Influences on the task-setting practices of geography teachers: orientations and curriculum contexts

Abstract

Geography teachers face increasing accountability with a focus on measurable outcomes. This paper examines the task-setting of geography teachers for the topic Global Food Issue in upper secondary education in the Netherlands and North-Rhine Westphalia (Germany), two countries with a comparable education system, but differing examination systems. The results show that teachers’ orientations towards the curriculum influence the types of tasks they use. However, the evaluative rules of the curriculum context, specifically the examination system, exert a significant influence on teachers’ task-setting. Achieving constructive alignment, which entails consistency between curriculum objectives and high-stakes examinations, emerges as of paramount importance in assisting teachers in achieving higher-order-thinking skills.

Keywords:

• Constructive alignment
• curriculum context
• higher-order thinking
• task setting
• teaching and curriculum orientation

Introduction

The role of the teacher is pivotal in delivering quality education (Bladh, 2020; Hattie, 2023). The decisions that teachers make to facilitate their students’ learning in the most effective manner are vital for their students’ overall success. At the same time, there is a growing emphasis on teacher agency and curricular leadership, which is often referred to as “curriculum making” within both national and school contexts (Lambert et al., 2015; Uhlenwinkel et al., 2017). However, an increasing culture of accountability, in which examination results play a central role, has gradually eroded teachers’ autonomy in most Western countries in recent decades (Mitchell et al., 2022).

In this article, we examine the role of geography teachers as curriculum makers in two distinct curricular contexts where exams are positioned differently. We do this by examining teachers’ task-setting practices and their orientations, i.e. the goals and factors that guide teachers in creating tasks. Our goal is to enhance our understanding of teachers’ considerations within a specific curriculum context and to discern the impacts of these contexts.

Tasks are a powerful tool for geography teachers, as they steer learning processes within the classroom to a great extent (Mehren & Mehren, 2020), and can foster powerful knowledge, i.e. have a transformative capacity (Roberts, 2023). However, tasks are also inherently complex; during their formulation, teachers have to consider a variety of aspects (Krause et al., 2021b). These factors are key in the research on geographical education (Kidman & Papadimitriou, 2012; Papadimitriou & Kidman, 2012), and encompass motivating and engaging students within the subject matter, accommodating the diverse needs of learners, supporting the organization and facilitation of both individual and social learning processes, and nurturing the development of subject competencies that are “vital to equip the next generation of people with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and practices to value, care, and make reasoned decisions for the planet” (IGU CGE., 2016, p. 5). The development of thinking processes is often described as a continuum spanning from lower-order to higher-order thinking (Virranmäki et al., 2021). Within this continuum, students ascend epistemically (Winch, 2013), gradually gaining insight into disciplinary ­knowledge (Lambert et al., 2015).

The Geography Task Categorisation Framework (Krause et al., 2022b), an elaboration of Bloom’s revised taxonomy, provides detailed insights into the various types of tasks and their progression. It distinguishes between “lower order thinking” (LOT), focusing on reproduction, and the “use of thinking strategies” (UTS), which fosters systematic knowledge (Béneker & van der Vaart, 2020) by primarily connecting factual and conceptual knowledge to newly presented contexts. At the upper end, we encounter “parts of higher order thinking” (PHOT), which confronts students with complex information, and “higher order thinking” (HOT), which demands that students independently analyse or evaluate complex situations and, based on that, develop solutions to problems by adhering to criteria and maintaining high standards in the presentation of their results. More recent conceptualizations now integrate “metacognition” into higher-order thinking (Jansen & Möller, 2021). The distinction between UTS and PHOT/HOT is particularly important, as the complexity between these levels increases and a “potential discursive gap” becomes visible (Bernstein, 2000, p. 30). However, despite the importance of higher-order thinking due to its inclusion of critical and creative reflection, the results of geography assessment questions and textbook tasks in several countries show that this type of task is largely absent (Virranmäki et al., 2021).

Task setting lies at the heart of geography teachers’ expertise. This expertise is referred to as subject didactics, curriculum making, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) or repertoire (Bernstein, 1999; Bladh, 2020). Teachers’ beliefs and values function as a “professional compass” (Brooks, 2016), and constitute a part of this expertise and are expected to exert an influence on teachers’ decision-making. These values and beliefs revolve around “the most effective way of achieving certain outcomes” (Goepel, 2012, p. 495). In the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) literature, these beliefs and values are termed “teaching orientation” (Magnusson et al., 1999). Parallel to the concept of teaching orientation is that of “curriculum orientation”, which delineates teachers’ beliefs and values regarding the educational purposes that should be pursued, thereby guiding teachers’ actions within the classroom (Schiro, 2013; Zweeris et al., 2023). The number and labels of orientation dimensions differ per author. Furthermore, the literature distinguishes between three levels of influence exerted by teachers’ orientations: According to Magnusson et al. (1999), they can be understood as a general orientation that affects all other PCK elements (Magnusson et al., 1999), whereas Gess-Newsome (2015) sees them as a specific orientation, akin to a filter or amplifier between PCK elements and classroom practices. For Biggs (1996), they are a concrete orientation (theory-in-use) that becomes visible in a teacher’s action. The idea of a specific orientation proposed by Gess-Newsome is widely accepted (Tuithof et al., 2021) and will be used in this article.

Moreover, Biggs (1996) stresses the importance of ensuring that teachers’ orientations align not only with each other but also with curriculum objectives, instructional methods (e.g. task setting) and assessments (see also Zweeris et al., 2023). This “constructive alignment” (Biggs, 1996, p. 347) is a condition for successful learning. Although the significance of teachers’ orientations in shaping their teaching practices has been recognized (Zweeris et al., 2023), research on these orientations within geography education is scarce. The few existing cross-country studies suggest that geography teachers in different countries share common goals, including fostering global citizenship, critical and geographical thinking, transferring geographical knowledge, activating students, and stimulating enthusiasm and amazement (Krause et al., 2017; Uhlenwinkel et al., 2017). Research on history teachers, for example, demonstrates that teachers’ actions are driven by their orientations (Tuithof et al., 2021). However, as far as we know, there is no research exploring geography teachers’ orientations in relation to teaching practices, such as task setting.

In recent years, teachers have faced growing pressure in their roles as curriculum makers. This pressure arises not only from the need to meet subject-specific objectives but also to fulfil broader educational goals. Across European countries, increased accountability measures have made achieving these developmental goals more challenging (Biddulph et al., 2020; Mitchell et al., 2022). This heightened emphasis on achieving measurable outcomes has resulted in a loss of autonomy for teachers (Mitchell et al., 2022). Consequently, it has impacted task setting, with accountability often pushing teachers towards emphasizing lower-order thinking. Teachers feel compelled to focus on quantifiable, comparable outcomes, which often necessitate the assessment of lower-order thinking skills (Biggs, 1996). On the other hand, as a true professional, teachers are expected not solely to deliver imposed goals (Goepel, 2012), but as Uhlenwinkel et al. (2017, p. 11) put it “it is specialist teachers who can, notwithstanding the various influences and pressures they are under, take responsibility to design and make convincing and engaging lessons”.

Teachers experience conflicting priorities between the pressures of accountability and achieving quantifiable outcomes, and their role as curriculum makers. What remains unclear, however, is the extent to which observable aspects of a teacher’s actions, such as task setting—or in Bernstein’s (1999) terminology, the teacher’s “repertoire”—are shaped by the contexts in which they operate in and to what extent teachers’ orientations play a role. After all, the teaching practice “reflects both the distribution of power and the principles of social control” (Bernstein, 1975, p. 85). To get more insight in the nature of learning progressions (see Lane & Bourke, 2019), i.e. task setting, in relation to teachers’ orientations and the curriculum contexts, our research question is: How does the curriculum context influence the role of teachers as curriculum makers concerning task setting, and what is the relationship between teachers’ orientations and task setting?

Methods and data

To answer the research question, we conducted a comparative analysis of the relationship between geography teachers’ orientations and their task-setting practices in two curriculum contexts that share many similarities but differ notably in how final exams are structured: The Netherlands (NL) and North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW) in Germany.

We aimed to investigate several aspects: the type of tasks that geography teachers in NL and NRW consider representative for their teaching on the topic of Global Food Issues (which is included in both curricula), whether teachers can accurately categorise these tasks, the extent to which tasks are derived from textbooks, the correlation of demographic, school, or professional variables with specific types of tasks, the teachers’ orientations regarding tasks, the correlation between these orientations and task setting, the identification of meaningful units in teachers’ orientations related to task setting, and how task setting and teachers’ orientations relate to the curriculum context.

Our main hypotheses are that teachers’ orientations are correlated with specific types of task setting (as demonstrated by, for instance, Tuithof et al., 2021), but that the curriculum context exerts a more substantial influence, given that teachers often adapt their repertoire in response to external demands and circumstances (Bernstein, 1975; Biggs, 1993).

The curriculum context of the Netherlands and North-Rhine Westphalia

The educational systems in the Netherlands and North-Rhine Westphalia (we concentrate on one German federal state due to the diversity within the German educational system) share structural similarities and a comparable position for geography in upper secondary education at the highest level. Research on the curriculum context in both regions, using Bernstein’s “pedagogic device” theory as a framework, reveals differences primarily influenced by evaluative rules (Krause et al., 2021a).

In both countries, the curricula aim to foster higher-order thinking. However, in the Dutch curriculum, these aims are not directly tied to the topics covered in the central high-stakes exam but are instead only associated with the school-based exams, which includes the topic of global food issues. High-stakes exams in the Netherlands predominantly feature correlation-tasks that test systematic knowledge through numerous questions. In contrast, in North-Rhine Westphalia, all curriculum aims, also those for higher-order thinking, have to be realised in school exams as well as high-stakes exams. For both exams a similar structure is prescribed, with three tasks focussing on information extraction, analysis, and evaluation (Krause et al., 2021a).

As a consequence of what Biggs (1996) describes as the “backwash from testing” (Biggs, 1996, p. 350), textbook tasks in the Netherlands mirror the high-stakes exams. Consequently, higher order thinking tasks are scarce in Dutch textbooks (Krause et al., 2022b), and Dutch teachers tend to use fewer higher-order thinking tasks, especially when they rely on textbook materials, which is frequently the case (Krause et al., 2022a; Uhlenwinkel et al., 2017). In the German context, higher-order thinking tasks occur in textbooks frequently and are applied more often than in the Netherlands (Krause et al., 2022a, 2017). Thus, contrary to the NRW-context, we see in the Dutch context less alignment between curriculum objectives, teaching materials, and assessment methods, a critical aspect for successful teaching (Biggs, 1996). Furthermore, the North-Rhine Westphalian context can be characterised by what Young (2014) describes as “public trust” to guarantee standards and quality. In contrast, Dutch teachers face pressure to ensure the quality of average outcomes through various forms of control (Krause et al., 2021a). This increased accountability, according to Goepel (2012) leads to a loss of teachers’ autonomy.

Sample characteristics & measurement instrument

For this study, we reached out to 30 Dutch and 20 German participants using a snowball method (Ruane, 2005). The interviews, which averaged 75 min in duration, were conducted through MS Teams in either German or Dutch and followed a structured format. Table 1 provides an overview of the sample characteristics.

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

	NL	NRW
Teacher gender (%)
Man	77.3	65.0
Woman	26.7	35.0
Teacher age (years)	40.6 (SD 10.6)	42.0 (SD 7.6)
Teacher experience in education (years)	14.7 (SD 8.9)	12.4 (SD 7.4)
Teacher experience in upper secondary education (years)	12.0 (SD 9.4)	11.5 (SD 6.7)
School-location (%)
<20.000 inhabitants	13.3	5.0
20.–49.999 inhabitants	30.0	25.0
50.–99.999 inhabitants	20.0	25.0
100.–299.999 inhabitants	20.0	10.0
>300.000 inhabitants	16.7	35.0
Students’ parents estimated income (%)	16.7	15.0
Below average
Average	33.3	40.0
Above average	50.0	45.0
Students’ migration background (estimation, %)	66.7	40.0
Below average
Average	20.0	55.0
Above average	13.3	5.0
School work level (%)
(Mostly) lower secondary	3.3	20.0
Lower and upper secondary	43.3	40.0
(Mostly) upper secondary	53.3	40.0
Teachers’ work with textbooks (%)	96.7	100.0
Teacher autonomy (%)
About textbook	63.3	100.0
About school exams	13.3	100.0
About task setting	96.7	100.0
Teachers’ professional development (%)
CPD courses	76.7	80.0
Geography network	50.0	45.0
Teachers’ collegial discussions (%)
Talking regularly with colleagues about tasks	76.7	60.0
Planning lessons with colleagues	30.0	25.0
Teachers’ self-estimated familiarity with geography topics (%)
Mainly social	13.3	25.0
Mainly physical	33.3	15.0
Selected topics	26.7	30.0
All topics	26.7	30.0

First, we collected background information about the teachers and their professional context. Additionally, we inquired about their perspectives on effective geography education. Next, we explored teachers’ task-setting practices by employing the structure formation technique (Scheele & Groeben, 1988) for three tasks that the teachers deemed representative for teaching the topic of Global Food Issues. If a teacher used a task for another topic but considered it crucial for their approach to task setting, a fourth task was discussed. Third, the teachers were posed “disturbing” (Scheele & Groeben, 1988, p. 38) and supplementary questions, such as their preferences for potential alterations in upper secondary geography education. Finally, to explore the teachers’ orientations, they completed a diamond ranking test (see supplement), comprising 55 aspects drawn from the literature on task setting and the two curriculum contexts. Teachers also had the option to include additional aspects of their own.

The type of task was categorised using the Geography Task Categorisation Framework, and in Krause et al. (2022b) for each category examples of textbook tasks about the topic Global Food Issue from both curriculum contexts can be found. To establish inter-coder agreement (Kuckartz, 2014), the first author and another expert categorized 155 tasks. To indicate the interrater reliability, we calculated the Cohen’s Kappa coefficient.

To identify patterns in teachers’ orientations (Kuckartz, 2014, p. 87–88), the 55 aspects from the diamond ranking, together with five new aspects emerging from the interviews, served as subordinate categories (see Kuckartz, 2014, p. 111). We organized these aspects into superordinate categories, using the dimensions of teacher orientations as defined by Magnusson et al. (1999) and Tuithof (2017), as well as curriculum orientations described by Schiro (2013) (see supplement). However, we excluded specific dimensions that were not suitable for geography (e.g. “project-based science”) or adapted them (e.g. “overview over time” was modified to “overview over space”).

Data analysis

We analysed the data with MS Excel 2016 and IBM SPSS 29. To examine differences between groups based on variables such as age, experience, self-perceived knowledge of task types, or country, we used independent samples t-test. Associations between aspects of teachers’ orientations and the type of tasks set by the teachers were assessed using Spearman’s Rho. This rank-order correlation is less sensitive to small sample sizes and non-normal distributions compared to, for instance, Pearson’s product-moment-correlations. We calculated Spearman’s Rho separately for each country. Given the large number of correlations, we applied a bias corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap method (Chan & Chan, 2004) when establishing confidence intervals (CI). We reported the CIs at the 95% level (Field, 2018, p. 634). To compare the ranking of teachers’ orientations between countries, we employed the likelihood ratio (LR) as a measure.

To identify orientation units, we first selected teachers’ orientations that were present in both curriculum contexts (occurring in more than 1.5% of cases). To prevent potential collinearity issues, we aggregated Teacher Orientation items into sum scores, creating orientation units.

To assess the internal consistency of orientations within each orientation unit (see supplement), we established intraclass correlations among the orientations within a unit. Following the argument by Koo and Li (2016) that an intraclass correlation of 0.50 displays moderate reliability, we used this value as the criterion for sufficient internal consistency.

To explore the extent to which unit levels or the country influenced the two significantly different types of tasks set by the teachers—correlation- and evaluation-tasks—we conducted standard multiple regression analyses. In these analyses, country and orientation units served as independent variables, while the type of task served as the output-variable.

Results

Teachers’ diagnostic judgement of task types and task origins

Teachers generally possess a good understanding of the types of tasks they employ. All task categorisations made by teachers underwent a second expert’s verification. The accuracy exhibited a high level of interrater reliability for both German (Cohen’s Kappa .76) and Dutch teachers (Cohen’s Kappa .88). Strikingly, in 9 instances, German teachers classified a textbook task as HOT, but they failed to recognize that the answers could be obtained directly from the continuous text, rendering them as reproduction tasks. Out of the 155 tasks we analysed (NRW: 60, NL: 95), 51 were sourced from textbooks (NRW: 30, NL: 21), while the remaining tasks originated from various other resources or were created by the teachers themselves.

Types of tasks used by teachers

The primary types of tasks that teachers regard as representative when teaching Global Food Issues (see Table 2) significantly differ between both countries: in NRW, teachers employ more evaluation tasks than in NL (LR(3) = 10.012, p = .02), while in NL, teachers use more correlation tasks than in NRW (LR(3) = 9.02, p = .03). However, Dutch teachers exhibit greater variety in the types of tasks they use, particularly displaying more tasks in the “create” category.

Table 2. Types of tasks regarded as representative by teachers.

	NL		NRW
Cognitive process	n	%	n	%
Lower-order thinking	6	6.4	8	13.3
Reproducing (learnt knowledge)	5	5.3	8	13.3
Performing (simple procedures)	1	1.1	0	0
Use of thinking strategies	48	50.5	22	36.6
Transforming, extracting or completing information	10	10.5	10	16.7
Comparing or classifying	8	8.4	4	6.7
Giving the main points or summarising	6	6.3	1	1.7
Finding, naming or explaining patterns and correlations	20	20.1	2	3.3
Constructing hypotheses or formulating enquiry questions	4	4.2	5	8.3
Parts of higher-order thinking	17	17.9	7	11.7
Discrimination of (ir-)relevant information in larger contexts	4	4.2	0	0
Generating a complex, coherent, relational structure	11	11.6	6	10.0
Checking correctness and consistency of information	0	0	1	1.7
Naming possible solutions to a problem based on criteria	2	2.1	0	0
Higher-order thinking	22	23.1	23	38.3
Analyse	2	2.1	5	8.3
Evaluate	12	12.6	18	30.0
Create	8	8.4	0	0
Reflecting on the content, the process or oneself	2	2.1	0	0

In the NRW sample, it is noteworthy that 55% of the tasks align with the guidelines for school and high-stakes exams, focusing on retrieving information from resources, analysis, and evaluation. All school exams submitted by NRW teachers adhered to these rules, and during interviews, teachers frequently referred to them. Furthermore, in 12 out of the 20 cases, evaluation tasks were introduced as the final task, as it is prescribed for the high-stakes and school exams.

In the Dutch sample, approximately 36.2% of the tasks in school exams (averaging 12.4 tasks in total) were correlation-tasks, which are prevalent in Dutch high-stakes exams and textbooks.

Correlations between types of tasks and context variables

The professional context of teachers plays a role in various ways. Participation in CPD courses (focussed on task setting) and engagement in geography teacher networks are associated with a higher usage of PHOT-tasks (r_s = .48, 95% BCa CI [.14, .73], p = .007) among all teachers. Additionally, participation in teacher networks is linked to an increased use of create-tasks (r_s = .45, 95% BCa CI [.10, .70], p = .012) among Dutch teachers. However, regular discussions about tasks with colleagues in NL are linked to a reduced use of HOT tasks (r_s = .-47, 95% BCa CI [-0.72, −0.13], p = .008).

The pedagogical approaches of the schools have minimal significant effects on teachers’ task setting. In both countries HOT tasks do not primarily originate from textbooks but instead come from other resources or are self-developed (r_s = .24, 95% BCa CI [.08, .38], p = .003). Conversely, UTS tasks in NRW are significantly more likely to come from textbooks (r_s = -0.35, 95% BCa CI [-0.56, −0.09], p = .007).

We carried out an independent sample t-test to examine whether teachers’ content knowledge (self-estimated) influences the type of tasks they set. In both countries, when comparing teachers who feel confident in all geography topics (x̅ = .64, SD = .76), with teachers who do not feel confident in all topics (x̅ = .07, SD = .27), the former group employs more PHOT tasks (t(19.703) = 3.896, Cohen’s d = .57 p < .001).

Teachers’ orientations in NL and NRW

Table 3 presents the top ten priorities mentioned by teachers when questioned about their deliberations in task setting (specific orientation) during geography lessons, as determined by the diamond ranking.

Table 3. Top ten teachers’ orientations per country/state.

NL	NRW
Orientation	Score in %	Orientation	Score in %
Developing a geographical worldview/geographical orientation (NRW 1.1)	4.4	Developing future-oriented thinking, problem solving, sustainability	3.7
Learning to detect correlations, to compare and to construct hypotheses	3.1	Learning to independently structure and argue	3.6
Stimulating enthusiasm (NRW 1.7)	2.9	Learning to detect correlations, to compare and to construct hypotheses	3.4
Developing future-oriented thinking, problem solving, sustainability	2.7	Activating students	3.2
Activating students	2.5	Preparing for similar tasks in high-stakes exam (NL 2.1)	3.0
Developing critical thinking	2.3	Developing critical thinking	2.7
Learning to independently structure and argue	2.2	Developing multiple perspectives	2.6
Developing multiple perspectives	2.1	Connecting to the existing knowledge of students (NL 1.7)	2.6
Using varied teaching strategies	2.1	Using ways of cooperation (NL 1.1)	2.1
Including current affairs (NRW 1.3)	2.1	Fulfilling demands of the curriculum (NL 1.7)	2.1

Orientations as ranked by teachers (as a percentage of the total score per country)

Teachers exhibit similar orientations in both countries, although in different order. Significant differences arise regarding “Developing a geographical worldview/geographical orientation” (LR(6) = 29.152, p < .001) and “Learning to independently structure and argue” (LR(6) = 29.875, p < .001). Furthermore, Dutch teachers assign a high rank to “Stimulating enthusiasm” (2.9%), which differs significantly (LR(5) = 18.043, p = .003), while NRW teachers score significantly higher (2.1%) on “Ways of cooperation” (LR(4) = 10.838, p = .028).

Correlations between task setting and teachers’ orientations

In both countries, teachers who ranked “Developing future-oriented thinking, problem solving, sustainability” high in their diamond ranking (top 3) also frequently assigned evaluation tasks (eight teachers in NRW and six teachers in NL). The correlation between this orientation and evaluation tasks is significant for the Dutch (r_s = .43, 95% BCa CI [.07, .69], p = .017), but not for the NRW teachers. Only Dutch teachers ranked “Developing a geographical worldview/geographical orientation” in the top 3. These teachers often set correlation tasks (13) but also evaluation tasks (9). However, in the Dutch sample, this orientation correlates significantly negatively with PHOT tasks (r_s = .40, 95% BCa CI [-0.67, −0.04], p = .027).

Furthermore, the act of setting evaluation tasks is significantly associated with the orientation “Learning to detect correlations, to compare and to construct hypotheses” in the Dutch sample (r_s = .50, 95% BCa CI [.16, .73], p = .005). In the NRW sample, evaluation tasks correlate significantly with the orientation “Influencing students” behaviour (r_s = .53, BCa CI [.11, .80], p = .015), but negatively with “Preparation for school exams” (r_s = –0.67, 95% BCa CI [–0.86, −328], p < .001).

Orientation units in relation to task setting and the influence of curriculum contexts

Based on the categorisation of orientations (see supplement), we attempted to define units that are internally consistent (with a Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.5) and theoretically sound. In this process, only the curriculum orientation “Scholar Academic” showed units with reliable internal consistency. Additionally, an orientation unit with only two factors exhibited a higher Cronbach’s alpha value, leading us to split that orientation unit into “Scholar Academic 1” and “Scholar Academic 2”. The curriculum dimension “Scholar Academic” refers to the introduction of students into the, hierarchically organised, academic discipline, in which assessment plays a vital role (Schiro, 2013). In a second step, we explored whether both orientation units influence evaluation and correlation tasks when we control for the country (see Table 4).

Table 4. Orientation units in relation to task setting and curriculum context.

Orientation units	Factors (see Table 3, supplement)	Cronbach’s alpha	Effect on evaluation task (b)	Effect of country^a/evaluation task (b)	Effect on correlation task (b)	Effect of country^a/correlation task (b)
Scholar Academic 1	1, 3, 50	.567	−.278*	.356*	−.108	−.337*
Scholar Academic 2	1, 50	.647	−.393**	−.344*	−.024	−.354*

* p < .05, ** p < .01; ^a NL = 1, NRW = 2; 1 = Using command words, 3 = Preparing for similar tasks in high-stakes exams, 50 = Preparing for school exams

The factors of the orientation unit “Scholar Academic 1” significantly predict the use of evaluation tasks. When the score on this orientation unit decreases, the use of evaluation tasks increases. Moreover, there is an effect of the country on using evaluation tasks: NRW teachers use more evaluation tasks when displaying this orientation unit. The factors of the orientation unit “Scholar Academic 2” predict the use of evaluation tasks in the same manner as “Scholar Academic 1”, but Dutch teachers with high scores for the orientation unit “Scholar Academic 2” use more evaluation tasks. This implies that “Preparing for similar tasks in high-stakes exams” (3) is a decisive factor for not setting evaluation tasks in the Dutch context. As for correlation tasks, the country context exerts a significant influence showing that Dutch teachers use more correlation-tasks than NRW-teachers. However, both ­orientation units do not significantly predict using correlation tasks.

Discussion

According to Rieu et al. (2022), accurate diagnostic judgments regarding the type of tasks are crucial for teaching that ensures learners meet expected standards. The high level of consistency among teachers in task judgement demonstrates that teachers have a thorough understanding of the types of tasks they assign. The prevalence of evaluation tasks in the NRW sample and correlation tasks in the Dutch sample align with previous findings from the analysis of high-stakes exams and textbook tasks (Krause et al., 2022b, 2021a). However, the share of HOT and PHOT tasks among Dutch teachers is considerably larger than one might expect based on previous analyses of textbook tasks and lesson observations (Krause et al., 2022a). Similarly, it is surprising that Dutch teachers exhibit a greater variety of tasks than their NRW counterparts. This suggests that Dutch teachers are willing to address the ambiguity within the Dutch curriculum by setting HOT goals for their students, even though these are not tested in high-stakes exams and are rarely found in textbooks. Concerns raised about a “single-minded focus on measurable goals and performance enhancement”, as articulated by the Dutch Education Council (2013, p. 4), have not been substantiated in our study. Clearly, in both countries, many teachers take on the role of curriculum makers (Biddulph et al., 2020) and work towards broader educational objectives (Mitchell et al., 2022).

In both countries, approximately 20% of the teachers in our study do not consider PHOT or HOT tasks as representative for the topic of Global Food Issues. Among these teachers, those in NRW tend to overestimate the difficulty of textbook tasks, as the answers are readily available in the continuous text. This finding aligns with concerns expressed in the German context that HOT tasks may not always live up to their intended complexity (Klein, 2010). In NL, half of the teachers who do not use (P)HOT-tasks (comprising 10% of the total) exclusively rely on textbook tasks, where HOT tasks are indeed scarce (Krause et al., 2022b). In the professional context of teaching, participation in CPD courses and geography teacher networks emerges as key factors influencing the adoption of PHOT and HOT tasks. These findings are consistent with Bernstein’s (1999) theory that a teacher’s repertoire is influenced by their reservoir. Furthermore, the teachers’ own subject knowledge has a notable impact on their choice of task complexity, underscoring the importance of content knowledge as highlighted in previous research (Brooks, 2010).

Differences in teachers’ orientations can largely be attributed to the specific curriculum contexts. The high ranking of “Developing a geographical worldview” among Dutch teachers may be influenced by its presence in the only Dutch handbook for secondary geography education (Van den Berg et al., 2009), and many teachers may have encountered this concept during their studies. The elevated score for “Stimulating enthusiasm” can be explained by the prevalent issue of low student motivation in the Netherlands (OECD, 2016).

In contrast, the higher scores for “Learning to independently structure and argue”, “Developing multi-perspective thinking”, “Connecting to the existing knowledge of students” and “Developing social competences” among NRW teachers align with the emphasis placed on these aspects in German subject didactics related to task setting (Hoffmann, 2021; Mehren & Mehren, 2020) and the NRW curriculum context (Krause et al., 2021a). Additionally, teachers with the specific orientation “Developing future-oriented thinking, problem solving, sustainability” tend to set more evaluation tasks, suggesting that they align their teaching with the goal of fostering “the capability of young people as (responsible) citizens” (Uhlenwinkel et al., 2017, p. 9).

Our findings align with previous research indicating that teachers often hold a mix of orientations (Zweeris et al., 2023). It is important to note that our study focussed on orientations related to a specific topic, and these orientations may vary when applied to other topics (Tuithof et al., 2021). However, our analysis reveals that orientation units primarily influence the setting of evaluation tasks. Specifically, the items within the orientation units Scholar Academic 1 and 2 (“Using Command Words”, “Preparing for similar tasks in high-stakes exam”, and “Preparing for school exams’) are context-dependent. The difference between these two orientation units underscores that an orientation geared towards preparing for high-stakes exams has a direct negative influence on the setting of evaluation tasks by Dutch teachers. This is due to the absence of evaluation tasks in Dutch high-stakes exams (Krause et al., 2021a). Regarding correlation tasks, our results illustrate that the curriculum context plays a pivotal role, indicating that teachers’ repertoires align with the specific demands of that context.

In the context of the curriculum, evaluative rules, particularly high-stakes examinations, not only exert a significant influence on teachers’ task setting but also, in the Dutch context, impede their role as curriculum makers. When asked about desired changes, only two teachers in NRW expressed a desire to abolish high-stakes exams, whereas in NL, nearly half of the teachers advocated for changes to the existing system of high-stakes examinations. Dutch teachers perceive excessive pressure and a lack of trust, factors that are crucial in teachers’ professionalism (Goepel, 2012) and essential for fulfilling their role as curriculum makers.

A caveat we need to acknowledge is that our study was based on a limited sample of 50 teachers, who were partially selected through a snowball method involving networks of geography education departments. Despite this limitation, the results provide valuable insights into teachers’ task-setting practices, their thought processes related to task setting, and the impact of curriculum contexts.

Conclusion

Our research shows that teachers are actively fulfilling their responsibilities in geography education. They not only impart geographical knowledge but also contribute to broader educational objectives and address contemporary challenges related to inequality and sustainability by designing tasks that target various levels of higher-order thinking. This commitment is evident in their efforts to prepare students not only for high-stakes exams but also in more challenging circumstances where they must navigate their role as curriculum makers. This challenge is particularly pronounced in the Dutch curriculum context, where evaluative rules predominantly emphasize the attainment of systematic knowledge.

Nonetheless, our research also underscores that, ultimately, the curriculum context exerts a decisive influence on teachers’ actions. When curriculum objective and assessment practices, including both high-stakes and school exams, align and prioritise higher-order thinking, teachers are more inclined to incorporate evaluation tasks into their teaching. In the case of the Dutch context, this implies the need for a curriculum revision that includes HOT objectives for the high-stakes exam to incorporate higher-order thinking tasks. Furthermore, there should be a dialogue aimed at instilling active trust into teachers’ professionalism as suggested by Goepel (2012, p. 494). The curriculum context in NRW can serve as an example in this regard. However, the NRW context also shows that an excessive focus on specific types of tasks may lead to a lack of variation in the tasks set by teachers.

While teachers’ orientations play a role, our findings reveal that as an orientation unit only specific factors within the “Scholar Academic” orientation significantly influence the setting of evaluation tasks.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), grant number 023.011.001.