Professor Nick Megoran
School of Geography, Politics and Sociology
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
What did you do?
I designed an unconventional lecture for my undergraduate teaching on geopolitical theory to explore how we can teach older and outdated ideas in a way that encourages students to take them seriously.
This involves using creative, playful learning and surprise to engage students with the ideas of Sir Halford Mackinder, a foundational but controversial figure in modern geography. I dressed up as Mackinder and delivered the lecture as if I were him, enabling my students to hear his ideas ‘directly’ and supporting them to better understand the context in which these ideas were developed and that they have an internal logic and consistency that might be harder for us to appreciate in hindsight.
Who is involved?
The key participants are:
- Myself, the lecturer, who leads the session
- My colleague, who helps set up the initial surprise
- A class of third-year undergraduate students enrolled on a geopolitical theory module
How did you do it?
As part of my undergraduate teaching on geopolitical theory, I designed an unusual lecture to help me answer this question:
How can we teach older and outdated ideas in a way that encourages students to take them seriously?
This arose with reference to the life and work of one man, Sir Halford Mackinder, 1861-1947. Mackinder was the first modern academic geographer at a UK university. Through developing new ways of thinking about the subject, writing textbooks, setting up and managing universities, and supporting schoolteachers, he helped establish the modern discipline in the UK.
But he is also a hugely problematic figure. Regarded as a founder of the idea of ‘geopolitics,’ he was deeply invested in the cause of the British Empire. He regarded geography as a discipline to help people ‘think imperially,’ and pursued this cause as an MP, diplomat, and military recruiter in World War 1. His ideas influenced right-wing, militaristic projects as diverse as Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet (himself a Professor of Geopolitics), aggressive US anti-Soviet Cold War strategy, and Nazi foreign policy.
When I was an undergraduate, Mackinder’s ideas were briefly introduced and quickly dismissed as hopelessly backwards, imperialistic and counter-modern. Therefore, although I never read them, I assumed I knew them well enough. I came to realise this was a significant shortcoming when conducting doctoral research in post-Soviet Central Asia in the early 2000s. Mackinder’s work had become influential amongst Muslim intellectuals who were far from backwards, imperialistic, and counter-modern. In order to understand this and dialogue with them I had to go back to his work and re-read it, and its various critiques, in detail. I did not ultimately revise my view about his work being politically dubious, but now at least I was thoroughly informed and able to critically interrogate it for myself.
When I became a lecturer at Newcastle, I wanted to help my students avoid the pitfalls I had encountered and equip them to critically understand Mackinder. But how was I to make them take seriously ideas which are so obviously flawed and of their time?
My solution was to use creative, playful learning and the element of surprise. After a few weeks of co-teaching a popular third year module on geopolitical theory, we come to the Mackinder lecture. A colleague begins the lecture by telling the students that today’s lecture is on the geopolitical ideas of Halford Mackinder. He or she says:
“Nick was going to deliver it but unfortunately, he has been taken sick. So, we have looked round at short notice to find someone to give it instead. And who better than the man himself… I give you Sir Halford Mackinder.”
Upon which, I make an entrance wearing a suit, flowing PhD gown, false wig and spectacles, and having grown a moustache for the occasion. The students, who were not expecting this, obviously find it surprising and amusing. My colleague instructs them to take notes on what Sir Halford says as he introduces his life and ideas, notes that we will use for the post-lecture discussion. Putting on a mock upper-class British accent, I then work through Mackinder’s ideas in great depth and show how they fit together coherently and informed his public engagement. Humour is interwoven with a deep dive into a single thinker’s ideas.
At the end of the first hour, I remove the fake spectacles and say to the students, in my own voice, ‘Hey, it’s me, Nick!’ This false surprise causes more humour. I then explain why I did this cosplay – to encourage them to take a long-dead thinker’s ideas seriously, to see how they made sense in their own terms.
After a break, we spend the second hour rigorously dissecting his ideas. Dividing the class into small groups I begin by asking them what questions emerge from the presentation that they would like to interrogate. We agree on a series of student-proposed topics, and for the rest of the session move between break-out groups and plenary discussions. We interrogate questions about topics such as race, empire, gender, violence, and geographical determinism in his corpus, as well as looking at its legacy. Topics differ each year based on student interests, but I use this second hour to ensure that students are introduced to the broad range of contemporary critical scholarship on Mackinder.
Why did you do it?
There are two main advantages.
Firstly, it shows students how to study ideas: to take them seriously in their own terms, before engaging in critical secondary literature. It counters the temptation to embed a pedagogical teleology implying that people in the past were stupid and ignorant, but we are enlightened and better than them. Such teleology actually hampers informed, critical learning. This session is intended as a model they can use elsewhere. It helps me teach students how to think, not what to think.
Secondly, the element of playful surprise is arresting and thus memorable for students. Ten or fifteen years later I sometimes meet former students online or in passing, and they invariably smile and ask ‘Do you still do the Mackinder lecture?’ When I quiz them on what they learnt from it, they usually reply that it was fun and showed I cared enough to help them learn (engagement), but also that it showed them how to study ideas in depth. As a teacher, I am happy with that learning outcome.
Does it work?
Anecdotal feedback suggests that this method is effective and engaging, with many remembering it years later. Additionally, former students frequently mention how the session helped them understand how to critically study ideas and think deeply.
I believe that the element of surprise and roleplay captures attention, while the discussions ensure rigorous critical analysis, creating a mindset that is essential for informed learning. I linked this lecture to a written assessment where students had to create a dialogue between a geopolitical thinker from the course list, and a political actor of their choice. The detail and depth in which many students did this persuaded me that the model I set up worked.
Additional Information
For more information on the pedagogical philosophy behind teaching students how to think, rather than what to think, I invite you to read my recent editorial: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0962629824000210
You can also view an example of this approach in action through the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HNPCFpg9nQ&ab_channel=NickMegoran. Please note that this was recorded during the Covid-19 lockdown as part of an online lecture, and it represents only the first part of the full session.
The Graduate Framework
This case study demonstrates the following attributes:
- Critical Thinkers
- Creative, Innovative and Enterprising
- Engaged