offered a course In geography.11 The same theme, lementing the endemic condition of geography in the high school continues to the present. The conclusions to be derived are that geography ts poorly taught, is poorly learned, and that It does not command a respected place In the curriculum of our nation's 6 Robert M. Brown, "Geography In Recent School Surveys," Educations I Review. 63 (October, 1919), p. 207. 7 Eliot Hears, "What Do College Students Know About World Geography?" School and Society. 20 (August 30, 1924), p. 286. ®Herman S. Levi, "Ineffective Geography Teaching-Why?", JournaI of Geography.

Load more

  217

Copy Link