Concepts for historical and geographical thinking in Sweden's and Spain's Primary Education curricula

Social Sciences (History and Geography) have long served nation-building aims but today are expected to help students understand contemporary societies, their development, and current challenges. This study compares how Spain’s and Sweden’s national Primary Education curricula develop skills tied to historical and geographical thinking, employing a qualitative comparative analysis (AQUAD 7) with an ad hoc instrument. The research question is whether concepts for historical and geographical thinking are present in the national curricula of Sweden and Spain. The purpose is to assess whether such concepts can underpin active learning methodologies in Social Science classrooms, thereby preparing students to interpret complex social and environmental issues such as populism, sustainability, gender equality, climate change, migration, war, and economic crises.

The paper situates Spanish and Swedish curricula within historical and political contexts. Historically, Social Science curricula often served to construct national identity (Crawford, 1995; Peterson et al., 2016). Swedish history education evolved from nationalism to an internationally informed orientation influenced by the League of Nations, UNESCO, and the Council of Europe (Nygren, 2011), emphasizing Holocaust/genocide education and democratic values (Ammert, 2015; Karlsson, 2000), though challenges remain in fostering critical historical thinking (Alvén, 2017). Contemporary Swedish debates include competence-based content, peace and democratic values, indigenous perspectives, geographical skills, and assessment (Nygren, 2012; Elmersjö, 2014; Nygren, 2016; Örbring, 2017; Eliasson et al., 2015). In Spain, due to the Franco dictatorship, history education long emphasized national glory narratives; democratic values, Holocaust/genocide, and Civil War topics were under-addressed for decades (González, 2015; Arias et al., 2019; Sabido-Codina and Albert, 2020). Spanish history education remains linked to national narratives and positivism (Gómez-Carrasco et al., 2019), though recent research promotes heritage education, citizenship, social problems, gender equality, and innovative methodologies including TPACK (Cuenca et al., 2017; Pagès, 2019; Díaz de Bedmar and Fernández Valencia, 2019; Gómez-Trigueros and Moreno-Vera, 2017). Theoretical frameworks for historical thinking include big-six concepts (Seixas and Morton, 2013) and historical consciousness (Rüsen, 2004), with a moral/ethical dimension (Gadamer, 2006). Geographical thinking focuses on localization, spatial relations, causality, and evolution, with a developing moral dimension (Graves, 1975; Mohan, 1995; Brooks et al., 2017; Molin and Grubbström, 2013). Active, concept-rich approaches can counter memorization-based teaching and better connect knowledge to real-life issues (Martin, 2005; Seixas, 2017; Araya and Cavalcanti, 2018).

Design: Qualitative comparative study of national Primary Education curricula in Spain and Sweden focused on presence of historical and geographical thinking concepts. Research question: Are concepts for historical and geographical thinking present in national curricula of Sweden and Spain? Sample/documents: Spain—Royal Decree 126/2014 (Primary Education; analyzed 6th grade). Sweden—Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare (approved 2011; revised 2018; analyzed years 4–6). Instrument: A researcher-developed evaluation table for horizontal comparison across four dimensions and 21 items: (1) Structure and general features (compulsory/recommended/reviewable status; subject structure; timetables; subsequent development; student ratio; key competences; disability adaptations; reading plans). (2) Methodological strategies (general; project-based learning; practical sessions; research lessons). (3) Objectives and evaluation (subject-specific objectives; historical/geographical thinking concepts; evaluation standards at levels of reproduction, comprehension, application; evaluation strategies/instruments). (4) Contents. Data collection and analysis: Curricular texts were coded using AQUAD 7 to identify presence/absence and qualitative nature of the target items. Codes were structured to allow multi-dimensional analysis linked to the four specific objectives (S.O.1–S.O.4). Validation: Instrument validated via expert panel (n=12; 4 methodology experts and 8 Social Science Education experts). Items rated on Likert scale (1–5) and refined. Reliability assessed with SPSS 24; Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.89, indicating good internal consistency. Context note: Both countries share EU membership, stable public education systems, and broadly comparable PISA Science performance (2015/2018), though PISA Science spans beyond Social Studies and is not a direct measure of historical/geographical education.

- Structure/general features: Both curricula are compulsory. Sweden’s curriculum is reviewable (approved 2011; revised 2018), allowing incremental updates; Spain’s requires parliamentary change (RD 126/2014), limiting adaptability. Social Sciences structure differs: Spain combines History and Geography under Social Sciences (with juxtaposed content/criteria); Sweden separates them into distinct subjects with their own aims, content, and evaluation. Neither defines weekly timetables or class size ratios; both cite key competences. Spain mentions disability adaptations and reading plans generally but without subject-specific measures for Social Sciences; Sweden emphasizes support for pupils needing adaptations and attention to individual needs. - Methodology: Neither curriculum prescribes specific active methodologies for Social Sciences. Spain defines ‘methodology’ conceptually but offers no guidance; Sweden does not issue general methodology prescriptions but highlights field work in Geography as significant. There is no explicit inclusion of project-based learning, research lessons, or practical sessions in either. - Objectives and evaluation: Spain lacks Social Sciences-specific objectives; it provides detailed evaluation criteria/standards emphasizing reproduction: 64 reproduction standards, 12 comprehension standards, 20 application standards. Evaluation strategies/instruments are not concretized (assessment described as global and continuous with tests in years 3 and 6). Sweden states clear aims (4 for History; 4 for Geography) and provides specific knowledge requirements for years 4–6, with three evaluation criteria per subject and graded qualifications (A–E); no standards lists, showing alignment between aims and evaluation. - Contents: Both present closed, unambiguous conceptual content. Spain structures Social Sciences into: (1) Common contents (including maps, sources, investigation, cooperative work), (2) The world where we live (physical geography), (3) Living in society (human geography/economy/politics/demography), (4) Time footprints (history). Neither distinguishes conceptual/procedural/attitudinal content explicitly. Sweden lists ‘core contents’ for each subject separately (Geography and History, years 4–6), focused on conceptual content. - Presence of thinking concepts: Neither curriculum frames historical/geographical thinking concepts as fundamental aims. Sweden’s History core content for years 4–6 explicitly mentions change, similarities/differences, chronology, cause and consequence, sources and interpretation; Geography references spatial understanding. Spain does not explicitly include historical/geographical thinking concepts. Overall, low presence is linked to traditional, memorization-oriented models and positivism, especially evident in Spain’s evaluation standards profile.

Findings indicate that both national curricula underemphasize historical and geographical thinking as foundational aims, limiting opportunities for concept-driven, inquiry-based Social Science education. Sweden’s reviewable framework and explicit references to certain historical thinking elements (e.g., causation, change, sources) and spatial understanding in Geography offer partial support for thinking-based learning, but the absence of prescribed active methodologies constrains classroom change. Spain’s lack of Social Sciences-specific objectives and heavy reliance on reproduction-focused standards reinforce traditional transmission and memorization, misaligned with competencies needed to address complex contemporary issues. Aligning aims, content, methods, and assessment around historical/geographical thinking would enable pedagogies such as field work, project-based learning, research with sources, and practical/community-engaged activities, thereby enhancing transfer, relevance, and critical citizenship preparation.

The study developed and validated a comparative evaluation instrument (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.89) to analyze Primary Education curricula in Spain and Sweden across structure, methodologies, aims/evaluation, and contents. Despite differing subject structures, neither curriculum elevates historical and geographical thinking concepts as fundamental aims. Sweden’s curriculum, while reviewable and better aligned between aims and assessment, provides only limited explicit support (e.g., selected historical thinking elements and spatial understanding; field work in Geography). Spain lacks subject-specific objectives and emphasizes reproduction through numerous evaluation standards. Both systems present closed, conceptual content without clear procedural/attitudinal differentiation. Future directions include: integrating explicit historical/geographical thinking concepts as aims; aligning content and assessment to application and inquiry; and promoting flexible, active methodologies (e.g., project-based learning, research lessons, field work, practical sessions) to connect learning with real-world problems and foster critical and ethical dimensions of Social Science understanding.