This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]

On: 02 December 2014, At: 23:25

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Social Studies

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

Promoting Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps

in Elementary Classrooms
a
Ava L. McCall
a
Curriculum and Instruction , University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh , Oshkosh, Wisconsin, USA
Published online: 22 Apr 2011.

To cite this article: Ava L. McCall (2011) Promoting Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps in Elementary Classrooms, The
Social 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”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form 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, 132–138
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0037-7996 print / 2152-405X online

DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2010.538759

Promoting Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps in

Elementary Classrooms
AVA L. McCALL
Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, USA
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:25 02 December 2014

This article encourages elementary teachers to offer opportunities for their students to critically analyze maps as part of powerful
geography instruction in order to help them become well-informed and civic-minded citizens. The article reviews challenges to
powerful geography instruction, including traditional geography textbooks and pedagogy and the additional efforts needed to
encourage students to examine maps critically and identify distortions and biases. Teachers may introduce critical map reading by
having 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 different
maps, and determine the value of different maps. Finally, the article describes the effectiveness of several strategies the author uses
with 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 geographic
tools of maps to help students become well-informed and
civic-minded citizens? Are we encouraging children to think
critically 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 the
different representations they create in their own maps as
well as those created by professional cartographers in com-
mercially produced maps? One aspect of powerful teach-
ing is to challenge students’ thinking, introduce them to
many information sources with varying perspectives, and
use critical thinking questions (National Council for the
Social Studies 1994). Are we asking such questions as, Why
is Greenland depicted larger than South America on the
map? Why is Antarctica spread out like a melting ice cube
at 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 elementary
teachers to encourage critical reading of maps as well as
find time to teach basic geographic knowledge and skills
from the national geographic standards and the people,
places, and environments thematic strand from the national
social 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? In
this article, I argue for the importance of critical think-
ing and questioning when students create and work with
maps despite the many challenges to do so, including how
geography has typically been taught. I review reasons for
encouraging critical analysis of maps, suggestions for in-
tegrating critical thinking when using maps in elementary
classrooms, and my own experiences in encouraging preser-
vice elementary teachers to question geographic tools they
may 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 instruction
in elementary schools focused on the location of places
on maps, memorization, and recitation (Halvorsen 2009;
Libbee and Stoltman 1988; Sharma and Elbow 2000). Early
geography textbooks primarily concentrated on geographic
facts (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 curriculum
in the early twentieth century, the “expanding horizons”
model became more prevalent with the content extending
each year from the child to the neighborhood, community,
 Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps
region, state, country, hemisphere, and the world (Libbee
and Stoltman 1988). Despite this attempt to make social
studies 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 encouraging
students 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 located
where they are and reasons for their physical and human
characteristics (Brophy and Alleman 2007). If teachers do
not include critical thinking skills with geography, they may
revert to an emphasis on memorization of facts, which hin-
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:25 02 December 2014
ders students from thinking carefully about the world and
becoming active citizens (Sharma and Elbow 2000).
Using maps uncritically and encouraging students to
accept rather than question map distortions and biases
present 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 a
flattened surface of a world map without introducing some
error in the surface. Cartographers have developed methods
to minimize error in distance or scale, direction, areas, and
shapes. However, there is no way to correct all the distor-
tions at the same time, which means all flat maps have some
distortion (Douglass 1998; Vuicich et al. 1988). World maps
have 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 elementary
students are the size and shapes of land and water areas.
Teachers need to ask how correctly the maps depict the size
of landmasses so that students can compare relative sizes
of different continents or countries. By questioning the ac-
curacy of the shapes of land portrayed on maps, teachers
can help students create more representative mental maps
of various landmasses. Satellite images of the Earth often
provide more accurate portrayals of the size and shape of
landmasses than flat maps (Douglass 1988).
In addition to the challenge to call students’ attention
to distortions in maps while teaching geography is the ad-
ditional effort to encourage students to identify biases in
maps. 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 decisions
about what to include and omit on maps. In fact, “all maps,
inevitably, unavoidably, necessarily embody their authors’
prejudices, biases, and partialities” (Wood 1992, 24). Biases
include the cartographer’s decisions about the orientation
of the map with regard to cardinal directions, the coun-
tries or continents that are placed in the center of the map,
133
the continents that are portrayed wholistically and those
that are divided, and the position of the equator, which
can 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 is
at the top or bottom of the map (Douglass 1998). Many
map projections place Europe and the Americas in the cen-
ter of the map and split Asia into two landmasses, which
reflect a European or Western bias (Segall 2003). Denis
Wood (1992) asserts that the more popular map projec-
tions exaggerate the landmasses of the higher latitudes or
the northern hemisphere, which include North America
and Europe. This exaggeration of the northern hemisphere
is accomplished by positioning the equator below the mid-
point of the map (Kaiser 1987). One of the most notorious
maps depicting distortions and bias is the Mercator projec-
tion prepared in 1569, which is still being used and shaping
people’s views of the world (Kaiser 1987). The American
Cartographic Association admits that people tend to ac-
cept maps, including inaccurate ones. “We tend to believe
what we see, and when fundamental geographic relation-
ships, such as shapes, sizes, directions and so on, are badly
distorted, we are inclined to accept them as fact if we see
them that way on maps” (quoted in Wood 1992, 59). On
the Mercator projection, the sizes of landmasses become
increasingly exaggerated from the equator to the poles,
which result in significant size distortions in the north-
ern hemisphere. The shapes of landmasses on the Mercator
projection are accurate at the equator but become more dis-
torted toward the poles. Overall, the Mercator projection
exaggerates the sizes of European colonizing nations while
diminishing the sizes of many colonized nations (Wood
1992).
Finally, teachers are challenged to exceed the national
geographic standards when they encourage their students
to critique the accuracy of maps as geographic tools. The
standards expect K-4 students to identify and describe the
characteristics and purposes of geographic representations
and tools; show spatial information on geographic repre-
sentations; use geographic representations, tools, and tech-
nologies to answer geographic questions; identify major
physical and human features using maps, globes, and other
sources of geographic information; use mental maps to
identify locations; sketch accurate maps showing physical
and human features; and describe geographic features on
mental 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 the
world that demonstrate understanding of relative location,
direction, size, and shape”; “interpret, use, and distinguish
various representations of the earth, such as maps, globes,
and photographs”; and “use appropriate resources, data
sources, and geographic tools such as atlases, databases,
grid systems, charts, graphs, and maps to generate,
 134
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 explicitly
asks students to question the accuracy of maps, despite
students’ need for valid information to construct repre-
sentative mental maps showing the sizes and shapes of
landmasses 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 are
challenged to not only address all the given geographic
standards, but extend the standards with opportunities for
elementary students to question the accuracy of maps they
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:25 02 December 2014
create and use.
Preparing for Active Citizenship by Questioning Maps
The overall goal of social studies is to help students “make
informed and reasoned decisions for the public good” (Na-
tional Council for the Social Studies 1994, 157), which
means they must have reliable information on which to
make such decisions. When teachers encourage students
to consider problems and make decisions relying on geo-
graphic knowledge, they must introduce students to differ-
ent geographic tools, including maps, as well as encourage
them to question the accuracy, perspective, and bias of
these tools in their search for correct information. Social
studies as a field has encouraged students to read critically
various media, including printed texts and videos, by ques-
tioning their purpose, assumptions, values, and persuasive
strategies. Unfortunately, maps seem to be excluded from
this 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 such
a critical analysis of maps and suggests several activities
for doing so. In addition, Timothy Lintner (2010) asserts
that elementary students are able to develop a critical ge-
ographic awareness by examining the relationship between
humans and their environment as portrayed in children’s
literature. As students read a text dealing with the theme of
human–environment interaction, they think about the issue
being portrayed, how characters in the text responded to
the issue, and how they might respond to the issue. Lintner
claims that elementary students may choose to investigate
such issues as deforestation or global warming, read vari-
ous texts on the issue, and take action based on what they
learned.
If elementary students are capable of critically examin-
ing children’s literature, they should also be able to apply
McCall
critical analysis in the use of maps. Segall (2003) supports
this conclusion with his claim that questioning maps is
not beyond the capabilities of upper-elementary students.
The following example illustrates the possibilities. An el-
ementary class is considering how to improve the school
playground 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 gather
information about the playground by walking to it and ob-
serving it carefully. Small groups may cooperatively sketch
maps 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 maps
and photographs to illustrate how they reflect what the
mapmakers and photographers considered important to
include and less important to omit. The critical discussions
of the playground maps and photographs can be part of the
problem-solving process as the class considers the current
playground and ways to improve it so that students with
different physical abilities, skills, and cultural backgrounds
can 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 and
then analyze their own maps of familiar places they have
experienced. Social studies researchers (Brophy and Alle-
man 2007; Douglass 1998; Seefeldt 2005) recommend that
young children make maps before reading maps created
by others. Through the creation of their own maps, young
students 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 can
compare 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, they
can observe similarities and differences in the symbols they
used 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 same
place, young students can understand that cartographers
influence their maps.
Social studies teachers should also set up a safe class-
room environment for encouraging students to question
geographic tools and texts to promote powerful geography
instruction. Martha Sharma and Gary Elbow (2000) claim
that if teachers want to encourage critical thinking in geog-
raphy, they must promote questioning and more than one
right answer, regard knowledge as changing, and encourage
 Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps
students to test out their ideas and different views without
fear of criticism. Therefore, teachers may introduce maps
as cartographers’ interpretations and depictions of places
that are open to scrutiny and encourage students to offer
different readings of maps and reasons for their readings.
One means of achieving a safe classroom environment for
questioning is to develop a learning community. Jere Bro-
phy and Janet Alleman (2007) recommend that teachers
develop a learning community to establish an environment
for powerful teaching and learning. At the beginning of the
school year, the teacher and students should collaboratively
identify the goals for their classroom, how they can set up
the physical environment to help meet the goals, agree on
rules and procedures, and decide on descriptions of how
the classroom might look, sound, and feel. The teacher and
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:25 02 December 2014
students might role-play how they would handle students
offering different and contrasting ideas without ridicule or
criticism; listen to and respond carefully to others, espe-
cially when those ideas are in conflict; ask for and provide
supportive evidence for ideas rather than accept statements
at face value; and work together. By establishing an en-
vironment that encourages and respects many points of
view and the value of asking questions, teachers provide
a supportive context for critical thinking and inquiry with
maps.
Once teachers have established a safe environment for
questioning, they need time for powerful geography in-
struction. However, the amount of instructional time de-
voted to social studies has decreased since the passage of
the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 (Rentner 2006). One
way that teachers may find more time to teach basic ge-
ographic knowledge and skills as well as critical readings
of maps is to integrate geography with other areas of the
curriculum. The use of maps can easily be integrated with
literacy as students identify settings of stories, trace story
characters’ travel routes, and identify physical and human
environments of story settings on maps. In mathematics,
students can measure and compare the areas of different
landmasses on several maps and the distance from one place
to another using the various map scales. During informal
sharing time or morning meetings, students can identify
where their families have lived and traveled, draw the route
the class is taking on a field trip, and discuss the physical
and human characteristics of places where local, national,
and world events are occurring.
Teachers may also reinforce opportunities to critically
examine maps by establishing a geography or map center
for students to use independently. The center could contain
different types of maps for students to become familiar
with, manipulate, and notice similarities and differences
among them. The map center may have large photographs
of the school, playground, or neighborhood that students
could use to create their own maps of those places. Then
the children could compare their maps for similarities and
differences even though they created them from the same
photographs.
135
Powerful geography instruction also requires that teach-
ers have access to the necessary geographic tools, including
maps. Social studies researchers recommend that teachers
use different maps when teaching geography (Brophy and
Alleman 2007; Natoli 1988). Maps are essential geographic
tools, and a variety of them are needed to foster critical
thinking about them. After young students create their own
maps of familiar places, discuss the various components of
maps, such as map scale, symbols, perspective, and orien-
tation of the cardinal directions, and compare and contrast
their original maps; teachers may use published maps of
small areas, including the local neighborhood or commu-
nity. Although the chances of distortion are decreased in
maps of small areas, the cartographer’s bias in decisions
about what to include, omit, and the orientation of the map
to the cardinal directions is likely present. By showing more
than one map of the local neighborhood and community,
students can see differences in the maps.
When teachers are ready to introduce world maps to
their elementary students, there are many map projections
from which to choose. Heidi Hayes Jacobs (2010) asserts
that in a curriculum for the twenty-first century, students
need to use different world maps rather than rely on the
Mercator projection developed in 1569. However, the Mer-
cator and other conformal maps can be used to compare to
contrasting world map projections. Furthermore, it would
be valuable for teachers to use at least one example of con-
formal, equal area, compromise, and “upside-down” world
maps to provoke critical thinking about maps. Conformal
maps, such as the Mercator, portray the shapes of land-
masses accurately but distort their sizes, especially in the
higher latitudes. Equal area maps, such as the Peters pro-
jection, show the sizes of landmasses more accurately so
that students can develop a more correct conception of the
relative sizes of land areas; however, they distort the shapes
of 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 minimize
both shape and size distortion, although some remains. Fi-
nally, using an “upside-down” world map with the southern
hemisphere positioned at the top of the map can stimulate
students’ thinking about the typical orientation of maps
with north placed at the top (ODT 1999).
A final, but important, component of powerful geogra-
phy instruction is engaging activities and critical thinking
questions. Segall (2003) suggests several instructional ac-
tivities to provoke upper-elementary students to think crit-
ically about maps. One way that students can understand
that cartographers influence their maps by deciding what to
include or omit is for small groups of students to construct
a map of the same area, such as the classroom, school,
or playground. The groups compare their completed maps
and discuss reasons for the differences in them. The teacher
may ask, why are your maps different if you mapped the
same area? Why did you include the physical features of
the school and the map components that you did? Why
 136
did you omit some physical features and map components?
How might you change your map to include additional
school features or eliminate some of the map components
you included?
Another of Segall’s (2003) recommendations is to pro-
vide opportunities for small groups of students to learn to
evaluate maps. The teacher provides the same set of several
different maps to each group, such as a political map, a
relief map, a satellite photograph of an area, and a road
map. Students must rank the maps from the best to the
worst and give reasons for their ratings. The teacher may
ask, why did you rank the maps the way you did? What do
you consider important to include in a map? Why? What is
less important? Why?
Yet another valuable activity that Seagall (2003) recom-
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:25 02 December 2014
mends is to encourage students to determine how land areas
are distorted on maps. Small groups of students are given
the task of comparing the sizes of landmasses on a world
map, such as the Mercator, a conformal map; the Peters
projection, an equal area map; and the Winkel Tripel pro-
jection, a compromise map. The students are to rank the
size of landmasses of Greenland, North America, South
America, Australia, Africa, and Europe from largest to
smallest according to the way they are depicted on one of
the maps. Each group records its rankings for each land
area 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 portrayed
larger than they are? Why might the cartographer choose
to exaggerate these land areas? Which landmasses are por-
trayed smaller than they are? Why might the cartographer
choose to minimize those land areas? Which maps show
the greatest distortion? Which maps show the least? These
activities and questions invite elementary students to think
critically about maps, consider the cartographer’s influence
on what to include or omit on maps, the distortion that
occurs on maps, and the value of different maps for map
readers.
Preparing Preservice Teachers for Powerful Geography
Instruction
For most of the twenty years I have prepared preservice
teachers for teaching social studies in K-8 classrooms, I
have asked them to critically examine maps and offer sim-
ilar opportunities to their own students. We 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. Throughout the
semester 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 reliability
as social studies sources of information. However, some
McCall
preservice teachers are surprised to consider that maps re-
flect their creators’ perspective and biases.
Creating individual maps of our methods classroom is
very effective in helping preservice teachers conclude that
cartographers influence their maps. When the preservice
teachers compare their informally hand-drawn maps, they
notice 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 doors
to other rooms while others omit some of these features. A
few use rulers to ensure straight lines while most draw free
hand. At times, preservice teachers observe that they drew
their maps from the exact place where they are sitting,
which clearly shows their perspective and the differences
from the perspective of maps drawn by preservice teachers
sitting in other locations. Some students include a map title,
map key, and compass rose, while others do not. Following
our discussion of the preservice teachers’ maps, one student
observes the significance of biases in maps:
After creating a map of the classroom and then discussing
our maps, I learned that maps are biased because someone
is always behind the map creating what they “see.” There
were many differences between all our maps. Lots of people
added 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 on
maps: “I enjoyed the map activity at the beginning of class.
This really showed how every cartographer finds different
things important. Then we could look at other maps and
point out what those cartographers thought were impor-
tant” (student’s journal, April 12, 2010).
The comparison of relative sizes of landmasses on their
mental maps of the world is another effective activity in
guiding preservice teachers to conclude that their concep-
tions of the size of landmasses have been influenced by
world maps with distortions. Before our class session, I
asked 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 a
larger landmass? Which has a larger landmass, the Scan-
dinavian countries of Norway, Sweden, and Finland, or
India? 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 in
their “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 area
map), and The World Turned Upside Down (upside-down
map) (all are available from ODT at http://www.odt.org/).
The “upside-down” map places the southern hemisphere
at the top of the map whereas both the Mercator and
 Critical Thinking and Inquiry through Maps
Peters projections place the northern hemisphere at the top.
This activity illustrates that all maps have distortions and
biases. We discuss the cartographer’s values, assumptions,
and perspectives in their decisions about what continents
to place at the top of their map, the continent to place in
the map’s center, where to place the equator to emphasize
the northern or southern hemisphere, which landmasses
to exaggerate in size, which to diminish in size, and which
landmasses to distort in shape to show area more accu-
rately. Several preservice teachers observe that the Peters
projection appears strange in how some landmasses seem
stretched out. Several note that their mental world map is
more similar to the Mercator projection than to the Peters
projection. However, a preservice teacher who grew up in
Japan claims that the world map she used in school placed
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:25 02 December 2014
Japan in the center. When she saw the world maps used
in the United States, it was difficult for her to find Japan
on them. We examine a map that places Australia at the
top and center and discuss why students and teachers in
Australia may prefer this map over other world map pro-
jections. Most preservice teachers have never worked with
an “upside-down” map before.
Studying the upside down maps was new to me. I had never
really seen upside down maps, let alone investigate them. It
brought a new perspective to looking at maps of the world
and how places are displayed. It is a great tool to use in
the classroom because it shows how people depict what is
important on maps either right side up or upside down.
(student’s journal, April 12, 2010)
Finally, the preservice teachers conclude that all maps
have valuable features as well as drawbacks by working in
pairs to analyze and evaluate different world and U.S. desk
maps, wall maps, relief maps, and map puzzles. They discuss
the cartographer’s main purpose, values, assumptions, and
biases in creating the maps, the strengths and weaknesses of
the maps, and how they might use them in their elementary
classrooms. Many realize the value of using several maps
when teaching so their elementary students can see different
depictions of the world. However, one preservice teacher
doubts the use of several different maps is beneficial for
young students.
Seeing all the different types of maps was interesting. When
I was in school, I remember looking at only one type of
map and one type of globe. I was surprised at how many
different types of maps there are. I think it is important to
see these different types of maps, but I also think that one
type of map should be used in the primary grades. I think as
students are first being exposed to maps, it should be kept
simple. To introduce different types of maps could confuse
many of the students. (student’s journal, April 12, 2010)
Although her perspective is in the minority, we discuss
the importance of having young students first draw their
own maps of familiar places. However, these maps will likely
be different, showing the mapmaker’s perspectives and bi-
137
ases. Most preservice teachers see the value in encouraging
elementary students to critically analyze different maps.
Teachers can encourage higher-level thinking by showing
students multiple maps that display a variety of interpre-
tations and allow them to point out the advantages and
disadvantages between them. It’s become pretty obvious to
me 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 about
all sources of information, including maps.
I always knew really old maps were inaccurate, but I never
thought about current maps having a bias. I think it is
really important to teach students to be critical consumers
of information in all forms. It is still hard for me to doubt
information that seems credible. If students are asked to
think about the information they are being presented, then
they will be able to be critical of all information without
being asked. (student’s journal, April 12, 2010)
Conclusion
Are we asking too much of elementary teachers to provide
opportunities for their students to draw their own maps of
familiar places, compare their original maps for similarities
and differences, and critically examine a variety of pub-
lished maps? Are elementary students capable of thinking
critically and considering the possibility that maps reflect
their cartographers’ perspectives and biases? Can young
students build on their careful review of different sources
of 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 to
become active citizens by critiquing maps? A number of
preservice teachers are willing to assume this challenge and
provide powerful geography instruction for their elemen-
tary students. Will you join us?
References
Brophy, J., and J. Alleman. 2007. Powerful social studies for elementary
students. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Douglass, M. P. 1998. The history, psychology, and pedagogy of geographic
literacy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Halvorsen, A. 2009. Back to the future: The expanding communities
curriculum in geography education. The Social Studies 100: 115–
119.
Jacobs, H. H. 2010. Upgrading content: Provocation, invigoration, and
replacement. In Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing
world, 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 studies
curriculum. In Strengthening geography in the social studies: Bulletin
No. 81, ed. S. J. Natoli, 22–42. Washington DC: National Council
for the Social Studies.
 138
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: National
Council for the Social Studies.
National Geographic Research and Exploration. 1994. Geography for
life: 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 the
social studies: Bulletin No. 81, ed. S. J. Natoli, 97–105. Washington
DC: 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-
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 23:25 02 December 2014
McCall
dc.org http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.show
Feature&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 the
Young Learner 16: 21–25.
Sharma, M. B., and G. S. Elbow. 2000. Using Internet primary sources to
teach critical thinking skills in geography. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Sobel, D. 1998. Mapmaking with children: Sense of place education for
the elementary years. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Vuicich, J., J. Stoltman, and R. G. Boehm. 1988. The fundamental skills of
geography. In Strengthening geography in the social studies: Bulletin
No. 81, ed. S. J. Natoli, 72–92. Washington, DC: National Council
for the Social Studies.
Wood, D. 1992. The power of maps. New York: Guilford.