The teaching of history has seen a proliferation of resources in recent years, particularly with the advent of 21st-century technologies. These new technologies, including web applications, tablets, mobile devices, virtual reality, and video games, offer opportunities to increase student participation and engagement (Colomer and Sáiz, 2019). Many studies highlight the potential of these tools in social science classrooms, such as using video games to explore heritage and promote civic learning (López-Benito et al., 2015), and leveraging digital museum resources for m-learning (López-Benito et al., 2015). Gamification, using games as a learning strategy, is another emerging technique (Ayén, 2017; Trujillo, 2017). However, the effective integration of ICTs requires a thoughtful pedagogical approach that goes beyond simply utilizing technology; appropriate teaching methods and strategies are crucial for achieving student learning (Ibáñez-Etxeberria et al., 2018; Miralles et al., 2019). Despite the availability of diverse resources, research suggests a continued reliance on textbooks in many classrooms (Gómez et al., 2015; Gómez and Miralles, 2016, 2017), perpetuating a traditional and hegemonic approach to history teaching (Sáiz, 2011; Valls, 1999; Valls and López-Facal, 2011; Cox et al., 2020; Pei-Fen, 2020). While textbooks provide a sense of security and curriculum coverage, their exclusive use can limit teacher professionalism and present knowledge as static and uncritically accepted (Molina and Alfaro, 2019). In contrast, heritage, understood holistically, offers rich educational potential, providing multiple avenues for students to engage with the past through practical, cognitive, and emotional experiences (Cuenca, 2009; Jiménez et al., 2010; Cuenca and Estepa, 2011; Santacana, 2012; Vicent et al., 2015; San Martín and Ortega-Sánchez, 2020). Experiential learning with historical artifacts allows students to construct historical knowledge and develop historical skills (Egea et al., 2018; Forrest and Weldrake, 2018), supporting research-based learning and critical analysis of societal issues (Estepa, 2019; Cuenca-López et al., 2017; Bizzio et al., 2018; Estepa and García, 2020). A shift towards active learning methodologies, integrating historical sources, heritage, and innovative resources, is gradually replacing the traditional lecture-based approach (Gómez et al., 2017). This study investigates the resources that active teachers find most relevant for history education.

Existing research indicates a variety of perspectives on effective teaching resources for history. Some studies champion the use of new technologies and digital resources, highlighting their potential to engage students and foster active learning (Colomer and Sáiz, 2019; López-Benito et al., 2015). Others focus on the benefits of using primary sources, historical heritage, and active learning methodologies to develop historical thinking skills (Gómez and Miralles, 2016; Seixas and Morton, 2013). Conversely, there is also evidence of the continued dominance of textbooks and traditional teaching approaches in many history classrooms (Gómez et al., 2015; Sáiz, 2011), sometimes leading to a perception of history as static and unchangeable (Molina and Alfaro, 2019). The role of heritage as an educational resource is also a subject of ongoing debate. Some studies highlight its potential to offer rich, experiential learning opportunities (Cuenca, 2009; Jiménez et al., 2010), while others point to challenges in its effective integration into the curriculum due to factors like teacher training and time constraints (Cuenca and Estepa, 2011; Molina and Muñoz, 2016). The literature points to a clear need for research that examines the perceptions of practicing teachers regarding the most effective resources for teaching history, considering factors such as teacher demographics and teaching context.

This research employed a quantitative, non-experimental design using a Likert scale questionnaire. An ex post facto approach was used (Ato et al., 2013), a common method in education research for collecting data across multiple variables (Sapsford and Jupp, 2006). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and ethical approval was granted by the University of Murcia's Research Ethics Committee. The sample comprised 332 active history teachers from primary and secondary education in Spain. While non-probabilistic, the sample represented 10 of Spain's 17 autonomous communities, providing a reasonable representation given the total number of teachers in Spain (712,181 in 2019-2020). The sample included 175 women (52.7%), 156 men (47%), and one other (0.3%). The age range of the participants varied (Table 1). The questionnaire, developed within a larger national research project, included sections on socio-demographic information, teaching approaches (using a Spanish adaptation of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory, ATI, by Monroy et al., 2015, originally from Trigwell and Prosser, 2004), and opinions and conceptions about history teaching. The section of interest for this study focused on teachers' ratings of the suitability of various resources for teaching history. This section was informed by the "Beliefs History Questionnaire" by VanSledright and Reddy (2014) and the work on historical competencies by Wineburg (1991), Seixas (1993), and Domínguez (2015), among others. The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire underwent validation by experts (six researchers in social science education), ensuring clarity and relevance. Data analysis was performed using Mplus 7.0 (Muthén and Muthén, 2015). Descriptive analyses calculated response frequencies, while inferential analyses (Mann-Whitney U-test and Kruskal-Wallis H-test) assessed statistically significant differences between variables. Post-hoc tests were conducted when significant differences were found in factors with more than two levels.

The descriptive analysis revealed that 93.3% of teachers rated heritage as an adequate or very adequate resource, followed by 87.3% for museums (Table 2). Conversely, 38.2% rated video games as unsuitable or not very suitable, and 19.8% felt the same about textbooks (Table 2). Inferential analysis using the Mann-Whitney U-test showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between male and female respondents in seven resources, rejecting the null hypothesis of no difference in ratings based on sex (Table 3). The Kruskal-Wallis H test revealed significant differences in the ratings of oral sources (Sig. = 0.015), video games (Sig. = 0.012), and local traditions (Sig. = 0.001) based on age, rejecting the null hypothesis for these (Post-hoc analysis indicated specific age group differences). A comparison of primary and secondary teachers revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) in the ratings of six resources (Table 5). Except for primary documentary sources and artistic productions, primary teachers rated the remaining resources more highly than secondary teachers (Table 5). The overall trend indicates a preference for resources that foster active learning and student-centered approaches over more traditional methods (Tables 2, 4).

The findings demonstrate a shift in teachers' perceptions regarding suitable resources for history education, favoring student-centered approaches and resources that encourage active learning and critical thinking (Prats, 2016; Mira and Sáiz, 2020). The high valuation of heritage, artistic productions, and museums aligns with studies emphasizing their potential to connect students with local contexts and offer experiential learning (Gil et al., 2016; Chaparro and Felices de la Fuente, 2019; Lucas and Delgado-Algarra, 2020). Although highly valued, the use of these resources in practice requires broader didactic approaches (Cuenca and Estepa, 2011; Gómez et al., 2016; Miralles et al., 2017). The low valuation of video games and textbooks, despite research highlighting their potential benefits, suggests a gap between research and practice. This may be due to insufficient teacher training in digital skills or a perceived disconnect between innovative technologies and established teaching practices (Colomer et al., 2018; Miguel-Revilla et al., 2020; Ramírez and González, 2016). The gender and age differences in resource evaluation highlight the influence of these factors on teaching preferences and may reflect varying levels of familiarity and comfort with different technologies (Moya et al., 2011; Colmenero and Cózar, 2015; Cabero et al., 2016; Cózar and Roblizo, 2014; Gómez et al., 2020). The differences between primary and secondary teachers may reflect a stronger adherence to traditional methods in secondary education (Beltrán et al., 2006; Gómez et al., 2016).

This study reveals a movement towards more student-centered approaches in history teaching, with a preference for resources that promote active learning and critical engagement. Heritage, artistic productions, and museums were highly valued, indicating a recognition of their experiential and contextual learning potential. Conversely, video games and textbooks received lower ratings, highlighting potential challenges in integrating new technologies and overcoming the inertia of established teaching practices. Future research could explore the factors that influence teachers’ choices of resources, focusing on effective teacher training and professional development programs that support the adoption of student-centered and research-based approaches to teaching history. Addressing the digital skills gap and providing opportunities for teachers to experiment with new technologies and active methodologies are crucial steps towards fostering a more engaging and effective history education.

The study's non-probabilistic sampling limits the generalizability of findings to the broader population of Spanish history teachers. The reliance on self-reported data through a questionnaire might be subject to response bias. Further research involving observations of classroom practices would enhance understanding of the actual implementation of various resources. The focus on teacher perceptions rather than actual classroom practice limits the ability to assess the impact of different resources on student learning outcomes.