Geographical thinking is a cornerstone of modern geography education, yet no large-scale international study has explored its integration into curriculum documents. This study examines how geographical thinking is embedded in curricula across nine countries (Australia, China, Czechia, Denmark, France, Norway, Slovakia, South Africa and the United States) revealing variations in the emphasis on content and procedural dimensions.

Geographical thinking encompasses key concepts such as environment, place, and interconnection (Maude, 2024), alongside procedural skills like inquiry, spatial thinking and metacognition (Bendl et.al., 2024 a). However, these elements are inconsistently addressed in national curricula, with environment and space often dominating while place is underrepresented. Procedural aspects, including inquiry, are emphasized, but critical thinking, creativity, and metacognition are less prominent. These gaps reflect the broader challenge of balancing prescriptive clarity with interpretive flexibility in curriculum design.

The conceptual roots of geographical thinking trace back to earlier scholars and educators, with significant contributions from Leat (1998) and the "Thinking Through Geography" project (Nichols et al., 2001). Jackson (2006) further ignited interest by arguing that geographical thinking offers a unique perspective for understanding complex global issues. The Geographical Association (2009) reinforced this approach, emphasizing the application of knowledge and conceptual understanding to new settings. Early frameworks of geographical thinking have shaped subsequent research and practice, driving theoretical exploration and practical applications.

While most studies focus on the content dimension, some have delineated the procedural dimension more specifically. Geographical inquiry, involving cognitive skills such as asking questions, acquiring information, and communicating findings, is a prominent approach. Roberts (2023) proposes a nuanced framework for effective inquiry, emphasizing a question-driven approach, evidence support, critical reasoning, and reflection.

Influential research projects like Geocapabilities (Lambert et al., 2015)  and the concept of powerful knowledge (Brooks et al., 2017; Maude, 2020) have further integrated geographical thinking into education. These projects highlight the significance of key concepts and a relational, holistic approach to inquiry, empowering individuals to navigate and respond to modern challenges. A structured, analytical approach is emerging, distinguishing between cognitive processes and geographic content, fostering a deeper development of students' geographical skills and knowledge.

Creation of the framework:
A framework was developed to analyze and compare nine national curricula through the lens of geographical thinking, conceptualized as comprising two interconnected dimensions: content and procedural. This unified approach provided a consistent structure for examining geographical thinking across various national curricula.

The content dimension is interpreted through six key concepts: place, space, interconnections, environment, scale, and time, chosen based on Maude (2024) and fitting the criteria proposed by Fögele (2017). These concepts are designed to support educators in geographical education.

The procedural dimension aligns with frameworks proposed by Roberts (2006, 2023), Bednarz et al. (2013), and NCGE (2012), which enjoy long-standing consensus in the geography education community. For more complex results, various modes of thinking intersects with geographical thinking were integrated, as outlined by Bendl et al. (2024b).

The final framework simplifies geographical thinking but provides a robust foundation for the study’s objectives. It captures the wide variability of approaches to geographical thinking across national curricula. 

We undertook a two-step data-collection process. The two rounds of data collection constitute the empirical data used in the data analysis, which was performed as a structured thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The data collection process involved the two-step methodological analysis conducted by nine geography education researchers from various countries. In the first step, the researchers received a framework with all items and definitions, along with instructions to perform a deductive content analysis of their national curriculum or a curriculum in a familiar language. The analysis focused on examining the presence and extent of content-related and procedural-related aspects of geographical thinking in the curriculum, and providing relevant examples to illustrate their representation. In the second step, four open-ended questions were sent to the researchers to gather general information about the curriculum and geographical thinking: Is geographical thinking explicitly addressed in your curriculum? How does your curriculum balance content and procedural dimensions of geographical thinking? Would you describe your curriculum as more prescriptive or interpretative? Is there anything else you want to share about your curriculum? Researchers were informed they could ask questions about the data analysis process and include any additional relevant information. This two-step approach ensured a comprehensive analysis of how geographical thinking is integrated into various national curricula. The structured thematic analysis was used to explore how geographical thinking is articulated in the curricula of nine countries. The process involved two phases: an initial exploratory phase to get familiarized with the data and identify patterns, followed by a detailed coding phase. The analysis combined deductive and inductive approaches, using a framework and open-ended questions to guide the process. We grouped related codes to identify overarching patterns and themes, ensuring alignment with the source material. The curricula were evaluated for their prescriptive or interpretative nature, providing insights into how curriculum design influences the articulation of geographical thinking.

The research highlights that interpretive curricula enable innovative teaching but require robust teacher training, while prescriptive models offer clarity but limit adaptability. A persistent shortage of geography-trained educators further undermines the effective implementation of geographical thinking worldwide. The study emphasizes the need to integrate content and procedural dimensions, explicitly define geographical thinking, and address teacher training gaps to enhance curriculum efficacy. By fostering dynamic and reflective geographical thinking, curricula can better equip students to navigate the complexities of a rapidly changing world. Geographical thinking is crucial in modern geography education, yet no explicit definition was found in the nine upper-secondary curricula analyzed. While various content and procedural elements were present, none explicitly stated geographical thinking as a goal. The focus on environment, space, and interconnection aims to prepare students for 21st-century challenges, but the neglect of "place" undermines a critical pillar of geographical thinking. This limits students' ability to connect theoretical knowledge to the real world and make informed decisions. The general structure of many curricula makes them more interpretive than descriptive, potentially leading to the diminished emphasis on "place." The geography education community must increase the number of qualified geography teachers to interpret curricula effectively. The procedural dimension shows strengths in inquiry, spatial thinking, relational and system thinking, and critical thinking. However, the lack of focus on creative thinking, future thinking, and metacognition limits students' engagement and ability to apply geographical knowledge in real life. Balancing content and procedural dimensions, supported by well-educated geography educators, is essential.

Bednarz, S. W., Heffron, S., & Huynh, N. T. (Eds.). (2013). A road map for 21st century geography education: Geography education research. Association of American Geographers. Bendl, T., Krajnakova, L., Marada, M., & Reznickova, D. (2024a). Geographical thinking in geography education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 1-19. Bendl, T., Marada, M., & Krajnakova, L. (2024b). Breaking down the complexity of geographical thinking: A European perspective. Geography, 109(3), 153–162. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Brooks, C., Butt, G., & Fargher, M. (Eds.). (2017). The power of geographical thinking. Springer International Publishing. Fögele, J. (2017). Acquiring powerful thinking through geographical key concepts. In C. Brooks, G. Butt, & M. Fargher (Eds.), The power of geographical thinking (pp. 59–74). IGU UGI, Springer. Geographical Association. (2009). A different view: A manifesto from the Geographical Association. Geographical Association. Jackson, P. (2006). Thinking geographically. Geography, 91(3), 199–204. Lambert, D., Solem, M., & Tani, S. (2015). Achieving human potential through geography education: A capabilities approach to curriculum making in schools. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(4), 723–735. Leat, D. (1998). Thinking through geography. Chris Kington Publishing. Maude, A. (2020). The role of geography’s concepts and powerful knowledge in a future 3 curriculum. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 29(3), 232–243. Maude, A. (2024). Thinking geographically: A guide to the core concepts for teachers. Routledge. National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE). (2012). Geography for life: National geography standards (2nd ed.). Geography Education Standards Project. Nichols, A., Kinninment, D., & Leat, D. (Eds.). (2001). More thinking through geography. Chris Kington Publishing. Roberts, M. (2006). Geographical enquiry. In D. Balderstone (Ed.), Secondary geography handbook (pp. 59–74). The Geographical Association. Roberts, M. (2023). Geography through enquiry: Approaches to teaching and learning in secondary school (2nd ed.). Geographical Association.