Secondary Geography: Lessons from the 2026 GTE Conference

Lessons from the 2026 GTE Conference – Part 1: Climate Education that Builds Knowledge, Agency… and Hope

Over the weekend of 23-25^th January, I was in Manchester to attend the Geography Teacher Educator’s Conference. We were upstairs in a cozy pub owned by Manchester Metropolitan University over 3 days, sharing wide-ranging but intersecting wisdom, lessons and ideas. With my NASBTT hat on, I will give a summary of useful lessons and ideas for Secondary Geography trainers and mentors – combining sessions into three ‘themes’:

1. Climate Education that Builds Knowledge, Agency… and Hope
2. Powerful Geography – Tools, Data and Enquiry
3. Voice, Inclusion and Geographical Meaning Making

We’ll cover these themes separately. First up, climate education, knowledge, agency and hope.

Core message: Trainees need more than climate facts. They need a disciplinary approach that balances robust knowledge, the affective domain (anxiety ⇄ hope), and practical enquiry that empowers pupils to act without slipping into naïve optimism.

Sessions that fit this theme:

• Attending to the affective domain in Geography – David Alcock
• Preparing and supporting trainee teachers to deliver climate change education – Michelle Minton
• Self-Led Climate Literacy CPD for Geography Teachers – Kit Marie Rackley
• GIS-T: Teaching about Climate change with the help of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) – Sophie Wilson
• Co-creating a climate change curriculum – Michelle Graffagnino and Nicola Warren Lee
• National Emergency Briefing – Elena Lengthorn
• Supporting trainees’ considered use of Oak geography – Graeme Schofield

What these GTEConf26 sessions argued (quick evidence snapshots)

1) Hope is not fluff — it’s a driver of learning and action.
David Alcock made the case for hope as a motivating force within the affective domain, alongside the realities of anxiety and anger. He modelled routines teachers can lift tomorrow: “ignorance quizzes” (to surface misconceptions), future timelines and “postcards from the future,” and the use of non‑events (e.g., eradication of polio) to counter relentless doom narratives. He also named the optimism gap and the progress paradox, urging us to design for informed agency, not apathy.

2) Treat Climate Change Education (CCE) as a wicked problem — and plan accordingly. Many trainees ‘self-teach’ climate change, so ensure they access accredited CPD opportunities.
Michelle Minton (CAPE) set out eight principles for high‑quality CCE in geography, blending substantive knowledge with disciplinary procedures (e.g., systems thinking, enquiry with data), ethical/justice dimensions, explicit misconception work, representative voices, and self‑regulation (for teachers and pupils) to manage the emotional load. She showcased tools (e.g., En‑ROADS) and argued for climate being sequenced across the curriculum, not siloed. I presented a self-led online CPD that has been quality-assured by the Royal Meteorological Society – allowing mentors and course leads to signpost a trusted platform that collates research, resources and authoritative sources (https://bit.ly/Geog-ClimateLit).

3) Use GIS and curated open resources to move from slides → thinking.
Sophie Wilson demonstrated GIS‑T: curated hubs (e.g., Europe Observed Mean Temperatures, Mapmaker, Esri Teach with GIS) that make climate trends local, comparable and discussable. She stressed cognitive load (choose layers judiciously) and showed how interactive maps beat static, “scan-in” graphics — especially when trainees can’t alter department slide decks.

4) Co‑create curriculum with teachers; measure shifts in agency.
Bristol’s co‑creation project (Graffagnino & Warren Lee) produced a research-informed climate scheme emphasising dialogic learning, fieldwork, systems thinking, and constructive hope. Crucially, they use pre/post attitude tools (Howard‑Jones) to check whether learning nudges intentions to act, not just recall.

5) Name the emergency and practise cross‑school coordination.
The National Emergency Briefing emphasised the here‑and‑now nature of impacts and the responsibility of ITT mentors to prepare trainees for adaptation & resilience messaging across subjects and phases. Oak’s geography team removed a stand‑alone “climate unit” at KS3 after expert review, embedding climate strands across units instead — a live example of principled sequencing decisions trainees can analyse rather than copy.

What this means for mentors and providers (5 practical moves)

Move 1 — Plan for the affective as well as the cognitive.
Ask trainees to add a one‑line affect objective to climate lessons (e.g., “Pupils will recognise progress as well as challenge, and identify one action they can take in our school context”). Use future timelines and “postcards from the future” to turn concern into forward‑looking talk.

Move 2 — Embed climate across the year, not as a one‑off topic.
When you review a trainee’s medium-term plan, check where climate knowledge logically lands: e.g., weather & climate (Y7 science–geog hinge), then climate impacts threaded through coasts/urban/biomes. Use Oak’s “why this, why now” explainers to stage a curriculum critique activity rather than a download.

Move 3 — Insist on enquiry with evidence (not just “coverage”).
Set a three‑question rule for any climate resource:

1. What’s the geographical question?
2. Which data layer (map/graph/photograph) enables pupils to decide or explain?
3. What’s the claim + caveat pupils will articulate? (e.g., trend with limits/uncertainties)
   This mirrors the GIS‑T emphasis on interactive evidence and the Bristol project’s commitment to reasoned dialogue.

Move 4 — Track intentions to act, not just knowledge checks.
Pilot a two‑item pre/post in a short sequence:

• “After these lessons, I feel able to explain one local climate risk accurately.”
• “I intend to take/advocate one feasible action in school/home.”
  Discuss shifts in mentor meetings; treat plateaus as feedback for pedagogy, not pupil willpower.

Move 5 — Coach teacher wellbeing alongside pupil agency.
Trainees meet climate grief and online misinformation daily. Borrow CAPE’s self‑regulation strand: normalise reflective journaling, peer debriefs, and a clear threshold for what is appropriate to tackle in geography vs. safeguarding/escalation routes.

Quick diagnostic you can run in a 20‑minute mentor meeting

1. Spot the balance: In the next lesson, where is knowledge building? Where is enquiry with data? Where is the affect routine that turns concern into agency? (If any one is missing, the lesson will likely under‑deliver.)
2. One‑map discipline: Choose one curated GIS layer (e.g., local temperature anomalies). Ask: “What decision will pupils reach with this map that they couldn’t without it?” If none, remove the layer.
3. Assessment beyond recall: Add a 60‑second exit prompt: “What claim can you now make about our place and climate? What’s your caveat?” (A miniature of the claim + caveat habit from open‑data work.)

Common pitfalls (and how to avoid them)

• Doom‑only framing. Counter with non‑events, progress paradox discussion, and postcards from the future to sustain motivation without denying reality.
• “Tech‑first” lessons. GIS is powerful when it sharpens decisions. If it adds clicks without thinking, revert to a simpler representation.
• Siloed climate units. The Oak example shows embedding works better than bolting on. Train critique, not compliance.
• Knowledge‑only success criteria. Add at least one disciplinary (enquiry) and one affective/agency success criterion per sequence.

Ready-to-use “artefacts” you can drop in your review

1. “Hopeful Geography” routine (3 mini‑steps for every climate sequence)

• Assess the situation: Use a quick misconception/“ignorance” quiz (e.g., three Gapminder‑style items).
• Provide insights: Present one non‑event or progress trend alongside a stubborn challenge; then ask, “What happened next — and why?”
• Forge futures: 3‑minute “postcard from 2035” + one practical micro‑action (home/school/community).

1. “Mini‑GIS starter” (15 minutes, any class)

• One curated layer (e.g., Europe Observed Mean Temperatures).
• Prompt: “Compare our area to two others. What pattern do you see? What explanations would you test?”
• Finish: Pupils write a claim + caveat sentence (decision-ready, not description-only).

1. Two‑question pre/post for agency (use in mentor meetings)

• “I can explain one local climate risk accurately.” (Likert)
• “I intend to take/advocate one feasible action in school/home.” (Likert + open text)

If you would like to explore any of these ideas further, or obtain any of the session materials, get in contact with me and I will do my best to put you in touch with session presenters. secondarygeography@nasbtt.org.uk.