Social sciences, including history and geography, have been part of school curricula since the 19th century, initially aiming to build national identities and justify state power. Today, their role is to explain contemporary society, its evolution, challenges, and relationships between people, nature, and the social environment. This research compares how the national curricula in Spain and Sweden foster the development of new skills through historical and geographical thinking concepts. A qualitative analysis, using the AQUAD 7 application and an ad-hoc instrument, will be conducted on both countries' curricula. Developing these concepts will equip students to understand complex issues such as political populism, sustainability, gender equality, climate change, migration, and economic crises.

National curricula often serve political purposes, shaping societal values (Crawford, 1995). In the 19th and early 20th centuries, curricula focused on creating national identities. Sweden's history education evolved from a nationalistic perspective to an international one (Nygren, 2011), influenced by the League of Nations, UNESCO, and the European Council. In Sweden, teaching the Holocaust and other genocides is emphasized (Ammert, 2015), with a public committee focused on tolerance and human rights. However, critical thinking remains a challenge (Alvén, 2017). Current focuses in Sweden include competence development (Nygren, 2012), peace and democratic values (Elmersjö, 2014), and addressing marginalized groups (Nygren, 2016). Spain's curriculum, influenced by Franco's dictatorship, historically emphasized national narratives and excluded discussions of sensitive topics like the Holocaust and the Spanish Civil War (González, 2015; Arias et al., 2019). Recent research focuses on incorporating heritage education (Cuenca et al., 2017), citizenship (Pagès, 2019), social problems (López-Facal, 2011), gender equality (Díaz de Bedmar and Fernández Valencia, 2019), and innovative methodologies (Gómez-Carrasco et al., 2019, 2020; Gómez-Trigueros and Moreno-Vera, 2017) into social science education. Current debates involve balancing democratic values with market forces (Whitty, 1989), highlighting the importance of incorporating historical and geographical thinking concepts and active methodologies.

The research question is: Are concepts for historical and geographical thinking present in the national curricula of Sweden and Spain? The comparative study uses a qualitative instrument (Table 2) to analyze four dimensions: 1. Curriculum structure (compulsory status, timetable, student ratios); 2. Methodological strategies (project-based learning, practical sessions, research); 3. Objectives and evaluation (specific aims, evaluation criteria, standards); and 4. Content (conceptual, procedural, attitudinal). Spain and Sweden were selected due to their similarities in social stability, education systems, economic development, and EU membership. Their PISA scores, while varying slightly between 2015 and 2018, were around the OECD average (Table 1). The instrument (Table 2) was validated through an expert session (n=12), achieving a Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.89 (Table 3), indicating good internal consistency. The Spanish curriculum analyzed is Royal Decree 126/2014, while the Swedish curriculum is from 2011 (revised 2018). Qualitative data was analyzed using AQUAD 7 (Huber, 2013).

The analysis revealed several key differences between the Spanish and Swedish curricula. In terms of structure, both countries have compulsory primary education, but only Sweden's curriculum is reviewable, facilitating innovation. Spain integrates history and geography into a single Social Sciences subject, while Sweden separates them. Methodologically, both curricula lack explicit mention of historical and geographical thinking concepts. Sweden, however, recommends fieldwork in geography. Neither curriculum prioritizes active methodologies like project-based learning or research. In terms of objectives and evaluation, Spain lacks specific Social Sciences objectives, relying heavily on evaluation standards (many focused on reproduction), while Sweden demonstrates stronger alignment between aims and evaluation. Regarding content, both curricula provide clear conceptual content, but only Sweden mentions aspects of historical and geographical thinking (e.g., 'change,' 'cause and consequence,' 'spatial understanding'). Spain's evaluation standards heavily emphasize reproduction and memorization, with limited focus on application and higher-order thinking. Table 4 summarizes the comparative analysis.

The findings indicate a lack of explicit integration of historical and geographical thinking concepts in both the Spanish and Swedish primary education curricula. This points to the persistence of traditional teaching methods emphasizing memorization over critical analysis. The differences between the two countries highlight how structural features (e.g., reviewable vs. static curricula) and the emphasis placed on evaluation can impact the promotion of higher-order thinking skills. The Swedish curriculum’s explicit mention of geographical concepts and encouragement of fieldwork suggest a greater potential for promoting geographical thinking. The study's findings aligns with international literature showing variation in the emphasis on historical thinking concepts across different countries (e.g., England, Netherlands). Overall, the findings emphasize the need for curricular reform to explicitly incorporate historical and geographical thinking concepts, promote active learning methodologies, and align assessment with higher-order learning objectives.

This study reveals a need for incorporating concepts of historical and geographical thinking into primary education curricula. Both Spain and Sweden fall short in explicitly integrating these concepts and promoting active learning methodologies. Future research could explore the impact of implementing such concepts and methodologies on student learning and understanding. Further comparative studies involving other countries could also provide valuable insights into best practices.

This study focuses solely on curriculum analysis and does not assess actual teaching practices. Teacher training and classroom implementation of curriculum guidelines could significantly impact student learning. The study is limited to two countries and might not generalize to other contexts. Future research should investigate classroom practices and broaden the scope to other countries.