October
13th, 2016
The purpose of this paper is
consistent of two parts: to look at different standards, concepts, and
competencies, in relation to geography as a discipline, and then to correlate
this discussion to my own interests within the discipline of geography. To achieve
the purpose of this paper articles conducted by Solem (2008), the Geotech
Center (2014), and National Geographic (2012) will be used to reference
information in relation to this discussion.
To begin this paper a brief
explanation of what concepts, competencies, and standards are in relation to
geography must be examined. Within Skills in Professional Geography: An
Assessment of Workforces Needs and Expectations by Solem (2008), the author
goes into a lengthy discussion of different skills, or concepts, within the
study of geography. I believe that these concepts become the building blocks
for which the discipline of geography is structured around. Solem (2008) then
goes on to describe competency as the ability to apply these concepts to
specific situations within the professional workforce. Finally, National
Geographic depicts standards as the basis for which concepts, or skills, are
developed from. Figure 1.1 is a flow chart of how standards develop skills and
how those skills then become the structure for competency. Within the next part
of of this paper, three separate standards and how they apply to both
geographical concepts and thus skills will be discussed. It should also be
noted that standards can be used in relation to many different skills, and
skills can often relate to multiple competencies. However, to reduce confusion,
only one standard, skill and competency will be discussed in relation to each
other at any given point in time.
 |
| Figure 1.1: The image above is a flow chart depicting the relational connection between standards, skills and competencies. |
Within the article published by
National Geographic (2012), eighteen separate standards are listed in relation
to geography. The first standard listed is the ability to use maps and other
spatial methods, in correlation with spatial thinking to both understand and
convey geographic information. This standard, according to National Geographic
(2012) is a fundamental element for viewing the world in spatial terms. To me,
this standard can be directly associated with Solem’s (2008) concept of Spatial
thinking. According to Solem (2008), spatial thinking is the ability to
identify and explain the meaning within different spatial patterns by looking
at the interconnectedness, differences and similarities of places. Spatial
thinking can then be associated with GeoTech’s (2014) competency of critical
and analytical thinking. The reason I associate this competency with spatial
thinking is because to think spatially is to think critically about a place and
the attributes of it.
The next standard I will discuss is
as National Geographic (2012) states as how human actions can then modify the
physical environment around them. I believe that is standard can be directly
linked to Solem’s (2008) concept of the human-environment interaction. Solem
(2008) specifies the human-environment interaction as the ability to both know
and apply geographic information on the relationship between nature and
society. Furthermore, I then related this concept with GeoTech’s (2014)
competency of checking, examining and recording data. To me, studying
human-environment interactions often deals with looking at how objects change
over time. However to be able to examine and check this change, data needs to
be recorded in the first place.
The final standard in review is
referred by National Geographic (2012) as being able to analyze the spatial
organization of different people, places, and environments on Earth’s surface.
I believe that this standard is then interlinked with Solem’s (2008) concept of
global perspective. Solem (2008) affiliates global perspective as being able to
both possess and apply spatial knowledge of how people, places, and regions are
all linked by global networks and processes. As can be seen, Solem’s concept is
essentially reenforcing the standard set forth by National Geographic (2012).
Then just like Solem’s(2008) concept of critical thinking, I associated Solem’s
other concept of global perspective with GeoTech’s (2014) competency of critical
and analytical think. This is because I believe to apply spatial knowledge to
different global networks one must first critically think about what is
happening in the first place.
In our previous assignment, we were
asked to both look at and discuss the four main traditions of geography,
outlined by Pattison (1964) and then associate it to our own style within
geography as a discipline. Within that assignment I concluded that I was most
closely associated with Pattison’s human-environmental tradition. To further
this connection, within this assignment we were asked to relate our chosen
tradition to the concepts, competencies, and standards previously outlined
above. Thus I believe that to be able to be competent within my chosen
tradition, I must be able to critically think, examine, and record data on
concepts such as human-enviromental interactions on both a local and global
scale. As this paper has shown, the links between standards, concepts and
competencies is very closely linked. Yet in discussing these ideas, a better
understanding of how these topics are linked to my personal tradition can be
made in hopes of providing more valuable data within my field.
GeoTech Center. "Geospatial Technology Competency Model
Clearinghouse." Geospatial Technology. (2014)
https://www.careeronestop.org/competencymodel/competency-models/geospatial-technology.aspx.
Roger M. Downs, Chair. "National Geography Standards
Index."National Geographic 2
(2012). http://nationalgeographic.org/standards/national-geography-standards/.
Solem, Michael. “Skills in Professional Geography: An Assessment
of Workforce Needs and Expectations” The Professional Geographer 60, no.
3 (2008): 356-373
Pattison, William D. “The Four Traditions of Geography.” The
Journal of Geography 63, no. 5 (May 1964): 211-16
No comments:
Post a Comment