The Role of Higher-Order Thinking Tasks in the Teaching Repertoires of Dutch and German Geography Teachers: Exploring the Impact of Curriculum Contexts

Higher-order thinking (HOT) skills are essential for developing powerful geographical knowledge. Assignments serve as key tools for structuring teaching and learning processes and occupy a significant share of classroom time. A preceding study revealed substantial differences between Dutch and German upper secondary geography education: Dutch textbooks included only 6% HOT tasks, compared to 34% in German textbooks. Similarly, HOT tasks occurred in just 1% of Dutch lessons versus 15% in German lessons. Nevertheless, teachers in both countries shared similar views regarding quality geography teaching. In both contexts, high-stakes final examinations played a central role in shaping teaching practices. Dutch teachers, in particular, reported that these exams strongly influenced their lesson design and contributed to increased stress. To investigate these patterns, Bernstein’s theory of the pedagogic device was applied, focusing on how knowledge is transformed from academic disciplines into classroom practices. Within this framework, teachers’ repertoires are shaped by curriculum context and access to knowledge-producing and pedagogical networks. The study focused on upper secondary geography education in the Netherlands and North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), addressing four sub-questions. The first sub-study introduced the Geography Task Categorisation Framework (GTCF), combining Bloom’s revised taxonomy with Bernstein’s concepts. Applied to tasks on Global Food Issues, the framework showed that Dutch textbooks contained only 1.8% HOT tasks, compared to 13.1% in NRW. Similar trends were observed in tasks on climate change. The second sub-study examined curriculum alignment. In the Netherlands, a disconnect was identified between school examination (SE) goals, which included HOT, and the high-stakes examination (HSE), which did not. HSE tasks primarily emphasised correlation strategies. In contrast, the curriculum in NRW demonstrated constructive alignment between SE and HSE, supporting analysis and evaluation. Monitoring in NRW focused on individual student progress, fostering public trust. The third sub-study analysed Dutch classroom practices. Tasks occupied about half of class time, with 80% drawn from textbooks. HOT tasks accounted for only 1.2%, appearing solely in non-textbook materials. High-stakes exam samples were introduced well in advance, indicating a pre-shadowing effect on instruction. In the final sub-study, a more nuanced picture emerged. Although Dutch teachers mainly set correlation tasks (20.1%), they also used a substantial number of assignments addressing parts of HOT (17.9%) and full HOT tasks (23.1%). In NRW, most tasks focused on evaluation (30.0%), while creation tasks remained scarce. A positive correlation in both countries was found between HOT task use and participation in professional development or didactical networks, as well as strong subject knowledge. Task-setting was influenced by teachers’ orientations. Two overarching dimensions were identified: one combining school exam preparation and command words, and another adding high-stakes exam preparation. Evaluation tasks were more common among Dutch teachers not oriented toward high-stakes exams and among NRW teachers who were—highlighting how exam orientation shapes task-setting. The findings underscore the decisive impact of curriculum context and assessment structures. Improving textbooks, aligning curricula with assessments, and supporting professional development are key to embedding HOT more robustly in classroom practice.