Geographical thinking in geography education: a systematic review

Abstract

Geographical thinking is often regarded as one of the most crucial outcomes of geography education. Nevertheless, with the growing variety of definitions and conceptualizations surrounding geographical thinking, the entire concept is becoming increasingly intricate and abstract, gradually acquiring a degree of internal shallowness. To address this complexity and enhance the clarity regarding these diverse definitions and conceptualizations, a systematic review was conducted. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a final selection of 50 records including empirical articles, books and book chapters, were analyzed. The main findings reveal insights on temporal development, spatial distribution, and possible classifications of geographical-thinking definitions and conceptualizations. The article concludes with a discussion of possible implications for educational practice and related recommendations for future research.

Keywords:

• Geographical thinking
• geography education
• high-order thinking skills
• key concepts
• thinking geographically

View correction statement:

Correction

Introduction

Almost 80 years ago, Smith (1945) argued for the implementation of geographical thinking within geography lessons, saying that it would help students become purposeful thinkers and successful doers rather than “animated gazetteers.” She described the poor state of geographical thinking among students in the United States and lamented about how geography was taught.

Nowadays, scholars largely agree on the importance of geographical thinking. The vast majority of researchers believe that geographical thinking plays a pivotal role in conceptualizing the world, as it helps us make sense of its overwhelming complexity and better understand its immeasurable interconnectedness. Such thinking is of great value, and it is considered to be powerful in various ways (Brooks et al., 2017).

The case for thinking geographically becomes even more convincing in the current context of the Anthropocene. In this epoch driven by human activities, geographical thinking empowers us to foster a more sustainable and resilient future. Valuing and developing geographical thinking should thus be prioritized as an appropriate educational response (Lambert, 2023).

Furthermore, implementing geographical thinking in schools is one approach to replacing the descriptive, fact-based image of geography. As Jackson (2006) pointed out, demonstrating the power of geographical thinking might also address geography’s outdated content and reverse the increasing fall in students’ numbers and erroneous perceptions around geography.

Though the field of geographical thinking research has undergone immense development since Smith’s article (1945), some of her crucial questions remain unresolved. Despite the importance of geographical thinking, there is no cohesive consensus regarding what it actually is or how it should be developed and evaluated in schools. Consequently, divergent definitions, approaches, and conceptualizations around geographical thinking abound (e.g., Brooks et al., 2017). In addition, with more and more articles loosely employing the term geographical thinking, the term itself is becoming rather shallow.

Therefore, this article aims to summarize and classify different conceptualizations and definitions of geographical thinking and identify the most influential literature from this perspective. Moreover, it aims to identify and reflect on the temporal development and spatial distribution of articles defining and conceptualizing geographical thinking and to indicate how they could evolve in the future. It is not the intention of this article to suggest new ways of defining geographical thinking; rather, we seek clarity on already extant knowledge.

Theoretical premises: clarifying the terminology

To better contextualize the results of the following literature review, this section briefly outlines our current understanding of geographical thinking within the discipline of geography education.

In the field of geography in general, geographical thinking is commonly associated with shifting and evolving paradigms of geography and is mainly related to names such as Carl Ritter, Friedrich Ratzel, Richard Hartshorne, Vidal de la Blache, etc., and terms such as qualitative revolution, spatial science, etc. However, in geographical education, geographical thinking mostly refers to the cognitive process of thinking like a geographer. Even though these two approaches share some common ground (e.g., Morgan, 2013), it is crucial to differentiate between them, with our focus being on the latter.

Geographical thinking is often mentioned in the context of other concepts, such as spatial thinking (e.g., Metoyer & Bednarz, 2017), relation thinking (e.g., Karkdijk et al., 2019a), system thinking (Cox et al., 2019b, 2019a), geographical reasoning (Karkdijk et al., 2019b), geographic literacy (Favier & Van der Schee, 2014), and powerful knowledge (e.g., Maude, 2016), among others (e.g., Bendl et al., 2023). Even though geographical thinking shares common traits with these concepts, we treat it as a self-sufficient concept standing on its own. We do not aspire to fully grasp all the other mentioned concepts, as each would entail its own systematic review.

Methods

To identify different conceptualizations and definitions of geographical thinking, we conducted a systematic review. We followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 during the review (Page et al., 2021).

Literature search

The Scopus and ERIC databases were used to search for relevant English written literature (similarly Bernhäuserová et al., 2022). The search extended beyond empirical studies to include all peer-reviewed articles, review articles, and conference papers.

To eliminate the potential omission of relevant literature in this phase of review, the search command was assembled from commonly used synonyms of the term geographical thinking. As a result, we used the following combination of keywords in the command:

“geographical thinking” OR “geography thinking” OR “geographic thinking” OR “geographically thinking” OR “think* geographically” OR “thinking through geography” OR “think* like a geographer*” OR “think* like geographer*”

The search process conducted on May 13, 2023, resulted in 179 potentially relevant records after excluding 23 duplicates (see Figure 1).

Screening process

In the first stage, the first and second author independently inspected the identified titles and abstracts and confirmed that they were related to geographical thinking from the perspective of geographical education. The record eligibility criteria were further specified due to the unsatisfactory inter-coder reliability (80.4%, Cohen’s kappa − 0.61). Records that not only perceived geographical thinking similarly as geography educators but focused on geography education (and not e.g., on biology education) and had the potential to provide a definition/conceptualization of geographical thinking (i.e., not only mentioned geographical thinking marginally) were considered relevant. Thanks to this specification, the agreement between the coders was sufficiently high (97.8%, Cohen’s kappa − 0.96), and the coders solved the remaining four disagreements.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for the conducted systematic review.

Based on this screening, we sought the relevant records for retrieval. In case the full text was not found, their corresponding authors were contacted. Despite that, the full text of several records remained unobtained (Figure 1). It was thus necessary to exclude these from the full-text screening. We deemed the records eligible for the review if they met at least one of the following criteria:

• It directly states a definition of geographical thinking.

• It indirectly states a definition of geographical thinking by referring to another source.

• It states the conceptualization(s) of geographical thinking.

• It states specific aspects of geographical thinking.

As in the first screening, the first and second author independently inspected the records. The agreement between them was 88.1%, and Cohen’s kappa was 0.76. As there were minimal disagreements between the coders, these were individually resolved through discussion. In the end, 34 records from the databases were included in the review (Figure 1).

To not omit definitions of geographical thinking stated in the books or book chapters not included in the selected literature database, we supplemented the search pool with all references stated in the 34 included records that met the search criteria (see Figure 1). This screening process was identical to the previous one. Based on the first and second author’s coding, 16 records were added to the review. Therefore, 50 total records were comprised the research sample pool for this review.

Data extraction and analysis

A structured data extraction form was developed by authors onto which the relevant data from each included record were extracted. An extensive table showing the extracted data appears in the Appendix.

In addition to the summary narrative text describing and classifying the various perspectives on geographical thinking, we also synthesized the data into a citation network, i.e., a diagram depicting how the included records cite one another. The citation network was created using Gephi graph visualization and manipulation software. More specifically, Gephi’s Force Atlas layout was used. The visualization was then graphically enhanced using Inkscape software.

Results and discussion

This section addresses the three primary objectives of this article. Firstly, it addresses and reflects on the publishing trend in geographical thinking in geography education research. Secondly, it deals with the spatial distribution of the publications defining and conceptualizing geographical thinking. Lastly, it provides a classification and further discussion of the identified definitions and conceptualizations of geographical thinking and presents the most influential publications from this perspective.

Publishing trend in geographical thinking research

The analysis of annual publication on geographical thinking in geography education research offers valuable insights into the broader developmental trends within this field. The oldest relevant publication was by Mackinder (1911), who strongly emphasized the importance of thinking geographically, rather than simply remembering plain facts and place names. As Figure 2 illustrates, international research on geographical thinking in geography education displays a discernible upward trajectory, particularly over the past two decades. This trend underlines the increasing research momentum and growing scholarly interest in this topic.

Figure 2. Frequency of the records on geographical education in relation to their publication year. The distinguished approaches to geographical thinking are characterized in the section “Classifying Identified Definitions and Conceptualizations.”

Three main periods of publishing research about geographical thinking were identified. The first phase extended from 1911 to 1994. Within this phase, only a small number of publications that defined geographical thinking in geography education were identified. This indicates that research on this topic was in its infancy compared to the upcoming phases. The second phase lasted from 1995 to 2010, during which some highly influential definitions and conceptualizations of geographical thinking were proposed (e.g., Jackson, 2006; Geographical Association, 2009). These ideas served as a stepping stone for further research Figure 3. The last phase, which started in 2011, saw a considerable increase in the number of publications, reflecting the growing vitality of geographical thinking–oriented research. More recently, scholars have become increasingly interested in geographical thinking since it is believed to be a fundamental part of powerful knowledge. We believe that the general interest in powerful knowledge coming from the GeoCapabilites project phase 3 (Mitchell, 2022) is one of the main reasons for this strong development trend.

Figure 3. Spatial distribution of the identified records.

Although we acknowledge the importance of the concept of powerful knowledge in geography education and welcome the interest it generated around geographical thinking, we believe that geographical thinking is such an influential concept that it can stand on its own. Consequently, we feel that characterizing geographical thinking only as part of some “higher” concept (powerful knowledge, geographical reasoning, etc.) could hinder the attention devoted to it in the upcoming fourth phase. Especially in light of the evidence that the implementation of geographical thinking into school practice has been insufficient (e.g., Hennayake 2022), it is surprising that it is already becoming part of an even more complex concept, the implementation of which will most likely be even more difficult.

Spatial distribution of the identified publications

Spatial distribution analysis of the 50 identified records reveals highly uneven results (see Figure 4). The analysis clearly illustrates a substantial concentration of scholarly contributions from the “West,” especially the United States and the United Kingdom. This concentration can be attributed to these nations’ influential roles in shaping the discourse on geographical thinking in geography education. While this literature concentration highlights the substantial research output from these countries, it also underscores the need for a more global perspective on the topic, as perspectives from other regions may provide valuable insights and diverse viewpoints.

While the spatial distribution mentioned above is true overall, throughout the course of time, the publications have become more geographically diversified. While in the first one hundred years (since 1911), publications came only from the United States and the United Kingdom, the third phase shows higher diversity (see the Appendix), as significant contribution to the field is also visible, for example, from Benelux countries. This line of research is often inspired by Leat’s Thinking Through Geography strategies (Leat, 1998; see Figure 4) and examines either the effect of these strategies or the relational thinking that is considered the core of geographical thinking (Karkdijk et al., 2019a).

Classifying identified definitions and conceptualizations

The primary purpose of this systematic review was to summarize and classify different ways of defining and conceptualizing geographical thinking in geography education. Across all the reviewed publications, three key approaches for defining geographical thinking emerged. The publications most frequently (n = 19) explicitly linked geographical thinking to key geographical concepts (for more about key geographical concepts, refer to Taylor (2008); Fögele (2017); Maude (2020), etc.). The second most prevalent (n = 13) way of defining and conceptualizing geographical thinking was through procedural dimensions, namely specific high-order thinking skills (HOTS). In several publications (n = 8), these two approaches were synthesized when defining geographical thinking and thus formed a third key approach.

The remaining 10 publications did not align with any of these approaches, leading to the formation of a fourth cluster named “other.” The following subsections characterize each cluster and further illuminate the various discrepancies within them. It is worth noting that authors describing and characterizing only one dimension of geographical thinking might not mean that they do not consider other dimensions to also be integral, as it might have been the authors’ goal to focus on a single dimension within the given paper (for more, see the section “Limitations”).

Thinking geographically through key geographical concepts

The most attention has been given to the conceptual dimension of geographical thinking, as the results suggest it is the most common way of defining geographical thinking (see the Appendix). Within this line of research, geographical thinking is inherently linked to the key concepts considered to be the discipline’s cornerstones, which allow us to think geographically (Cox et al., 2020; Calderwood and Chalmers, 2021). Though these publications share their association of geographical thinking with these key concepts (e.g., Sassoon, 2012), several discrepancies within their definitions exist.

Most importantly, there is no clear consensus over what the key concepts forming geographical thinking are (compare, for example, Maude (2017) and Metoyer and Bednarz (2017)). The most frequently mentioned key concepts include place, space, environment, scale, and some form of their interrelations/interactions/relations. Sometimes they are referred to as themes, core concepts, big ideas, or even cornerstones, and they often occur at different levels of hierarchy. Following Cox et al. (2019a), we conclude that the selection of the key concepts usually varies according to an author’s beliefs, academic background, or research aims (compare Gould (1991), Hermann (1996), Mann and Saultz (2019), and Moreno-Vera and Alvén (2020)).

In addition to the differences related to the key concepts, their definitions of geographical thinking differ as well. For example, Cox et al. (2020) noted that some aspects of geographical thinking consist of human–nature interactions, scale, local–global relationships, geographical issues, and their linkages to personal choices. Uhlenwinkel (2017) similarly claimed that “people who think geographically use geographical concepts such as place, space, scale, interdependence, diversity, proximity or distance to analyse the phenomena in the world around them” (p. 45). In contrast, Kelner (1964) applied a rather determinist approach and elaborated on the definition from the student’s perspective: “When a pupil understands that much of the nature of Egyptian life is related to that of the Nile River, and that slow developing Southeast Asia is handicapped in part by a forested, swampy countryside making transportation and communication difficult then the pupil not only knows geography, but he thinks like a geographer” (p. 34). Kelner further concluded that, by thinking geographically, students can find a deeper meaning in the fundamentals of human existence.

The most cited primary resource in our systematic review (both within the conceptual approach and in general) was Jackson (2006) (see Figure 4), as 15 of the 36 later published records referred to his article. He argued that thinking geographically “enables a unique way of seeing the world, of understanding complex problems and thinking about inter-connections at a variety of scales (from the global to the local)” (Jackson, 2006, p. 199). He advocated for space and place, scale and connection, proximity and distance, and relational thinking as the key disciplinary concepts, and further explained how they function using a specific example of consumer ethics. Such explanations, we believe, are great tools to communicate the true meaning of geographical thinking and how to help its implementation in schools.

Another strong line of research within the conceptual dimension originated from David Lambert’s research (e.g., Geographical Association, 2009; Lambert et al., 2015). To explain geographical thinking, Lambert provided a three-part analogy in which he described geographical core knowledge as “vocabulary” and conceptual knowledge as “grammar” (e.g., Lambert, 2017). This analogy acknowledges the important role of facts (every language needs a vocabulary), but it is still the concepts (the grammar) that allow us to group and understand these bits of information and facts.

Within this line of thought, the influential Geographical Association’s manifesto “A Different View” (Geographical Association, 2009) was established (Figure 4). It treats geographical thinking as an essential educational outcome of learning geography: “To be able to apply knowledge and conceptual understanding about the changing world to new settings, that is to think” (Geographical Association, 2009, p. 10). Lambert (2017) added that, while absorbing the vast amount of geographical facts might be impressive, it is not itself a sign of intellectual development. For that, conceptual knowledge development—which entails a certain set of rules, procedures, and patterns—is needed.

Figure 4. Citation network of the identified records.

From all the above-mentioned definitions, it is apparent that the discrepancies within the conceptual approach are substantial. To sufficiently understand the conceptual approach to geographical thinking, it is crucial to describe the connection between key concepts and thinking geographically. In other words, how does the key concept make you think geographically? However, only a small number of current studies have attempted to answer this question.

Thinking geographically through high-order thinking skills

Another identified approach of conceptualizing geographical thinking is through its procedural dimension. Thirteen studies (26% of the sample) were classified within this approach (see Figure 4 and the Appendix). These publications were not primarily focused on geographical content, but rather on specific skills that should be applied to this content.

The vast majority of the analyzed records within the procedural dimension relate geographical thinking to inquiry (e.g., Ostapuk, 1997; Morgan, 2006; Nagel, 2008; Vávra, 2014; Mertol, 2021). Bednarz et al. (2013) argued that geographic inquiries support students’ capacity to engage in geographical thinking and that it emphasizes geography’s disciplinary thinking. Furthermore, Finlayson et al. (2017) claimed that engaging students in research tasks is an effective way to foster their geographical thinking. Nagel (2008) however, noted that “thinking geographically is not a research-oriented approach to investigating the world; rather it is a way to know where something is, how its location influences its characteristics, and how its location influences relationships with other phenomena” (p. 358).

Despite the differences mentioned above, to some extent, all those publications framed their definition of geographical thinking within National Geography Standards from the United States (e.g., NGS, 2012), which are based mainly on an inquiry process. This process consists of five key stages: asking geographical questions, acquiring geographical information, organizing geographical information, analyzing geographical information, and answering geographical questions (NGS, 2012). In the secondary literature, these steps may slightly differ among different authors (compare, for example, NGS (2012) and Bednarz et al. (2013)).

Here, again, David Leat’s Thinking Through Geography project (TTG) (Leat, 1998; Nichols et al., 2001) proved influential (see Figure 3), becoming a strong source of inspiration for much of the Dutch research on geographical thinking. Leat (1998) introduced well-thought-out strategies for developing thinking skills through geography based on five key components: information-processing skills, reasoning skills, inquiry skills, creative thinking skills, and evaluation skills. Although it is unclear to what extent are these components part of thinking geographically, the primary emphasis on the procedural dimension is apparent. According to Wildschut and Van Der Schee (2007), these TTG strategies make students think about the unique and constantly changing world they live in, improve their ways of thinking, and, most importantly, encourage them to think geographically.

It is crucial to mention that Leat (1998) linked those strategies not only with the general thinking skills (procedural approach) mentioned above but also with so-called “big concepts” (classification, cause and effect, location, decision making, planning, inequality, systems, and development). Thus, Leat (1998) focused heavily on the procedural dimension of geographical thinking, he also underlined the importance of central underpinning concepts, as he claimed that, without them, geography would become a mass of disconnected content.

The last identified approach for defining geographical thinking within the procedural dimension implements cognitive taxonomies (Favier & Van der Schee, 2014; Karkdijk et al., 2019a; Howell & Maddox, 2022). These studies employed not only cognitive taxonomies but also the key concepts, and therefore are classified and further elaborated on in the following section.

Synthesizing conceptual and procedural dimensions of geographical thinking

A total of eight studies (16% of the sample) employed a combination of the previously two described approaches for defining geographical thinking (see Figure 4 and the Appendix). This way of defining geographical thinking has become especially apparent over the last decade (see Figure 2). While the definitions in the first phase focused mostly on one dimension only, the latter often synthetized more complex approaches together. Their relative novelty from a temporal perspective might be why none of them were identified as highly influencing the rest of the reviewed publications (see Figure 4).

Though the line between these classifications is very thin, several significant discrepancies within various definitions of this synthesizing approach can be observed. For example, García De La Vega (2022) treats geographical thinking as a cognitive domain but defines it mainly in relation to the key concepts. He argues that teaching geography through key concepts helps organize and link content in geography lessons. This way of learning is believed to help with students’ cumulative learning, their understanding of geography as an intellectual core of knowledge, and their ability to think geographically (García De La Vega, 2022).

A slightly stronger emphasis on the conceptual dimension is also apparent in Karkdijk et al. (2019b) and Murphy and Hare (2016). While Karkdijk et al. (2019b) concluded that geographical thinking is a reasoning process in which students apply their geographical conceptual knowledge to specific regional contexts, Murphy and Hare (2016) developed the idea of so-called cross-cutting themes. All these authors, however, strongly linked their differently framed conceptual dimensions to the procedural dimension. Murphy and Hare (2016) even provided a specific example through the city of Shanghai, claiming that geographical thinking occurs when “one asks questions about the city’s internal spatial organization and material landscape, its changed relative location, and the ways in which the city’s unique history and geographical characteristics influenced the direction that development took” (p. 97).

Several other identified records that employed the synthetizing approach primarily emphasized the procedural dimension of defining geographical thinking. For example, while Howell and Maddox (2022) also discussed geographical thinking in the context of the main geographical themes, they focused primarily on the inquiry process that comes with it and referred exclusively to the records from the procedural dimension (Figure 4). This strong focus on specific geographical thinking skills can be further traced to Van der Schee (2020), who argued that students should learn high-order thinking skills comprising geographical thinking.

Another example of this approach appeared in Karkdijk et al. (2019b), who concluded that using mysteries and concept maps (one of many TTG strategies) fosters relational geographical thinking. This type of thinking is treated as a “core” of thinking geographically, as this line of research builds on Haubrich, who claimed that “to think geographically, students have to be able to formulate correct geographical relationships explaining the world around them” (as cited in Karkdijk et al., 2013, p. 184).

The works of Buchanek (2011), Favier and Van der Schee (2014), and Karkdijk et al. (2019a) took a slightly different approach to defining geographical thinking with an emphasis on the procedural dimension. These articles combined the two dimensions by discussing the key concepts in the context of cognitive taxonomies. While Favier and Van der Schee (2014) claimed that many of the thinking processes within fall in the categories “analyzing,” “evaluating,” and “creating” of the revised Bloom Taxonomy, Karkdijk et al. (2019a) employed the structure of observed learning outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy to measure the specific outcome of geographical thinking exercises.

Other approaches to defining geographical thinking and their specific aspects

The rest of the identified records (n = 10, 20% of the sample) did not fit any of the previous approaches for defining and conceptualizing geographical thinking (see the Appendix). Apart from Morgan (2013), these publications stand at the edge of the citation network, as they neither refer to other records defining/conceptualising geographical thinking nor are cited by the later records on this topic (Figure 4). Moreover, these publications mostly did not use a direct definition of geographical thinking. Instead, they focused on some relevant geographical thinking aspects (e.g. Mitchell 1931). Since these aspects repeatedly appeared in relation to geographical thinking throughout our whole sample of 50 records, we conclude the results section with a brief overview of these aspects (in bold) and their relevance to geographical thinking.

Throughout the analysis, a few descriptions of geographical thinking revolved around what it is not (i.e., definition by negation and difference). For instance, Mackinder (1911) asserted that it encompasses more than mere knowledge of place names and facts, and Hennayake (2022) differentiated between mere memorization of facts and true geographical thinking.

Even though these publications demonstrate the difference between content knowledge memorization and thinking geographically, they do not neglect the importance of this knowledge in geographical thinking. Some even emphasized its importance, as there is consensus that, to some extent, thinking geographically, builds upon these factual knowledge bases (e.g., Morgan, 2006). Similarly, geographical thinking is presumed to be less available to those who lack geographical knowledge. Moreover, several authors concluded that, to think geographically, students need something relevant to think about (e.g., Smith, 1945; Balciogullari, 2017).

Furthermore, thinking geographically has been repeatedly mentioned in tandem with relational thinking (especially in the Dutch literature, e.g., Karkdijk et al., 2013; Favier & Van der Schee, 2014; Karkdijk et al., 2019b), system thinking (e.g., Cox et al., 2020; Van der Schee, 2020), spatial and geospatial thinking (e.g., Metoyer & Bednarz, 2017; Klonari & Passadelli, 2019), and visualizations, visual images, and map reading (e.g., Ploszajska, 1996; Castner, 2003). However, how these aspects relate to geographical thinking varies vastly among authors. The aspects briefly covered in this review and which are also commonly characterized with relation to geographical thinking include inquiry (e.g., Nagel, 2008; Finlayson et al., 2017; Howell & Maddox, 2022), powerful knowledge (e.g., Solem, 2023), and critical thinking (Hubbard et al., 2002).

Implications for educational practice and related recommendations for future research

The results from the systematic review confirm that several different ways of conceptualizing and defining geographical thinking exist. Even within the specific dimensions of conceptualizing geographical thinking, several discrepancies were identified. It is clear that geographical thinking revolves around key concepts, high-order thinking skills, and other particular aspects (such as spatial thinking, relational thinking, etc.). However, it remains unclear what the specific concepts, concrete thinking skills, and aspects are and how they work together to foster the development of geographical thinking.

Lack of scholarly consensus might also be one of the causes of scarce research evaluating whether school lessons foster geographical thinking (except for the Dutch line of research, e.g., Karkdijk et al., 2019a). The findings partially explain the unsatisfactory and insufficient implementation of geographical thinking within school practice. What connects the several definitions of geographical thinking noted throughout this review is not only the general approach or specific key concept or high-order thinking skill they focus on, but often also their abstractness and their complexity. This fact, however, makes the implementation of geographical thinking even more difficult.

The results of this systematic review reveal the variability in defining and conceptualizing geographical thinking and its consequences, including the danger of emptying the term of its meaning. We believe that this should be of great interest to scholars since geographical thinking is considered one of the most important goals of geography education (e.g., Geographical Association, 2009).

In the second rounds of our screening process, we analyzed almost 90 publications dealing with geographical thinking. Nearly half of these publications included the concept of geographical thinking in their title or abstract without explaining it at all in the publication itself. They treated this term as a claim to support their argument. Moreover, its usage varied greatly, including in its meaning. In some cases, the studies simply claimed several high-order thinking skills, such as interpretation or analysis, are the key skills of geographical thinking, failing to elaborate on how these skills are geographical or how they constitute geographical thinking. They did not relate geographical thinking to any concepts or specific authors and operated with this term loosely. In our perspective, this kind of usage makes the term increasingly shallow and rather vacuous (e.g., such as the term “critical thinking”).

Based on our results, we offer four suggestions for future research on geographical thinking we believe could help with its implementation and stop its “definitional emptying”:

• Head toward a clear consensus regarding both the conceptual and procedural dimensions of geographical thinking and clarify the role of other aspects, such as spatial thinking, system thinking, etc.

• Emphasize the synthetizing approach and clarify the relationships between the key concepts and specific high-order thinking skills instead of investigating only a single facet of geographical thinking.

• Employ specific examples and case studies to explain how geographical thinking is developed and related to the selected definition. This should address the question “How exactly are these components of geographical thinking developing students’ capacity to think geographical?”

• Encourage research that would verify if and how geographical thinking is fostered and evaluated and research paying attention to teachers’ understanding of this term.

Limitations

Despite their indisputable value, several relevant publications (e.g., Uhlenwinkel, 2013; Nilsson & Bladh, 2022), could not be included in our study, as they did not meet the strict methodological criteria outlined in PRISMA. The reasons for this included, among others, not being written in English or not being indexed in specific research databases. To mitigate this limitation, a second round of analysis was conducted (for further details, see the “Methods” section).

The second set of limitations primarily stems from the classification of the analyzed definitions. By assigning a definition to a specific approach, such as conceptual or procedural, we do not intend to imply that the author automatically neglected the second dimension of geographical thinking. It might have been the author’s intention to focus solely on one dimension. For example, Balciogullari (2017) definition of geographical thinking elaborated exclusively on the procedural dimension, but later the author also acknowledged the significance of key concepts such as place and scale. Since these additional considerations were not explicitly stated within the definition itself, it was classified within the procedural dimension (this applies, for example, to Leat (1998), Morgan (2006), and Lambert (2017)). The interconnectedness between the two key identified approaches is also apparent from the citation network depicted in Figure 4, since, for instance, all the records defining geographical thinking using the conceptual dimension did not strictly refer only to other records from this approach. Notwithstanding the limitations of this study, we believe these constrains will not hinder its capacity to serve as a certain “guidepost” for future research endeavours.

Conclusion

This systematic review builds on vast foundations of already existing knowledge and provides a unique overview of one of the most vital outcomes of geography education: geographical thinking. We believe that geographical thinking should not only be seen as a pivotal objective of geography education but also as an opportunity to enhance its overall standing and relevance in contemporary society.

A more in-depth analysis of the reviewed literature reveals that, while some scholars strictly associate geographical thinking with the key concepts of the discipline, others align it with high-order thinking skills or contextualize it within specific theoretical frameworks, such as powerful knowledge or spatial thinking. The most complex approach to conceptualizing geographical thinking involves a synthetic perspective that combines both the conceptual and procedural dimensions and reflects scholars’ growing interest in the topic over the past decade. Although these definitions have the potential to comprehensively elucidate the essence of geographical thinking, they often tend to be highly complex and abstract, rendering their implementation in practical school settings a formidable challenge.

In conclusion, the findings presented herein evince an increasing scholarly interest in geographical thinking over the past two decades, especially in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. While this surge in interest is undoubtedly positive and pivotal for the advancement of geographic education as an academic discipline and for teaching geography in schools, it also poses certain risks. Our results suggest that the proliferation of diverse definitions and conceptualizations is progressively diluting the concept. Thus, in concluding this study, we would like to underline this peril, as we are keen to prevent geographical thinking from becoming lost in the vast sea of ambiguous (or elusive) and incomprehensible interpretations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2024.2369445).

Appendix

Table

ID	Title	Author	Year	Country of origin	Definition and relevant mentions	Classification
1	The teaching of geography from an imperial point of view, and the use which could and should be made of visual instruction	Mackinder H.	1911	UK	“By geography I do not intend a knowledge of place names. I do not even mean a knowledge chiefly of facts. I refer rather to a special mode and habit of thought, to a special form of visualisation which I cannot otherwise describe than as thinking geographically. …the true geographer thinks in shapes…”	Others
2	Geographical thinking: The new era in home and school	Mitchell S. L.	1931	USA	“…These are geographic facts and valuable, all of them, in their own place. But that place is certainly not with young children nor is it in the first stage of geographic thinking. There is an earlier kind of geographic thinking that is built on experiences, on first-hand observations, and which evokes eye and ear and muscle images so vivid that they demand active expression. There is a geography which may begin at four years old, perhaps younger, and can be pursued in a way which capitalizes a child’s method of learning: the method, I mean, of exploring the world through his senses and his legs, and the reliving of his experiences through play…. Experiences with earth and with human situations are the raw material out of which geographic thinking evolves.”	Others
3	High school geography and geographic thinking	Smith V. B.	1945	USA	“Geographic thinking calls for the use of facts of two different categories, one pertaining to man, the other to factors of the natural environment in which man lives and works. In finding the relationship between these two sets of factors geographic thinking is done. Geographic thinking varies in difficulty. There are great differences between an interpretation of simple human adjustments in lands of little rain, for example, and an interpretation of the world political pattern. With the interplay of ideas, ideals and aspirations of diverse peoples living under diverse environmental conditions. Between these extremes there are definite steps in geographic learning, each level making its particular contribution to geographic thinking.”	Others
4	To think like geographers: Philadelphia introduces a new course of study	Kelner B. G.	1964	USA	“With a geographic viewpoint, he can find a deeper meaning into the fundamentals of human existence. He can recognize that true knowledge of other peoples must encompass their climate, topography and natural resources as well as their aspirations. When a pupil understands that much of the nature of Egyptian life is related to that of the Nile River, that slow developing Southeast Asia is handicapped in part by a forested, swampy countryside making transportation and communication difficult and that the new governments of Africa are vitally concerned with agriculture, mineral resources and river systems, then the pupil not only knows geography but he thinks like a geographer.”	A
5	Guest essay: Thinking like a geographer	Gould P.	1991	USA	Author characterizes geographical thinking through so called senses: sense of calling, communion, disquiet, relevance, justice, spatial, need, caring, right.	A
6	Developing a spatial perspective: Using the local landscape to teach students to think geographically	Hermann D.	1996	USA	“They have developed an understanding of the spatial nature of geography. They look for spatial distribution and spatial patterns as they seek to understand the spatial characteristics of their city. They are thinking geographically.”	A
7	Constructing the subject: Geographical models in English schools, 1870-1944	Ploszajska T.	1996	UK	“The map-reading abilities upon which this capacity to think geographically depended, … he powers of imagination, held so vital as a prerequisite of thinking geographically”.	Others
8	The dragon and the anchor: Using a field experience, journaling, and writing to teach the five geographic skills sets	Ostapuk M. A.	1997	USA	Author characterizes geographical thinking trough five specific inquiry skills.	B
9	Thinking through geography	Leat D.	1998	UK	“… used thinking through geography strategies to infuse thinking skills (reasoning, enquiry, creativity, evaluation, information-processing) into their teaching…”	B (mentions A)
10	More thinking through geography	Nichols A., Kinninment D., Leat D.	2001	UK	“…thinking through geography strategies are rich in geographical thinking skills…” (reference to Leat, 1998)	B (mentions A)
11	Thinking geographically: Space, theory and contemporary human geography.	Hubbard P., Kitchin R., Bartley B., Fuller D.	2002	UK	“… thinking geographically - thinking critically about geographic ideas whether in an abstract or a concrete way.”	Others
12	Photographic mosaics and geographic generalizations: A perceptual approach to geographic education	Castner H. W.	2003	Canada	“if vision can be considered the basis of geographic inquiry, then it must involve looking with discrimination-the ability to discern clues in our surroundings that speak to spatial processes or patterns in all aspects of geography-physical, cultural, economic, and so on. Geographic thinking also involves making spatial generalizations.”	Others
13	Developing geographical wisdom: Postformal thinking about, and relating to, the world	Morgan A.	2006	UK	“There is a real sense in which thinking (whether wise or foolish) is always developed and applied ‘geographically’ since the world, and specific places, environments and communities that comprise it, represent the principal contexts of enquiry and arena for action in which thinking happens and through which wisdom (or foolishness!) is realised.”	B (mentions A)
14	Thinking geographically	Jackson P.	2006	USA	“Geography, I argue, enables a unique way of seeing the world, of understanding complex problems and thinking about inter-connections at a variety of scales (from the global to the local).”	A
15	Searching for strategies to help students to structure their geographical research papers in a domain specific way	Wildschut H. M. A, Van der Schee J.	2007	Netherlands	“Compare phenomena and regions in time and space, elate human and nature or spatial structure and behaviour. … Describe and analyse phenomena and regions from different dimensions (natural, political, socio-cultural, economical). … Use geographical contexts to distinguish between the whole and the parts. … Describe and analyse phenomena and regions on different scales. … Describe and analyse phenomena and regions by relating both general and unique patterns…”	B (mentions A)
16	Geography: The “essential” skill for the twenty first century	Nagel P.	2008	USA	“Thinking geographically is not a research-oriented approach to investigating the world; rather it is way to know where something is, how its location influences its characteristics, and how its location influences relationships with other phenomena. There are five steps to thinking geographically: (1) Ask geographic questions; (2) Acquire geographic resources; (3) Explore geographic data; (4) Analyze geographic information; (5) Act upon geographic knowledge.”	B
17	A different view: a manifesto from the Geographical Association	Geographical Association	2009	UK	“…an essential educational outcome of learning geography is to be able to apply knowledge and conceptual understanding to new settings: that is, to ‘think geographically’ about the changing world. … ‘Thinking geographically is a uniquely powerful way of seeing the world. While it does not provide a blueprint … thinking geographically does provide a language – a set of concepts and ideas – that can help us see the connections between places and scales that others frequently miss. That is why we should focus on geography’s grammar as well as on its endless vocabulary. That is the power of thinking geographically.’” reference to Jackson (2006)	A
18	How differences of opinion influence students’ capacity to think geographically	Buchanek R.	2011	Australia	“An essential educational outcome of learning geography is to be able to apply knowledge and conceptual understandings to new settings; that is to ‘think geographically’.” Note: Applies definitions of Jackson (2006) and GA (2009) and further elaborates on them within the context of Bloom’s Taxonomy.	A + B
19	Geography for life (2nd ed.)	NGS (National Geography Standards)	2012	USA	“Geographic thinking skills enable person to understand the connections between patterns of rivers and the physical processes that create them, between patterns of cities and the human processes that create them, and between what happens in the places in which we live and what happens in places throughout the world, near and far. These skills are: Asking Geographical Questions, Acquiring Geographical Information, Organizing Information, Analyzing Information and Answering Geographical Questions.”	B
20	Teaching the geography of development from the big picture	Sassoon H.	2012	UK	Jackson (2006)	A
21	What do we mean by thinking geographically? In D. Lambert & M. Jones (Eds.), Debates in geography education	Morgan J.	2013	New Zealand	“Geographical thinking is rooted in a form of English empiricism… it is a way of seeing… The first instance what it means to think geographically considered here comes from writings of Sir Halford Mackinder…”	Others
22	Effects of teaching with mysteries on students geographical thinking skills	Karkdijk J. et al.	2013	Netherlands	“So to think geographically, students have to be able to formulate correct geographical relationships explaining the world around them. … Geographical thinking is one of the most challenging aspects of both teaching and learning geography. Students should be enabled to learn these higher-order thinking skills.”	B
23	A road map for twenty first century geography education: Geography education research	Bednarz S., Heffron S., Huynh N. T.	2013	USA	“The geographic practices, which Geography for Life argues are essential to learning and thinking proficiently in geography, are: formulating geographic questions; acquiring, organizing, and analyzing geographic information; and explaining and communicating geographic patterns and processes.”	B (mentions A)
24	Cramming facts and thinking concepts: Instance of preparation of student geography teachers in Liberec	Vávra J.	2014	Czechia	Note: It does not contain specific written definition, however there is a geographical thinking visualisation that contains: knowledge, skills, attitudes and values.	B
25	Evaluating progression in students’ relational thinking while working on tasks with geospatial technologies	Favier T., Van der Schee J.	2014	Netherlands	“An important facet of geographic thinking is relational thinking (Jackson, 2006). Geographic relational thinking can be seen as a higher order kind of thinking about relations and effects in geographical systems. Many relational thinking processes fall in the categories ‘analysing’, ‘evaluating’ and ‘creating’ of the revised Bloom Taxonomy.”	A + B
26	Achieving human potential through geography education: A capabilities approach to curriculum making in schools.	Lambert D., Solem M., Tani S.	2015	UK, USA, Finland	“Teaching geography encourages and enables students to develop the following: A deep descriptive world knowledge. A critical conceptual knowledge that has explanatory power and systematicity, providing a relational understanding of people living on the planet. A propensity to think through alternative social, economic, and environmental futures in specific place and locational contexts. Our claim is that the preceding list provides a productive foundation for creating a dynamic Future 3 geography curriculum no matter the local cultural and political context. It does so through its attempt to remain above particular content selections but at the same time express what it means to think geographically (; Jackson, 2006). … We can become deeply committed to what it means to be, or to think like, a historian, scientist, musician, or geographer. This article is written partly from the conviction that such initiation into disciplinary knowledge is of great value, as we go on to explain in the next section. It should happen in schools on the grounds that all young people (not only those who go to university) have the right to the capabilities offered through such epistemic ascent . This is the process by which we begin to grasp the procedures and practices that adjudicate disciplinary knowledge.”	A
27	What might powerful geographical knowledge look like?	Maude A.	2016	Australia	“Geography’s ways of thinking are embedded in its major concepts, of which the most fundamental are place, space, environment and interconnection. While these are not substantive concepts like ‘city’ or ‘climate’, they can be described as meta-concepts (or concepts about concepts). With accordance to Lambert, thinking geographically is identified as part of geography’s powerful knowledge. It is powerful because it influences thinking about ways of explaining and ways of addressing problems.”	A
28	The nature of geography and its perspectives in ap ® human geography	Murphy A. B., Hare P. R.	2016	USA	“A geographer interested in the development of Shanghai, China, in recent decades might well ask questions about its internal spatial organization and material landscape, its changed relative location, and the ways in which the city’s unique history and geographical characteristics influenced the direction that development took. The important point is that almost all efforts to think about the world geographically involve at least one of these approaches—and most involve more than one.”	A + B
29	Geographical thinking approach in geography education	Balciogullari A.	2017	Turkey	“The geographic skills required of a geographically informed person consist of five sets of skills adapted from the Guidelines for Geographic Education: Elementary and Secondary Schools, prepared by the Joint Committee on Geographic Education by the Association of American Geographers and the National Council for Geographic Education. These stages are also known as geographic inquiry. . These are; 1. Asking Geographic Questions 2. Acquiring Geographic Information 3. Organizing Geographic Information 4. Analysing Geographic Information 5. Answering Geographic Question Geography seems to consist of memorizing place names in society." Based on relevant literature, author further argues that knowing place names is only one of the tools of geography and that). learning only the context, as an end in itself, makes relatively little contribution to thinking geographically . The way we develop geographical thinking, which has the applicability to the environment we live in, goes far beyond the practicality of the information taught in everyday life. In this respect, the most important task in the realization of geographical thinking depends on the teachers. Geographical thinking skills provide students with information processing, reasoning, interrogation and evaluation. .	B
30	Acquiring powerful thinking through geographical key concepts. In C. Brooks, G. Butt & M. Fargher (Eds.), The power of geographical thinking	Fögele J.	2017	Germany	“To fully understand some of the most recent major world issues—such as climate change, the refugee problem, migration and globalisation—we need to focus on the interconnections between human, environmental and physical factors at different scales. In short: a geographical view on these problems can help to cope with their complexity (Morgan, 2013). Using geographical key concepts to organise and intertwine content in geography lessons is a means of creating progress concerning the students’ cumulative learning and their geographical thinking skills.).”	A
31	Geographical thinking: Is it a limitation or powerful thinking? In C. Brooks, G. Butt & M. Fargher (Eds.), The power of geographical thinking	Uhlenwinkel A.	2017	Germany	“… geographical thinking is not a limitation, but opens ways of understanding that moral instruction alone cannot offer. The geographical thinking approach that can be found in different versions in the UK and in France denotes a decidedly subject-based idea. People who think geographically use geographical concepts such as place, space, scale, interdependence, diversity, proximity or distance to analyse the phenomena in the world around them.”	A
32	Applying the concept of powerful knowledge to school geography. In C. Brooks, G. Butt & M. Fargher (Eds.), The power of geographical thinking (27-40)	Maude A.	2017	Australia	“Geography’s ways of thinking are embedded in its major concepts, such as place, space, environment and interconnection. These are not substantive concepts like ‘city’ or ‘climate’, which are about the substance of geography, but can be described as meta-concepts, which are concepts about concepts.”	A
33	Thinking geographically, Chapter 2. In M. Jones (Ed.), The handbook of secondary geography	Lambert D.	2017	UK	“Thinking geographically is not every day thinking. We need facts in order to think but we also need concepts to enable us to group bits of information or facts, together. Simply absorbing lists of geography’s vocabulary does not amount to much more than a dramatic feat of memory: impressive, but it is not itself a sign of geographical thinking.”	A (mentions B)
34	Spatial thinking assists geographic thinking: Evidence from a study exploring the effects of geospatial technology	Metoyer Sandra, Bednarz Robert	2017	USA	“Geographic thinking extrapolates beyond spatial thinking to encompass the recognition and elaboration of the relations among spatial concepts, the advanced associations derived from these concepts, and the formal linking of the associations into theories and generalizations.”	A
35	Cultivating geographical thinking: A framework for student-led research on food waste	Finlayson C., Gregory M., Ludtke C., Meoli Ch., Ryan M.	2017	USA	“engaging students in research opportunities would be an effective way to train students how to think geographically. Thinking geographically involves the rejection that learning is just about consuming information; rather it is an interaction with the information that depends on deep analysis and reflection.”	B
36	The use of causal diagrams to foster systems thinking in geography education: Results of an intervention study	Cox M., Elen J., Steegen A.	2019	Belgium	“Systems thinking or relational thinking is inherently part of geographical thinking and hence of geography education. To explain the meaning of geographical thinking, sets of key concepts are used.”	A
37	Small-group work and relational thinking in geographical mysteries: A study in Dutch secondary education	Karkdijk J., Admiraal W., Van der Schee J.	2019	Netherlands	“Relational thinking belongs to the core of geographical thinking and offers students a powerful way of thinking. Using descriptions of powerful knowledge borrowed from Young, Maude interprets knowledge as powerful when, among other things, it ‘enables students to discover new ways of thinking; better explain and understand the natural and social worlds; think about alternative futures and what they can do to influence them’. … Using Van der Schee’s model, geographical relational thinking can be described as analysing, explaining and/or predicting the relationships that cause regional change on different scales and the interactions between them. … The concept of geographical refers to relational thinking as a part of geographical thinking, for the focus is on meaning-making with respect to regional change with the help ofgeographical concepts and questions (; Uhlenwinkel, 2013, 2017).”	A + B
38	Students’ geographical relational thinking when solving mysteries	Karkdijk J., Van der Schee J., Admiraal W. F.	2019	Netherlands	“We define geographical relational thinking as a core element of geographical thinking, containing the analysis, explanation and/or evaluation of the vertical and horizontal relationships (the geographical relationships) that cause change in regions on different interconnected scales. In this reasoning process, students have to apply their geographical conceptual knowledge to specific regional contexts. It therefore demands higher order thinking skills”	A + B
39	Differences between dyslexic and non-dyslexic students in the performance of spatial and geographical thinking	Klonari A., Passadelli A. S.	2019	Greese	Note: authors define geographical thinking through geospatial thinking.	Others
40	The role of place, geography, and geographic information systems in educational research	Bryan M., Andrew S.	2019	USA	“Geographic thinking helps us understand the relationship between place and space in unique ways and has the potential for helping us view systems in a new light.”	A
41	Concepts for historical and geographical thinking in Sweden’s and Spain’s primary education curricula	Moreno-Vera J. R., Alvén F.	2020	Sweden / Spain	“The concepts of geographical thinking can be resumed as: localization, spatial relations, causality and evolution (Brooks et al., 2017). Even a concept of moral dimension is mentioned among researchers today.”	A
42	Fostering students geographic systems thinking by enriching causal diagrams with scale. Results of an intervention study	Cox M., Elen J., Steegen A.	2020	Belgium	Note: authors are using definitions from Jackson (2006); Morgan (2013); and Lambert (2017)	A
43	Thinking through geography in times of the COVID-19 pandemic	Van der Schee J.	2020	Netherlands	“Summarizing briefly, the geographical way of thinking is about actors and activities in areas at different levels from local to global. This way of thinking can help to analyse big problems like climate change, water management, food supplies, urbanisation and migration as well as the diffusion and distribution of pandemics like COVID-19.”	A + B
44	The role of geography’s concepts and powerful knowledge in a Future 3 curriculum	Maude A.	2020	Australia	“I suggest that such a curriculum would be focused on developing higher level understanding of the four key geographical concepts, because these are what students use to think geographically, using content selected for its interest, relevance or significance.”	A
45	Geography scholarship, scholarship and thinking	Calderwood R., Chalmers L.	2021	New Zealand	Note: authors are using the definition from Jackson (2006)	A
46	The geographical thinking skills and motivation of the students in the departments of geography in Turkey	Mertol H.	2021	Turkey	“Geographical capabilities are the way we understand geographically, and we start to think geographically using these geographical capabilities”. Note: Main focus of the article is on geographical thinking skills, not geographical thinking as such. For geographical thinking skills the NGS (2012) framework is employed.	B
47	A proposal for geography competence assessment in geography fieldtrips for sustainable education	García de la Vega A.	2022	Spain	“Geographic thinking and reasoning focus on such spatial concepts as scale transformation, spatial association, distance and direction changes, and location identification.”	A + B
48	Geographic inquiry for citizenship: Identifying barriers to improving teachers’ practice	Howell J. B., Maddox L. E.	2022	USA	“When learners explore these core disciplinary ideas during geographic inquiries, they should gradually develop an expanding array of knowledge and tools that permit more sophisticated thinking and reasoning. Students best derive deep meaning from geography instruction when they consider geographic content, theories, and values together.”	A + B
49	Reflecting on geography higher education in Sri Lanka: Unpacking/releasing the hegemonic burden…,”	Hennayake N.	2022	Sri Lanka	“Thinking geographically entailed engaging across phenomena that categorise and separate other disciplines: biological, hydrological, climatic, geological, economic, political, cultural, social processes and so on”.	Others
50	Geography achievement and future geographers	Solem M.	2023	USA	Note: Not a direct definition, only conceptualization of geographical thinking within powerful knowledge	Others