Apparently, there is a huge difference between an individual who is geographically literate and one who is not. For instance, a person who is geographically literate is able to understand the issues surrounding particular communities, their location, the way of life of the members from such communities and how such communities have affected the lives of other communities around them (Backler, 1988).
Geographically literate individuals are also more capable of understanding the relationships between complex elements, such as humans and places, and such knowledge about the two allows them to be able to explain the changes and the consistencies in their characteristics. Moreover, a geographically literate individual is more likely to be able to solve more problems than someone who is not, and the ability to be able to do so is one that affects future decisions that would be made. The subject itself is one that is practical for an individual’s everyday use, and it not only adds to our understanding about the world, but also allows us to appreciate the different elements that make up the world (Backler, A. 1988).
In the United Kingdom, “the external examination of school Geography has undergone a dramatic process of bureaucratization since the 1970s, changing from a ‘broad view’ characterized by the exercise of professional judgement and agreement on standards between Chief Examiners and teachers, to a ‘narrow view’ dominated by technical specifications, traditional content and fragmented subject knowledge. The overall outcome is a chasm between examiners and teachers in as much as the former give the latter little scope to develop creative approaches. Curriculum development considerations were cast aside as most public examination awarding bodies, pressurized to comply with new regulations at short notice and dependent on the goodwill of a casual workforce.” (pp. 670-671, Winter, 2009).
In a study conducted by Caitling (2004), some