This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 02 December 2014, At: 23:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Social StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vtss20

Promoting Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Mapsin Elementary ClassroomsAva L. McCall aa Curriculum and Instruction , University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh , Oshkosh, Wisconsin, USAPublished online: 22 Apr 2011.

To cite this article: Ava L. McCall (2011) Promoting Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps in Elementary Classrooms, TheSocial Studies, 102:3, 132-138, DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2010.538759

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2010.538759

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

The Social Studies (2011) 102, 132–138Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0037-7996 print / 2152-405X onlineDOI: 10.1080/00377996.2010.538759

Promoting Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps inElementary Classrooms

AVA L. McCALL

Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, USA

This article encourages elementary teachers to offer opportunities for their students to critically analyze maps as part of powerfulgeography instruction in order to help them become well-informed and civic-minded citizens. The article reviews challenges topowerful geography instruction, including traditional geography textbooks and pedagogy and the additional efforts needed toencourage students to examine maps critically and identify distortions and biases. Teachers may introduce critical map reading byhaving students create and analyze their own maps of familiar places and create a safe classroom environment for questioning maps.The article suggests teachers encourage critical thinking with maps by using a variety of projections, such as conformal, equal area,and “upside down” maps which portray different perspectives, distortions, and biases, ask students to compare land areas on differentmaps, and determine the value of different maps. Finally, the article describes the effectiveness of several strategies the author useswith preservice elementary teachers in a social studies methods course to help them consider the cartographer’s influence on maps,the distortions and biases in maps, and the strengths and weaknesses of various maps they might use in elementary classrooms.

Keywords: maps, social studies, elementary, geography, critical thinking, inquiry

As social studies educators, are we using the geographictools of maps to help students become well-informed andcivic-minded citizens? Are we encouraging children to thinkcritically about maps just as we invite them to analyze var-ious interpretations of people, places, and events in texts?Do we provide opportunities for students to question thedifferent representations they create in their own maps aswell as those created by professional cartographers in com-mercially produced maps? One aspect of powerful teach-ing is to challenge students’ thinking, introduce them tomany information sources with varying perspectives, anduse critical thinking questions (National Council for theSocial Studies 1994). Are we asking such questions as, Whyis Greenland depicted larger than South America on themap? Why is Antarctica spread out like a melting ice cubeat the “bottom” of the world? Why is north often positioned“up” and at the top of maps?

On the other hand, is it realistic to expect elementaryteachers to encourage critical reading of maps as well asfind time to teach basic geographic knowledge and skillsfrom the national geographic standards and the people,places, and environments thematic strand from the nationalsocial studies standards? Are we expecting too much from

Address correspondence to Ava L. McCall, Curriculum and In-struction, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, 800 Algoma Boule-vard, Oshkosh, WI 54901, USA. Email: mccall@uwosh.edu

elementary students if we ask them to question maps? Inthis article, I argue for the importance of critical think-ing and questioning when students create and work withmaps despite the many challenges to do so, including howgeography has typically been taught. I review reasons forencouraging critical analysis of maps, suggestions for in-tegrating critical thinking when using maps in elementaryclassrooms, and my own experiences in encouraging preser-vice elementary teachers to question geographic tools theymay use in their own classrooms.

Challenges to Powerful Geography Instruction

A major impediment to challenging but engaging geogra-phy instruction is a legacy of ineffective pedagogy and text-books. Until the twentieth century, geography instructionin elementary schools focused on the location of placeson maps, memorization, and recitation (Halvorsen 2009;Libbee and Stoltman 1988; Sharma and Elbow 2000). Earlygeography textbooks primarily concentrated on geographicfacts (Libbee and Stoltman 1988), and elementary stu-dents were not required to use higher levels of thinking,including critical thinking. When the progressive move-ment influenced the elementary social studies curriculumin the early twentieth century, the “expanding horizons”model became more prevalent with the content extendingeach year from the child to the neighborhood, community,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

25 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps 133

region, state, country, hemisphere, and the world (Libbeeand Stoltman 1988). Despite this attempt to make socialstudies and geography more relevant to children’s lives, el-ementary geography textbooks and teaching typically con-centrated on miscellaneous and trivial facts rather than un-derstanding and using powerful geographical knowledge.Textbooks offered an array of facts without encouragingstudents to make connections, explanations, or to use criti-cal thinking. When researchers studied geography teaching,they observed a focus on map work and factual details with-out asking students to understand why places are locatedwhere they are and reasons for their physical and humancharacteristics (Brophy and Alleman 2007). If teachers donot include critical thinking skills with geography, they mayrevert to an emphasis on memorization of facts, which hin-ders students from thinking carefully about the world andbecoming active citizens (Sharma and Elbow 2000).

Using maps uncritically and encouraging students toaccept rather than question map distortions and biasespresent another challenge to powerful geography teaching.If teachers do not offer opportunities for students to ques-tion the accuracies of maps, they contribute to students’development of inaccurate visual images of their communi-ties, regions, countries, and world. Teachers should encour-age students to understand the impossible task for cartog-raphers to represent the curved surface of the Earth on aflattened surface of a world map without introducing someerror in the surface. Cartographers have developed methodsto minimize error in distance or scale, direction, areas, andshapes. However, there is no way to correct all the distor-tions at the same time, which means all flat maps have somedistortion (Douglass 1998; Vuicich et al. 1988). World mapshave the greatest problem with distortion because they de-pict such a large area on a flat surface (Douglass 1998).The most significant distortions in maps for elementarystudents are the size and shapes of land and water areas.Teachers need to ask how correctly the maps depict the sizeof landmasses so that students can compare relative sizesof different continents or countries. By questioning the ac-curacy of the shapes of land portrayed on maps, teacherscan help students create more representative mental mapsof various landmasses. Satellite images of the Earth oftenprovide more accurate portrayals of the size and shape oflandmasses than flat maps (Douglass 1988).

In addition to the challenge to call students’ attentionto distortions in maps while teaching geography is the ad-ditional effort to encourage students to identify biases inmaps. Map distortions are necessitated by depicting an im-perfect sphere, the Earth, on a flat surface, a map. How-ever, biases are the results of the cartographer’s decisionsabout what to include and omit on maps. In fact, “all maps,inevitably, unavoidably, necessarily embody their authors’prejudices, biases, and partialities” (Wood 1992, 24). Biasesinclude the cartographer’s decisions about the orientationof the map with regard to cardinal directions, the coun-tries or continents that are placed in the center of the map,

the continents that are portrayed wholistically and thosethat are divided, and the position of the equator, whichcan lead to an emphasis on one hemisphere over another.For example, most classroom maps place north at the top;however, polar directions have nothing to do with what isat the top or bottom of the map (Douglass 1998). Manymap projections place Europe and the Americas in the cen-ter of the map and split Asia into two landmasses, whichreflect a European or Western bias (Segall 2003). DenisWood (1992) asserts that the more popular map projec-tions exaggerate the landmasses of the higher latitudes orthe northern hemisphere, which include North Americaand Europe. This exaggeration of the northern hemisphereis accomplished by positioning the equator below the mid-point of the map (Kaiser 1987). One of the most notoriousmaps depicting distortions and bias is the Mercator projec-tion prepared in 1569, which is still being used and shapingpeople’s views of the world (Kaiser 1987). The AmericanCartographic Association admits that people tend to ac-cept maps, including inaccurate ones. “We tend to believewhat we see, and when fundamental geographic relation-ships, such as shapes, sizes, directions and so on, are badlydistorted, we are inclined to accept them as fact if we seethem that way on maps” (quoted in Wood 1992, 59). Onthe Mercator projection, the sizes of landmasses becomeincreasingly exaggerated from the equator to the poles,which result in significant size distortions in the north-ern hemisphere. The shapes of landmasses on the Mercatorprojection are accurate at the equator but become more dis-torted toward the poles. Overall, the Mercator projectionexaggerates the sizes of European colonizing nations whilediminishing the sizes of many colonized nations (Wood1992).

Finally, teachers are challenged to exceed the nationalgeographic standards when they encourage their studentsto critique the accuracy of maps as geographic tools. Thestandards expect K-4 students to identify and describe thecharacteristics and purposes of geographic representationsand tools; show spatial information on geographic repre-sentations; use geographic representations, tools, and tech-nologies to answer geographic questions; identify majorphysical and human features using maps, globes, and othersources of geographic information; use mental maps toidentify locations; sketch accurate maps showing physicaland human features; and describe geographic features onmental maps (National Geographic Research and Explo-ration 1994). The thematic strand of people, places, and en-vironments from the National Council for the Social Stud-ies national standards expects primary students (K-4) to“construct and use mental maps of locales, regions, and theworld that demonstrate understanding of relative location,direction, size, and shape”; “interpret, use, and distinguishvarious representations of the earth, such as maps, globes,and photographs”; and “use appropriate resources, datasources, and geographic tools such as atlases, databases,grid systems, charts, graphs, and maps to generate,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

25 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

134 McCall

manipulate, and interpret information” (National Coun-cil for the Social Studies 1994, 54).

The standards require students to use higher-level think-ing skills in their creation and use of maps and other geo-graphic tools. However, none of these standards explicitlyasks students to question the accuracy of maps, despitestudents’ need for valid information to construct repre-sentative mental maps showing the sizes and shapes oflandmasses in the world. Is this an omission in the na-tional geographic standards, or do the authors underes-timate elementary students’ capabilities for critical think-ing and questioning? Nonetheless, elementary teachers arechallenged to not only address all the given geographicstandards, but extend the standards with opportunities forelementary students to question the accuracy of maps theycreate and use.

Preparing for Active Citizenship by Questioning Maps

The overall goal of social studies is to help students “makeinformed and reasoned decisions for the public good” (Na-tional Council for the Social Studies 1994, 157), whichmeans they must have reliable information on which tomake such decisions. When teachers encourage studentsto consider problems and make decisions relying on geo-graphic knowledge, they must introduce students to differ-ent geographic tools, including maps, as well as encouragethem to question the accuracy, perspective, and bias ofthese tools in their search for correct information. Socialstudies as a field has encouraged students to read criticallyvarious media, including printed texts and videos, by ques-tioning their purpose, assumptions, values, and persuasivestrategies. Unfortunately, maps seem to be excluded fromthis scrutiny (Segall 2003). However, “[a]ll maps also em-body their authors’ perspectives, assumptions, and biases”(Segall 2003, 21) and should receive the same critical exam-ination as other media.

Are elementary students capable of critically examin-ing maps and other geographic tools? Avner Segall (2003)claims that upper-elementary students can engage in sucha critical analysis of maps and suggests several activitiesfor doing so. In addition, Timothy Lintner (2010) assertsthat elementary students are able to develop a critical ge-ographic awareness by examining the relationship betweenhumans and their environment as portrayed in children’sliterature. As students read a text dealing with the theme ofhuman–environment interaction, they think about the issuebeing portrayed, how characters in the text responded tothe issue, and how they might respond to the issue. Lintnerclaims that elementary students may choose to investigatesuch issues as deforestation or global warming, read vari-ous texts on the issue, and take action based on what theylearned.

If elementary students are capable of critically examin-ing children’s literature, they should also be able to apply

critical analysis in the use of maps. Segall (2003) supportsthis conclusion with his claim that questioning maps isnot beyond the capabilities of upper-elementary students.The following example illustrates the possibilities. An el-ementary class is considering how to improve the schoolplayground to make it a more welcoming and useful envi-ronment for all students. However, the class needs an accu-rate map of the current playground showing its dimensions,boundaries, permanent and moveable equipment, and ar-eas marked for specific activities. The class may also gatherinformation about the playground by walking to it and ob-serving it carefully. Small groups may cooperatively sketchmaps of the playground as it currently exists and take pho-tographs of it from different perspectives or vantage points.The teacher and students can compare the various mapsand photographs to illustrate how they reflect what themapmakers and photographers considered important toinclude and less important to omit. The critical discussionsof the playground maps and photographs can be part of theproblem-solving process as the class considers the currentplayground and ways to improve it so that students withdifferent physical abilities, skills, and cultural backgroundscan use and enjoy it.

Recommendations for Powerful Geography Instruction

Teachers can build a foundation for powerful geography in-struction by having young elementary students create andthen analyze their own maps of familiar places they haveexperienced. Social studies researchers (Brophy and Alle-man 2007; Douglass 1998; Seefeldt 2005) recommend thatyoung children make maps before reading maps createdby others. Through the creation of their own maps, youngstudents can learn about such map characteristics as scale,perspective, symbols, and map keys in a meaningful way(Brophy and Alleman 2007; Seefeldt 2005). For example,early elementary students can make maps of their class-room, school, playground, and neighborhood. They cancompare and contrast their maps regarding their maps’perspective, or the angle from which the map is drawn,such as pictorial (frontal view), panoramic (elevated view),or aerial (bird’s eye view) (Sobel 1998). In addition, theycan observe similarities and differences in the symbols theyused on their maps, where they placed the cardinal direc-tions, and what they chose to include and omit. By ana-lyzing the differences among their maps drawn of the sameplace, young students can understand that cartographersinfluence their maps.

Social studies teachers should also set up a safe class-room environment for encouraging students to questiongeographic tools and texts to promote powerful geographyinstruction. Martha Sharma and Gary Elbow (2000) claimthat if teachers want to encourage critical thinking in geog-raphy, they must promote questioning and more than oneright answer, regard knowledge as changing, and encourage

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

25 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps 135

students to test out their ideas and different views withoutfear of criticism. Therefore, teachers may introduce mapsas cartographers’ interpretations and depictions of placesthat are open to scrutiny and encourage students to offerdifferent readings of maps and reasons for their readings.

One means of achieving a safe classroom environment forquestioning is to develop a learning community. Jere Bro-phy and Janet Alleman (2007) recommend that teachersdevelop a learning community to establish an environmentfor powerful teaching and learning. At the beginning of theschool year, the teacher and students should collaborativelyidentify the goals for their classroom, how they can set upthe physical environment to help meet the goals, agree onrules and procedures, and decide on descriptions of howthe classroom might look, sound, and feel. The teacher andstudents might role-play how they would handle studentsoffering different and contrasting ideas without ridicule orcriticism; listen to and respond carefully to others, espe-cially when those ideas are in conflict; ask for and providesupportive evidence for ideas rather than accept statementsat face value; and work together. By establishing an en-vironment that encourages and respects many points ofview and the value of asking questions, teachers providea supportive context for critical thinking and inquiry withmaps.

Once teachers have established a safe environment forquestioning, they need time for powerful geography in-struction. However, the amount of instructional time de-voted to social studies has decreased since the passage ofthe No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 (Rentner 2006). Oneway that teachers may find more time to teach basic ge-ographic knowledge and skills as well as critical readingsof maps is to integrate geography with other areas of thecurriculum. The use of maps can easily be integrated withliteracy as students identify settings of stories, trace storycharacters’ travel routes, and identify physical and humanenvironments of story settings on maps. In mathematics,students can measure and compare the areas of differentlandmasses on several maps and the distance from one placeto another using the various map scales. During informalsharing time or morning meetings, students can identifywhere their families have lived and traveled, draw the routethe class is taking on a field trip, and discuss the physicaland human characteristics of places where local, national,and world events are occurring.

Teachers may also reinforce opportunities to criticallyexamine maps by establishing a geography or map centerfor students to use independently. The center could containdifferent types of maps for students to become familiarwith, manipulate, and notice similarities and differencesamong them. The map center may have large photographsof the school, playground, or neighborhood that studentscould use to create their own maps of those places. Thenthe children could compare their maps for similarities anddifferences even though they created them from the samephotographs.

Powerful geography instruction also requires that teach-ers have access to the necessary geographic tools, includingmaps. Social studies researchers recommend that teachersuse different maps when teaching geography (Brophy andAlleman 2007; Natoli 1988). Maps are essential geographictools, and a variety of them are needed to foster criticalthinking about them. After young students create their ownmaps of familiar places, discuss the various components ofmaps, such as map scale, symbols, perspective, and orien-tation of the cardinal directions, and compare and contrasttheir original maps; teachers may use published maps ofsmall areas, including the local neighborhood or commu-nity. Although the chances of distortion are decreased inmaps of small areas, the cartographer’s bias in decisionsabout what to include, omit, and the orientation of the mapto the cardinal directions is likely present. By showing morethan one map of the local neighborhood and community,students can see differences in the maps.

When teachers are ready to introduce world maps totheir elementary students, there are many map projectionsfrom which to choose. Heidi Hayes Jacobs (2010) assertsthat in a curriculum for the twenty-first century, studentsneed to use different world maps rather than rely on theMercator projection developed in 1569. However, the Mer-cator and other conformal maps can be used to compare tocontrasting world map projections. Furthermore, it wouldbe valuable for teachers to use at least one example of con-formal, equal area, compromise, and “upside-down” worldmaps to provoke critical thinking about maps. Conformalmaps, such as the Mercator, portray the shapes of land-masses accurately but distort their sizes, especially in thehigher latitudes. Equal area maps, such as the Peters pro-jection, show the sizes of landmasses more accurately sothat students can develop a more correct conception of therelative sizes of land areas; however, they distort the shapesof these areas to achieve accurate size. Compromise maps,such as the Winkel Tripel projection adopted by the Na-tional Geographic Society, have been attempts to minimizeboth shape and size distortion, although some remains. Fi-nally, using an “upside-down” world map with the southernhemisphere positioned at the top of the map can stimulatestudents’ thinking about the typical orientation of mapswith north placed at the top (ODT 1999).

A final, but important, component of powerful geogra-phy instruction is engaging activities and critical thinkingquestions. Segall (2003) suggests several instructional ac-tivities to provoke upper-elementary students to think crit-ically about maps. One way that students can understandthat cartographers influence their maps by deciding what toinclude or omit is for small groups of students to constructa map of the same area, such as the classroom, school,or playground. The groups compare their completed mapsand discuss reasons for the differences in them. The teachermay ask, why are your maps different if you mapped thesame area? Why did you include the physical features ofthe school and the map components that you did? Why

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

25 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

136 McCall

did you omit some physical features and map components?How might you change your map to include additionalschool features or eliminate some of the map componentsyou included?

Another of Segall’s (2003) recommendations is to pro-vide opportunities for small groups of students to learn toevaluate maps. The teacher provides the same set of severaldifferent maps to each group, such as a political map, arelief map, a satellite photograph of an area, and a roadmap. Students must rank the maps from the best to theworst and give reasons for their ratings. The teacher mayask, why did you rank the maps the way you did? What doyou consider important to include in a map? Why? What isless important? Why?

Yet another valuable activity that Seagall (2003) recom-mends is to encourage students to determine how land areasare distorted on maps. Small groups of students are giventhe task of comparing the sizes of landmasses on a worldmap, such as the Mercator, a conformal map; the Petersprojection, an equal area map; and the Winkel Tripel pro-jection, a compromise map. The students are to rank thesize of landmasses of Greenland, North America, SouthAmerica, Australia, Africa, and Europe from largest tosmallest according to the way they are depicted on one ofthe maps. Each group records its rankings for each landarea on a class chart, and the class compares the rankings.The teacher provides the accurate area for each landmass.Then the teacher may ask, which landmasses are portrayedlarger than they are? Why might the cartographer chooseto exaggerate these land areas? Which landmasses are por-trayed smaller than they are? Why might the cartographerchoose to minimize those land areas? Which maps showthe greatest distortion? Which maps show the least? Theseactivities and questions invite elementary students to thinkcritically about maps, consider the cartographer’s influenceon what to include or omit on maps, the distortion thatoccurs on maps, and the value of different maps for mapreaders.

Preparing Preservice Teachers for Powerful GeographyInstruction

For most of the twenty years I have prepared preserviceteachers for teaching social studies in K-8 classrooms, Ihave asked them to critically examine maps and offer sim-ilar opportunities to their own students. We consider thecartographer’s influence on maps, the distortions and biasesin maps, and the strengths and weaknesses of various mapsthey might use in elementary classrooms. Throughout thesemester we also critically examine social studies textbooks,children’s literature with social studies themes, Web sites,software, photographs, and interviews for their perspec-tives, possible biases, and their authenticity and reliabilityas social studies sources of information. However, some

preservice teachers are surprised to consider that maps re-flect their creators’ perspective and biases.

Creating individual maps of our methods classroom isvery effective in helping preservice teachers conclude thatcartographers influence their maps. When the preserviceteachers compare their informally hand-drawn maps, theynotice different details in the physical features of the class-room on their maps. Some include all the student tables,chairs, computers, computer tables, teaching table and com-puter, storage cabinet, computer control cabinet, and doorsto other rooms while others omit some of these features. Afew use rulers to ensure straight lines while most draw freehand. At times, preservice teachers observe that they drewtheir maps from the exact place where they are sitting,which clearly shows their perspective and the differencesfrom the perspective of maps drawn by preservice teacherssitting in other locations. Some students include a map title,map key, and compass rose, while others do not. Followingour discussion of the preservice teachers’ maps, one studentobserves the significance of biases in maps:

After creating a map of the classroom and then discussingour maps, I learned that maps are biased because someoneis always behind the map creating what they “see.” Therewere many differences between all our maps. Lots of peopleadded things I didn’t even think of. I didn’t think of includ-ing things like a key, compass rose, etc. (student’s journal,April 12, 2010)

Another student notes the cartographer’s influence onmaps: “I enjoyed the map activity at the beginning of class.This really showed how every cartographer finds differentthings important. Then we could look at other maps andpoint out what those cartographers thought were impor-tant” (student’s journal, April 12, 2010).

The comparison of relative sizes of landmasses on theirmental maps of the world is another effective activity inguiding preservice teachers to conclude that their concep-tions of the size of landmasses have been influenced byworld maps with distortions. Before our class session, Iasked the preservice teachers to complete a Prior Knowl-edge of Maps by using their “mental maps of the world”to answer such questions: Which has more square miles,Europe or South America? Does Alaska or Mexico have alarger landmass? Which has a larger landmass, the Scan-dinavian countries of Norway, Sweden, and Finland, orIndia? When the class compares their responses, and I in-form them of the areas of each continent and country,many of the students recognize they have inaccuracies intheir “mental maps.”

Another very powerful teaching strategy is the class com-parison of three different world maps: the Mercator pro-jection (conformal map), the Peters projection (equal areamap), and The World Turned Upside Down (upside-downmap) (all are available from ODT at http://www.odt.org/).The “upside-down” map places the southern hemisphereat the top of the map whereas both the Mercator and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

25 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps 137

Peters projections place the northern hemisphere at the top.This activity illustrates that all maps have distortions andbiases. We discuss the cartographer’s values, assumptions,and perspectives in their decisions about what continentsto place at the top of their map, the continent to place inthe map’s center, where to place the equator to emphasizethe northern or southern hemisphere, which landmassesto exaggerate in size, which to diminish in size, and whichlandmasses to distort in shape to show area more accu-rately. Several preservice teachers observe that the Petersprojection appears strange in how some landmasses seemstretched out. Several note that their mental world map ismore similar to the Mercator projection than to the Petersprojection. However, a preservice teacher who grew up inJapan claims that the world map she used in school placedJapan in the center. When she saw the world maps usedin the United States, it was difficult for her to find Japanon them. We examine a map that places Australia at thetop and center and discuss why students and teachers inAustralia may prefer this map over other world map pro-jections. Most preservice teachers have never worked withan “upside-down” map before.

Studying the upside down maps was new to me. I had neverreally seen upside down maps, let alone investigate them. Itbrought a new perspective to looking at maps of the worldand how places are displayed. It is a great tool to use inthe classroom because it shows how people depict what isimportant on maps either right side up or upside down.(student’s journal, April 12, 2010)

Finally, the preservice teachers conclude that all mapshave valuable features as well as drawbacks by working inpairs to analyze and evaluate different world and U.S. deskmaps, wall maps, relief maps, and map puzzles. They discussthe cartographer’s main purpose, values, assumptions, andbiases in creating the maps, the strengths and weaknesses ofthe maps, and how they might use them in their elementaryclassrooms. Many realize the value of using several mapswhen teaching so their elementary students can see differentdepictions of the world. However, one preservice teacherdoubts the use of several different maps is beneficial foryoung students.

Seeing all the different types of maps was interesting. WhenI was in school, I remember looking at only one type ofmap and one type of globe. I was surprised at how manydifferent types of maps there are. I think it is important tosee these different types of maps, but I also think that onetype of map should be used in the primary grades. I think asstudents are first being exposed to maps, it should be keptsimple. To introduce different types of maps could confusemany of the students. (student’s journal, April 12, 2010)

Although her perspective is in the minority, we discussthe importance of having young students first draw theirown maps of familiar places. However, these maps will likelybe different, showing the mapmaker’s perspectives and bi-

ases. Most preservice teachers see the value in encouragingelementary students to critically analyze different maps.

Teachers can encourage higher-level thinking by showingstudents multiple maps that display a variety of interpre-tations and allow them to point out the advantages anddisadvantages between them. It’s become pretty obvious tome that no single map can accurately display shape, area,and location all at once. (student’s journal, April 12, 2010)

In addition, a few preservice teachers generalize the im-portance of elementary students thinking critically aboutall sources of information, including maps.

I always knew really old maps were inaccurate, but I neverthought about current maps having a bias. I think it isreally important to teach students to be critical consumersof information in all forms. It is still hard for me to doubtinformation that seems credible. If students are asked tothink about the information they are being presented, thenthey will be able to be critical of all information withoutbeing asked. (student’s journal, April 12, 2010)

Conclusion

Are we asking too much of elementary teachers to provideopportunities for their students to draw their own maps offamiliar places, compare their original maps for similaritiesand differences, and critically examine a variety of pub-lished maps? Are elementary students capable of thinkingcritically and considering the possibility that maps reflecttheir cartographers’ perspectives and biases? Can youngstudents build on their careful review of different sourcesof information, including maps, for their accuracy and re-liability when they solve problems for the common good?Are we willing to take another step to prepare students tobecome active citizens by critiquing maps? A number ofpreservice teachers are willing to assume this challenge andprovide powerful geography instruction for their elemen-tary students. Will you join us?

References

Brophy, J., and J. Alleman. 2007. Powerful social studies for elementarystudents. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

Douglass, M. P. 1998. The history, psychology, and pedagogy of geographicliteracy. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Halvorsen, A. 2009. Back to the future: The expanding communitiescurriculum in geography education. The Social Studies 100: 115–119.

Jacobs, H. H. 2010. Upgrading content: Provocation, invigoration, andreplacement. In Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changingworld, ed. H. H. Jacobs, 30–59. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Kaiser, W. L. 1987. A new view of the world: A handbook to the world map:Peters projection. New York: Friendship.

Libbee, M., and J. Stoltman. 1988. Geography within the social studiescurriculum. In Strengthening geography in the social studies: BulletinNo. 81, ed. S. J. Natoli, 22–42. Washington DC: National Councilfor the Social Studies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

25 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014

138 McCall

Lintner, T. 2010. Using children’s literature to promote critical geo-graphic awareness in elementary classrooms. The Social Studies 101:17–21.

National Council for the Social Studies. 1994. Expectations of excellence:Curriculum standards for social studies. Washington, DC: NationalCouncil for the Social Studies.

National Geographic Research and Exploration. 1994. Geography forlife: National geography standards. Washington, DC: National Ge-ographic Research and Exploration.

Natoli, S. J. 1988. Getting geography into the curriculum part 2: Imple-menting a geography program. In Strengthening geography in thesocial studies: Bulletin No. 81, ed. S. J. Natoli, 97–105. WashingtonDC: National Council for the Social Studies.

ODT. 1999. An explanation of the Peters world map. Amherst, MA: ODT.Rentner, D. S. 2006. From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No

Child Left Behind Act. Center on Education Policy. http://www.cep-

dc.org http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=29&C:\FusionMX7\verity\Data\dummy.txt(accessed June 1, 2007).

Seefeldt, C. 2005. Social studies for the preschool/primary child. 7th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Segall, A. 2003. Maps as stories about the world. Social Studies and theYoung Learner 16: 21–25.

Sharma, M. B., and G. S. Elbow. 2000. Using Internet primary sources toteach critical thinking skills in geography. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Sobel, D. 1998. Mapmaking with children: Sense of place education forthe elementary years. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Vuicich, J., J. Stoltman, and R. G. Boehm. 1988. The fundamental skills ofgeography. In Strengthening geography in the social studies: BulletinNo. 81, ed. S. J. Natoli, 72–92. Washington, DC: National Councilfor the Social Studies.

Wood, D. 1992. The power of maps. New York: Guilford.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

25 0

2 D

ecem

ber

2014