The impact of content knowledge on the adoption of a critical curriculum model by history teachers-in-training

Over the last few decades, many have highlighted the importance of analysing the perception that society and, especially, the educational community has of school, the curriculum and different subjects. This impacts what teachers and pupils say and do, and the objectives attributed to academic knowledge. This study examines how a group of students in the last stage of their initial teacher training perceive history and its teaching, assessing to what extent their disciplinary training has encouraged reflection on ideas, identification of content problems, and reconsideration of schooling objectives in history education. The main objective is to explore the impact of disciplinary training on the representation of history by future primary and secondary school teachers and, particularly, on adopting a critical curriculum model in teaching/learning history. The study addresses three questions: (1) How is history represented by teachers in training? (2) Does disciplinary knowledge impact this representation (differences between Primary Education Degree and Secondary School Teaching Master’s, relative to prior bachelor’s degree)? (3) Has initial teacher training helped break down traditional perceptions of history education? The initial hypothesis is that disciplinary training conditions future history teachers’ perspectives and adoption of particular teaching paradigms; better epistemological disciplinary training should foster a more comprehensive view of history and its teaching, yielding differences between groups and greater coherence in selecting a critical curricular model among those with deeper reflection on the nature and socio-educational purposes of the discipline.

History has traditionally held a central place in compulsory curricula for patriotic and civic purposes, transmitting moral codes and socio-cultural values via teleological narratives centered on key figures and facts, reinforcing national unity and social hierarchies—what Cuesta termed the “disciplinary code.” Since the 1970s, this code has been challenged by psycho-pedagogical shifts (e.g., learner-centered, discovery models) and epistemological developments (history from below, microhistory, cultural, gender, post-colonial studies) that broaden topics, question established narratives, and seek objectives beyond nationalistic and culturalist uses. These approaches enable richer historical thinking and complex skill development. Despite changes, traditional influences persist in classrooms, with social representations of subjects and insufficient disciplinary understanding implicated. Solid subject-matter knowledge underpins didactic knowledge and relates to teachers’ adoption of curriculum models. The study distinguishes three curriculum models: technical (transmissive, effectiveness-oriented, ostensibly objective knowledge, reproducing classic narratives); practical (learner-centered, discovery learning, cognitive development, competencies); and critical (teacher as transformative intellectual, critical curriculum reading, problematizing content, epistemological perspectives beyond factual description, fostering complex historical thinking, denaturalizing entrenched narratives). Critical curriculum theory emphasizes what knowledge to teach and why, recognizing social and cultural interests embedded in curricula. The research examines whether stronger history education affects future teachers’ perceptions and their capacity to derive practices aligned with a critical model.

Research design: Two-phase mixed-methods design. Phase 1 was a quantitative, non-experimental study to collect systematic information on relationships among variables. Phase 2 used qualitative discussion groups to deepen understanding of links between disciplinary training and adoption of history education models. Context, participants, and sampling: Convenience, non-probabilistic sample of 215 students at the University of Valencia (Spain) in 2019/20, all at the end of initial training before school placements: 145 students in 4th year of the Degree in Primary Education (43% of cohort) and 70 students in the Master’s in Secondary School Teaching specialized in history and geography (MAES; 87.5% of cohort). Among degree students, 29.7% (n=43) specialized in arts and humanities; 70.3% (n=102) specialized in areas unrelated to history (e.g., physical education, science/mathematics, therapeutic pedagogy, hearing and speech). Among MAES students (n=70), 51.4% (n=36) held a degree in history; 40% (n=28) in art history; 8.6% (n=6) in other social/human sciences (geography, humanities, archaeology, political science). Grouping for analysis (Phase 1): Four groups by increasing level of epistemological disciplinary training: QG1 = Primary Education Degree (specializations unrelated to history), n=102; QG2 = Primary Education Degree (arts and humanities specialization), n=43; QG3 = MAES with non-history degrees (e.g., art history, geography), n=34; QG4 = MAES with history degree, n=36. Phase 2 sampling and groups: 24 participants selected from Phase 1 into three discussion groups by disciplinary education: DG1 = Primary Degree, specializations unrelated to history (n=8); DG2 = Primary Degree, arts and humanities specialization (n=8); DG3 = MAES history/geography specialization (n=8; composition targeted 4 history, 3 art history, 1 geography). Sessions exceeded 90 minutes, moderated by two authors, video-recorded with consent. Stimulating materials (texts, images, photographs) were used. Analysis employed open coding with attention to individual ideas, consensus/dissent, and potential marginalization of views. Instruments: Phase 1 used a structured questionnaire with 59 Likert items (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) across five sections: (1) Initial training in Social Science Didactics (3 items); (2) Teacher’s role in history class (18 items); (3) Resources and strategies (18 items); (4) Content for history class (12 items); (5) Objectives of history class (12 items). Expert validation by two Social Science Didactics experts and one Sociologist; internal consistency high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.898). Phase 2 used a discussion guide with six sections on: needs for school change; curriculum enabling/restricting change; suitability/changes to history course; adequacy of bachelor/master preparation and gaps; characteristics of a good social sciences/history teacher; critique of two proposed activities for teaching medieval history (a WhatsApp-based chronological summary of Iberian Middle Ages; and attending a theatrical performance “The King’s Tournament” about King James I with strong identity-based, national-Catholic narrative). Data handling and analysis: SPSS v26 used for descriptive statistics (means, SDs) on selected items within categories (teacher’s role, content, objectives). Due to heterogeneity of variances (Levene’s test p<0.05), robust tests of equality of means (Welch, Brown-Forsythe) were applied. Post hoc comparisons used Games-Howell (variance not assumed equal). Group-based homogeneous subsets were explored using Tukey’s HSD (not accounting for unequal variances; Type I error control not guaranteed given unequal group sizes). For qualitative data, open coding procedures aligned with questionnaire categories enabled triangulation and deeper interpretation.

Quantitative findings: - Teacher’s role: All groups valued understanding students’ prior ideas and socio-cultural contexts. Degree students (QG1, QG2) rated these slightly higher, reflecting stronger psycho-pedagogical emphasis. On axiological/political aspects, groups with greater disciplinary training favored a more critical stance, engaging controversy rather than neutrality. For example, Item 14 (“avoid controversial topics and remain neutral”): means were higher (more agreement) among QG1=3.02 and QG2=2.95, versus lower among QG3=2.18 and QG4=1.83, indicating stronger rejection of neutrality by more disciplinary-trained groups. Item 17 (spur debate and express own standpoint) increased with disciplinary training (QG1=3.27; QG2=3.67; QG3=4.30; QG4=4.75). - Content: Broad agreement across groups on including innovative/critical content (e.g., everyday life, human rights and social struggles, controversial socio-political topics) and skills for historical thinking (concepts like temporality, causation, continuity/change). Marked differences appeared for traditional, factual, and nationalist content. Support for “Most prominent facts and characters in the history of humanity” decreased with disciplinary training (QG1=3.50; QG2=2.98; QG3=2.64; QG4=2.28). For “Main historic events in the history of Spain,” QG4 (history majors) showed lowest support (2.17) compared with QG1=3.88, QG2=3.58, QG3=3.24; within MAES, non-history graduates (QG3) were less critical than history graduates (QG4). - Objectives: Skills-related and critical-thinking objectives were valued across groups (e.g., analyzing sources; historical empathy; causation/continuity; argument and debate; questioning identities and beliefs). Significant differences appeared for traditional objectives. “Acquire general knowledge” had much higher means among degree students (QG1=4.34; QG2=4.44) than MAES (QG3=3.24; QG4=2.16). “Understand main facts and historic characters explaining our origins as a people” similarly declined with disciplinary training (QG1=3.93; QG2=3.93; QG3=2.48; QG4=2.22). - Robust tests: Welch and Brown-Forsythe tests showed significant group differences (p<0.05) for teacher role (technical, practical, critical), content (technical, practical, critical), and objectives (technical, practical, critical) composites. Post hoc Games-Howell comparisons indicated that groups with higher disciplinary education (especially QG4) formed distinct subsets due to stronger rejection of traditional content and objectives and greater coherence favoring critical approaches. Qualitative findings (discussion groups): - Degree students (DG1, DG2) prioritized methodological innovation (technology use, gamification, engaging activities) and often upheld teacher neutrality, viewing curriculum as a constraint. They endorsed socially relevant topics but tended to approach them in non-divisive, methodological terms, sometimes missing epistemological critique. DG2 (arts and humanities) showed more readiness than DG1 to question traditional content and to frame activities to provoke debate. - MAES students (DG3), especially history graduates, framed teacher roles and content epistemologically, rejecting positivist neutrality, endorsing engagement with controversial issues, and proposing socio-cultural history tied to socially relevant problems (e.g., workers’ rights, nationhood, gender). They advocated using past-present analogies and fostering historical thinking. - Applied tasks: DG1 reacted positively to a WhatsApp-based medieval summary for its novelty and clarity, with limited critique of its reductionism; DG3 criticized its superficiality and stereotyping, suggesting only complementary use. For “The King’s Tournament,” DG1 emphasized the engaging method and identity aspects; DG2 and DG3 detected essentialist, national-Catholic narratives, opposing uncritical use and proposing it only as a resource to deconstruct myths and diversify perspectives (e.g., including Muslim voices). Overall: Greater epistemological disciplinary knowledge correlates with stronger and more coherent adoption of a critical curriculum model, coupled with explicit rejection of traditional content and objectives; degree students exhibit inconsistencies, endorsing both critical and traditional items.

The findings support the hypothesis that disciplinary epistemological training shapes future teachers’ representations of history and their curricular orientations. Teachers-in-training with stronger content knowledge (especially MAES history graduates) not only endorse critical and practical aims (skills, problematization, engagement with controversy) but also explicitly reject traditional, factual/nationalist content and neutrality, demonstrating coherent alignment with a critical curriculum model. In contrast, Primary Education Degree students tend to valorize methodological innovation and general skills while simultaneously maintaining support for traditional objectives and narratives, revealing internal inconsistencies and a limited capacity to critically read curricular content. Qualitative analyses showed that these differences manifest in how participants interpret resources and activities: those with more disciplinary grounding identify essentialist narratives and propose epistemologically informed alternatives; those with less rely on novelty and engagement without interrogating underlying narratives. This underscores the importance of disciplinary knowledge in enabling teachers to read curricula critically, problematize content, and align practices with civic and critical education goals.

Using a mixed-methods design allowed a comprehensive understanding of how disciplinary training influences the adoption of critical curriculum models in history education among future teachers. While all groups expressed support for practical and critical elements, the study shows that higher levels of epistemological disciplinary training are associated with greater rejection of traditional content and objectives and with more coherent critical stances. MAES students—especially those with history degrees—demonstrated richer didactic content knowledge and capacity to challenge hegemonic narratives, whereas Primary Education Degree students often equated innovation with methodological changes and technology, with lingering adherence to traditional aims. The study highlights the need to strengthen disciplinary history education within initial teacher training, particularly in Primary Education programs, to move beyond methodological tweaks toward substantive epistemological change and critical curricular engagement. Future research and program design should develop formative curricula that explicitly integrate robust disciplinary content with critical didactics, fostering teachers’ ability to question and interpret curricula, select content purposefully, and articulate civic-oriented objectives.

- Sampling was non-probabilistic (convenience) and confined to a single university (University of Valencia), which limits generalizability. - Only selected questionnaire items were analyzed for certain categories, potentially narrowing quantitative inferences. - Unequal group sizes and variance heterogeneity required robust tests; homogeneous subset exploration used Tukey’s HSD despite unequal variances, with noted caution that Type I error levels are not guaranteed. - Discussion group findings, while rich, are based on small groups (n=8 each) and may be influenced by group dynamics and context. - Data sets are not publicly available due to privacy concerns, limiting external verification.