NAEP Geography: What Was Expected and What Was Learned

The National Assessment of Educational Progress in Geography (NAEP Geography) was a latecomer to the portfolio of national assessments that began in 1969 (assessing citizenship, science, and writing). The subject became a NAEP content subject assessment in 1994 (National Assessment Governing Board 1994), and was administered to a sample of 4, 8, and 12 grade students randomly selected to represent the national school population. NAEP assessments were known to increase attention to the subjects assessed. Attention to geography resulted and the aspirational elements of the assessment revealed a newness to the subject that engaged students. Also adding to the optimism for increased attention for the subject was a second development, also aspirational in its intent. It was the publication of Geography for Life, the first national standards for the subject (Geography Education Standards Project 1994), written for all students at all grades, K-12. The assessment and the standards were based on well-defined, aspirational frameworks that integrated the established traditions of the subject with new perspectives on the content and importance of geography education. Each served a particular role in defining what students should know and be able to do with geography, with the added caveat that the assessment would enable educators to determine how well students were learning geography content and skills. The assessment framework was prepared and first assessment administered prior to the national standards. Both drew from geography as a discipline but were not structured similarly in their coverage of the subject. Each of the post1994 NAEP Geography assessments attempted to develop a closer integration of content from the national standards into NAEP Geography at the item and items cluster levels. The underlying intent of the standards/assessment driven reform movement was to impact the curriculum, which was established independently in each of the 50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and U.S territories. While referred to as national standards and national assessment, there was no compelling reason for state or territorial governing units to accept and adopt either the standards or the assessment as the criteria for establishing a geography education curriculum. The aspirational goals of NAEP Geography and the national standards were intended to redesign the content of geography education in the curriculum. This included greater rigor to challenge students to apply a spatial perspective both inside and outside of school, to apply the tools of geography such as maps and imagery in solving problems, and to develop a greater concern for newly developing issues between society and the natural environment. NAEP geography set expectations in the framework for student performance in terms relative to the nature and structure of the discipline of geography (National Assessment Governing Board 1994). The NAEP assessment framework presented a thematic approach based on broad conceptual topics, such as the environment, spatial dynamics, space and place and connections rather than area studies. A similar thematic approach had been presented just once before in the history of geographical education: the High School Geography Project (High School Geography Project 1970). The framework for NAEP Geography was designed to assess students in content that would push the envelope, so to speak, in its attention to the spatial perspectives of the discipline. This was the aspirational intent of the assessment framework. The framework entailed assessing student competency in comparing and analyzing the patterns on maps that presented human and physical information, analyzing human and physical systems, and engaging students in meaningful considerations of the human organization and use of Earth’s surface. Three cross cutting themes representing the discipline of geography were selected for the framework: space and place, environment and society, and spatial dynamics and connections. Three cognitive processes were to be demonstrated by students on the assessment: knowing, understanding, and applying. The cognitive processes were selected largely from the research on student thinking (Bloom et al. 1956) and judged appropriate for learning the geography within the content dimension of the assessment framework (Table 1). The NAEP Geography framework reflected the evolving field of geographic thought during the late 20 century. The aspirational aspect of the framework was that generations of geography teachers and students who had studied geography largely within the area studies, physical and man land traditions of the discipline (Pattison 1964) would gradually