Book Excerpt

Teaching About the Islamic World, edited by Barry Mowell

Introduction (by Dr. Mowell)

Geographic Education and the Regional Approach

While much of the content of the book would also lend itself to elementary or middle school social studies courses or to college-level surveys with a related scope (e.g., Geography of Asia, etc), the principle target audience of Teaching About the Islamic World are educators who teach world regional geography survey courses. World regional geography is perhaps the most prevalent introductory geography course presently offered in the U.S. educational system. At colleges and universities, other lower division survey courses such as human geography and physical geography may also be offered, but the survey course in world regional geography remains the mainstay course for non-geography majors at most institutions (Walker 1998, 60). Studies conducted in 1968 and again in 1997 by the Association of American Geographers indicate that world regional geography was the second most prevalent (behind Physical Geography) geography course in U.S. community colleges (AAG 1970; AAG 1999) and world regional surveys are also often a mainstay in terms of high student enrollments among community college geography courses (Mowell 2002; Orff 1999; Nowak-Goloja 1992) as well as the lower-division geography course offerings of universities. Often, the only geography course offered in U.S. high schools is a world regional survey. Be they enrolled in the secondary or post-secondary system, the only exposure (if any) that most U.S. students receive to the discipline of geography is via a world regional survey course.

World regional geography has been described as one of the most complex, interesting, and rewarding courses to teach, as well as one of the most challenging (Klein 2003, 146; Mueller 2003, 139). Given the latter, combined with the importance of the world regional geography course as a primary vehicle for geographic education in the U.S., one would expect significant attention to be focused upon the course and upon teacher training as related to the course. Examples of such emphasis exist: in 2003 the Journal of Geography published a theme issue devoted to teaching world geography; NCGE and NCSS have specialty groups and invariably conduct paper sessions and panel discussions related to teaching regional geography; NCGE offers book titles (for available titles, refer to the list opposite the copyright page of this volume) and other resources related to regional geography; for many years an internet list serve has existed specifically devoted to teaching world regional geography.

However, for several decades academic geography in the U.S. has increasingly tried to divorce itself from the regional focus, perhaps viewing the latter as somehow less legitimate than topical and technical specialization/research. The aversion to regional geography would be somewhat analogous to mathematicians shunning the traditional and practical core components of their discipline (statistics, calculus, etc.) in favor of exclusively focusing upon experimental and theoretical mathematics. Having the latter as a focus, doesn't necessitate the eradication of the former. This has been addressed in the literature of geographic education as potentially being one of the factors responsible for the recent decline in the discipline of geography (Abler, 1993 221; Wilbanks and Libbee, 1979 5). Perhaps, one of the best summaries of the decline in emphasis upon the regional focus and the subsequent impact upon the discipline of geography over time is provided by Ron Abler, former President of the Association of American Geographers:

My generation sold its intellectual birthright for a mess of theoretical and methodological pottage. It strove mightily to distance itself from area studies and regional geography, and in large measure it succeeded. Most geographers in the generation preceding mine sought expertise in one of the world’s regions and in a systematic specialization. My generation commonly cultivated one or two topical specializations, or one topical and one methodological specialization. When we in our turn supervised students, we were uninterested in fostering regional specialization, and most of us would have been incapable of doing so had we tried. (Abler 1993, 221)

Analysis of the Guide to Programs in Geography in the United States and Canada (2001; 2004) published annually by the Association of American Geographers reveals that geography departments primarily offer topical or methodological specializations, rather than area/regional studies. Most graduate programs do not appear to offer a regional concentration as an option. I am personally familiar with several otherwise healthy and productive university geography departments that do not regularly offer upper division or graduate courses with a regional focus. In the event students (regardless of their major) at those universities wish to broaden their understanding of a world region such as North Africa and Southwest Asia, they must turn to the history, international relations, or religion departments to undertake region-specific coursework—a sobering reality which should embarrass and anger those of us who have an affinity for geography as an academic discipline.

Can teachers of geography or social studies be given effective training to teach about the Islamic world or other world regions by taking non-geography courses (in other academic departments) with a regional focus? Depending upon what specific courses are undertaken, perhaps. Can a university geography department exist as a vibrant, productive program without offering courses/programs with a regional focus and without catering to popular interest in regions such as the Mideast? Perhaps. Should geography majors including those who are to become teachers have no option but to go outside the geography department if they wish to undertake coursework specific to a region? Readers can answer the latter rhetorical question for themselves.

It is ironic that a discipline that bemoans its status in the educational system and decries public illiteracy of geography should in its university programs commonly shun the regional focus, one of the key defining characteristics of and approaches within geography and the disciplinary focus wherein most public/student interest likely lies (i.e., a seminar on the “Middle East” will attract far more popular interest and serve a more utilitarian purpose where geographic literacy is concerned, than will a seminar on “Critical & Marxist Perspectives Concerning mid Century Portuguese Cartography”). The shunning of regional studies in geography programs bodes badly for the discipline and geographic literacy/education in general and for teacher-training in the subject of geography in particular.
Additional focus upon regional studies is needed within the discipline, and specifically, geographers at all levels should recognize the need for support and attention to be directed to the world regional survey course as a fundamental cornerstone of geographic education in the U.S. Without addressing the broader underlying problems concerning the lack of respect and attention afforded to regional studies as a legitimate approach within geography, efforts on the part of the discipline to improve teaching/research as related to the Islamic world or other regions may be less effective and may prove to be disjointed, superfluous, and fickle in nature. To facilitate improvement in the teaching of world regional geography, there would appear to be a need to address several specific issues beyond gaining the attention of geography in academia including but not limited to the following examples:

1. Recognizing the regional approach as an important cornerstone of geographic education in the U.S. and affording the regional approach the same legitimacy as a focus for geographical study that topical and methodological approaches are currently afforded.
   
2. Teacher (re)certification: “Broad Field” certification has become the customary means of becoming credentialed in middle and high school social science. Via this approach, educators take a smattering of coursework in each of several academic disciplines, and can often become certified to teach fields including geography after having taken only one college course in the subject. Not only should the equivalent of a college minor be required as the minimum in credentialing teachers in a subject area, but the courses taken should also be carefully prescribed to be substantive and utilitarian in nature. For example, to obtain a geography credential via 7 undergraduate courses (a typical requirement for a minor), one course should be human/cultural geography, one physical geography, one a G.I.S. or other methodological course, and since middle and high school geography teachers would ordinarily teach only world regional geography, the remaining courses should each focus upon a different (and significant) macro-scale region: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Mideast, etc.
   
3. Materials and workshops focused specifically on improving the quality and expanding the curricular presence of the world regional survey course at the secondary and post-secondary levels should be more prevalent. The literature of geographic education, the content of professional conferences and teacher-training workshops, and other resources should be more oriented toward the teaching of regional/area studies and the world regional survey course in recognition of the critical importance of the latter as a vehicle for geographic education in the United States. It may be unrealistic to expect most high schools to begin offering G.I.S. courses or even surveys in human or physical geography, but many already do offer a world regional course, a fact which should be recognized and accommodated.
   
4. Regional courses should be integrative in nature and should provide students with exposure to physical and human themes, as well as geographical methodologies. The regional approach to teaching geography need not be perceived as a competitor with physical, human, and methodological themes within the discipline. Rather, the regional focus should be rightly viewed as a valuable vehicle for integrating and teaching human and physical geography and geographic methodologies. In general, world regional geography as a course already achieves these ends, contrary to popular misconceptions of the course and the regional approach being comprised of little more than the rote learning of place names.

This publication is the first of three books I will edit in the NCGE Pathways series focusing upon teaching about world regions. The books, funded in part by an endowment from Broward Community College, will address world regions that have not been the focus of previous NCGE book titles and will contribute to the literature concerning pedagogy as related to the regional approach and the teaching of world geography. The goal of the project is to empower educators at the primary, secondary, and post-secondary levels with subject content (the type not typically contained in texts or publishers supplements), as well as classroom activities and resources that will help to enrich teaching about world regions.

Given the attention focused on the Islamic world and the popular interest in the region and its people, the Islamic world seemed appropriate and timely as a focus for a publication of this sort. If the region itself is prone to controversy, so is any attempt at addressing its complexities. Even prior to a call for submissions issued for this volume, debate ensued as the appropriate title for the publication, so much so that I feel obligated to explain the book’s title.

Title and Parameters of The Book

Should the title of this book have been “Teaching About North Africa and Southwest Asia”? Not only would the latter title be somewhat cumbersome, it is also geographically restrictive and would presumably preclude coverage of countries and significant Muslim communities such as Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (the world’s three most populous Muslim countries located in Southeast and South Asia respectively). The term “Arab World” is even more geographically restrictive and tends to reinforce the widely held misconception that all residents of North Africa and Southwest Asia are Arabs. The concept of the “Arab World” is also confusing in that, depending on the source one consults, the term “Arab” can be used as either a linguistic reference—as most social science educators would use the term, or as an ethnic reference—according to physical anthropologists and ethno-biologists. Depending upon which definition is used, the boundaries of the “Arab World” would vary quite widely. As a linguistic region, the “Arab World” would encompass most of North Africa and Southwest Asia—though the inhabitants of many countries in the region do not speak Arabic, such as Ethiopia, Turkey, and Iran. As a reference to ethnicity (people who can trace their ancestry to the groups indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula), the boundaries of the “Arab World” would be largely restricted to the Arabian Peninsula and perhaps parts of Egypt.

The preferred term of the news media is the “Middle East” or “Mideast”. The origins of the term of course stem from the region’s relative location in the “middle” of three continents (Africa, Asia, and Europe), and to the “east” of Europe and the “western” world. Not only is the term Euro-centric and culturally biased, it is geographically awkward for international usage—e.g. are Israel and Iraq east of India, China, Russia, and Japan? However, the most significant problem posed by the term “Mideast” is the complete lack of consensus even among geographers and geography texts, as to the specific areas it encompasses. Should the term Mideast refer to all of North Africa and Southwest Asia? Are Morocco and Algeria east of Europe and situated in the middle of three continents? Hardly! A more geographically sensible modification of the term that is increasingly widespread in its use (and is utilized by one of the contributors to this volume) is “Mideast and North Africa” or “MENA”. However, even this term would serve to exclude significant Muslim communities in other parts of the world such as South and Southeast Asia. Perhaps the term Mideast should be used as a synonym for Southwest Asia? Would the latter usage of the term also encompass Turkestan (Central Asia), Pakistan, Afghanistan, Cyprus, and the Caucasus? The most narrow usage of the term Mideast, and one which is commonly used in geography classrooms is as a reference to a specific five-country sub-region of Southwest Asia: Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria (De Blij & Muller 2006, 346)
One of the goals of this publication was to be culturally and geographically inclusive. We did not wish to focus entirely upon Arabs, to the exclusion of Turks and Iranians. We did not wish to focus upon Southwest Asia to the exclusion of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Africa. The term “Islamic world” (deliberately spelled with a lower case “w” since it does not necessarily refer to a single, specific region) is perhaps the most flexible and inclusive, as it could be construed to refer to North Africa, Southwest Asia, and other regions/countries in which Islam is a significant cultural force. As is also the case with the term “Arab World”, the term “Islamic World” implies homogeneity. The population of North Africa and Southwest Asia is not entirely comprised of Muslims, and as discussed in this volume, Muslims can be found in much of the rest of the world, often as the majority group. However, a reasonable and educated person would hopefully understand the aforementioned points without having to be told. In summary, the term “Islamic world” is not perfect as a geographical reference for the region (such a perfect term has yet to be devised), but in comparison to the various terms in use it may to be the least problematic and is certainly the most inclusive. Contributors to the book were apprised of the discussions concerning the terminology, but were of course free to use terminologies of their own individual preference in their respective articles.

Goals of the Book

The principle strength of geography as a field of study has been described as its ability to enhance and deepen our understanding of the world and to facilitate students’ ability to grasp the myriad human and environmental processes that modify the world (Walker & Unwin 1989, 126). Toward endeavoring to broaden the knowledge base of students concerning other cultures or world regions, a value-neutral perspective would be ideal—so as to neither proselytize nor critique or condescend. Some educators have argued that in order to have true cultural objectivity, cross-cultural comparisons should be avoided, since for example comparing western cultures with those of Muslim countries might allow for overt or subtle/sub-conscious comparisons which portray western societies as somehow superior (Essa 2002). While I do not necessarily share the latter view, and in fact find comparative approaches lend themselves well to constructivist pedagogy, objectivity was a primary goal of the book and its contributors.

Constructivist approaches to teaching involve identifying an existing knowledge base among students and in turn building upon and enhancing that pre-existing foundation of knowledge (Brooks & Brooks 1993). Using the oft cited analogy of building a house, one would first lay the foundation, then build the basement followed by the floors, supporting walls, and lastly the roof in that sequential order. Prior to discussing the historical significance of the Wye River Accords or Oslo Accords with students and expecting them to understand the nature of the agreements, the students should first demonstrate an understanding of certain pre-requisite concepts such as return-migration, the background behind the Arab-Israeli wars, and the conflicting wants/needs of Israelis and Palestinians.

A key component in the constructivist process will be to identify and correct pre-existing fallacies and stereotypes held by students. It would be a mistake to assume students do not think about and have not formed mental constructs concerning other regions or cultures. In fact, students generally possess many assumptions (accurate or not) about the Islamic world. As a relatively quick means of gauging students perceptions of the Islamic world, in Fall 2005, I had my own students do a word association activity prior to the beginning of any instruction regarding the region in which they were asked to write the first one word (some listed multiple words and some none) that came to mind when they saw a given term written on the board. The activity was undertaken in an Honors seminar on the Islamic world and in four sections of world regional geography at Broward Community College. As indicated below in a summary of the more common responses, some of which have been paraphrased, students posses a combination of positive/sympathetic (identified in caps), negative (bold), and value neutral perceptions of the region:

Some of the results I expected, others were surprising. As educators know and as several of the contributors to this volume discuss, the Islamic world is not homogeneous in either its human or physical attributes. However, it is to perhaps be expected that via such a word association activity, students would associate “Arab” with “Muslim” and “language” with “Arabic”. The term “environment” also elicited predictable responses with “desert”, “heat”, and “sand” being the three most common word associations respectively.

However, other results of the activity ran afoul with some of my expectations. For example, while some students indeed provided stereotypical and often silly (e.g., “camels”, “turbans”, “primitive”) responses, such responses were not typical and were provided by only a small minority of students. Given that the popular media in the U.S. has been accused of historically portraying Israel in a more positive and sympathetic light than Muslims/Arabs, I did expect students to exhibit at least a slight positive bias favoring Israel/Israelis in their responses, but in general that was not the case, and students actually provided more negative word associations as related to “Israelis” than they did for ‘Palestinians”. In fact, students provided more positive/sympathetic word associations for “Palestinians” and “Muslims” (but not for “Arabs”) than they did negative word associations for either of the latter. While the results of such a small study should not be generalized to U.S. students as a whole, the results do indicate that among this particular group of students the majority did not exhibit any overt positive or negative bias toward the region or its various cultures, nor were the overall impressions of the region possessed by most of the students dominated by cartoonish, unrealistic stereotypes.

I also expected to see discernable differences in how the students in the Honors Institute seminar responded as opposed to the regular student population in my World Geography classes. In reality, the types of responses provided were quite similar. In both cohorts, only a small minority of students provided stereotyped or negative word associations, with the majority providing value-neutral factual responses, such as associating “Jews” or “Judaism” with a reference to “Israelis”. Word associations which were either insightful or positive/sympathetic were no less common among the general student cohort than they were among the honors students (who must posses a minimum 3.5 GPA for admission to the program). Nor did any observable difference emerge between the cohort groups in terms of positive or negative bias with regard to Arabs, Israelis, Muslims, Palestinians or any other reference used in the activity. Without regard to their academic performance, the students demonstrated that they posses an active and, for the most part, reasonably developed knowledge base concerning the Islamic world. Using the summary findings of such an activity as a guide to what students may and may not already understand would serve as an excellent catalyst for aiding students in broadening their understanding of such a complex and fascinating region.

Teaching About the Islamic World is not intended to be comprehensive in scope and given the variety of cultures, issues, and possible pedagogical strategies related to the region, a comprehensive treatment is not possible. The goal of the publication is to provide a combination of substantive overview and discussion of content, as well as useful resources and classroom ideas. A wide range of articles by contributors from varied academic backgrounds address an interesting mix of both human and physical themes as related to the Islamic world and its people. For the convenience of classroom educators who will use the book to plan lessons and classroom activities, the articles incorporate the Geography for Life, National Geography Standards and specify which geography standards are applicable. It is our hope that this publication will provide educators with practical and worthwhile ideas for teaching about various topics as related to the Islamic world.

Books

Teaching About the Islamic World -edited by Barry D. Mowell National Council for Geographic Education (2005)

World Travel Guide Hellgate Press (June 1999)