Veteran Teachers’ Strategies in History Teaching History didactic narratives from practice in Sweden Thomas Nygren
Introduction History teaching in Sweden on the upper secondary level has become more and more comprehensive. From having been a national subject whose primary task was to mediate the nation’s great past, history has become global, aimed at giving students in various ways perspectives on the past, historical thinking and democratic values. The national curriculum for history teaching reveals a complex subject for teachers to deal with in their classes. Teaching history demands a great deal from the teacher both in terms of subject knowledge and pedagogical skills. The present study examines how highly experienced teachers comprehend the challenges of history teaching in Sweden, today and in the past. Interviews with veteran teachers give an insider perspective on the teaching in Sweden previously noted by research mainly through written sources and external conditions. The aim of this study is to examine highly experienced history teachers’ conceptions of history teaching, based upon the didactic questions of “why”, “what” and “how” should you teach history? In Sweden this field of research is called subject didactics, in this case history didactics, which I see as an inclusive bridge between subject and pedagogies.
Studying and learning from practice A teacher of history lands in an area of knowledge within and between the subject of history and pedagogy.1 The subject examines the past and pedagogy studies learning in general. Teaching in particular subjects with their special demands and possibilities has been given little attention in Swedish research, even though subjects such as English, math, sports and history are clearly distinguishable as separate subjects and thereby different as subjects for learning. As regards knowledge, Lee S. Shulman described this borderland in research as “the missing paradigm”2. In Sweden this was still the case in 2004, which was obvious in Bengt Schüllerqvist’s research survey on history education.3 Thus Swedish history teachers have developed their teaching with a certain amount of 1
Lee S. Shulman, “Those who Understand: Knowledge growth in teaching?” Educational Researcher. 15, no 2 (1986): 4-14; Svein Sjøberg, Fagdebatikk: Fagdidaktisk innføring i sentrale skolefag. (Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk, 2003), 11-37. 2 Shulman “Those who Understand: Knowledge growth in teaching?”. 3 Bengt Schüllerqvist, Svensk historiedidaktisk forskning (Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet, 2004).
support from the history subject and pedagogy, but generally without support from research of history didactics. Studying practitioners thoroughly and their “wisdom of practice” could be a constructive way to develop teaching according to Shulman, Sigrun Gudmundsdottir, Susanne M. Wilson & Sam Wineburg.4 The British scholars, Chris Husbands, Alison Kitson and Anna Pendry come to a similar conclusion from their research on history teaching; namely, “that attempts to develop, extend and improve classroom practice need to take seriously the detailed professional knowledge which history teachers already posses and deploy“.5 This way research and the profession can land in constructive interaction for the development of teaching.6 Teachers’ narratives about practice make the values and forms of representation of history accessible to researchers and not least for the reflective practitioner, since constructive examples from history teaching thus become visible. Knowledge of highly experienced teachers’ practices provides a foundation for professionals to weigh their own experiences against, which can make teaching a more experience informed practice.7
Stories from experience The importance of experience in teaching has been noted in pedagogical research. Many, but not all, veteran teachers have been described as highly sophisticated.8 Gudmudsdottir has described experienced practitioners as masters of transforming their curriculum. She claimed that the creation of pedagogical narratives is central in the development of pedagogical content knowledge.9 David C. Berliner has stated that experienced experts
4
Lee S. Shulman “The Wisdom of Practice: Managing complexity in medicine and teaching” in Talk to teachers: A festschrift for N.L. Gage, ed. Berliner, D.C.& Rosenshine, B. V. ( New York: Random house, 1987); Sam Wineburg and Susanne M. Wilson, “Subject matter knowledge in the teaching of history”. In Advances in Research on Teaching, ed Jere Brophy, Vol. 3, 305-347,(Greenwich: CT:JAI, 1992); Sigrun Gudmundsdottir, “The narrative nature of pedagogical content knowledge” in Narrative in teaching, learning and research, ed. Hunter Mc Evan and Kieran Egan (New York: Teachers college press, 1995). 5 Chris Husbands, Alison Kitson and Anna Pendry, Understanding History Teaching: Teaching and learning about the past in secondary schools, (Maidenhead: Open University Press), 144. 6 Ingrid Carlgren, “Pedagogy and Teachers’ Work” Nordisk pedagogik, 19, no 4, (1999): 223-234. 7 See Martyn Hammersley, “Some Questions about Evidence-based Practice in Education” in Evidence-based Practice in Education, ed. Thomas, G. and Pring, R. (New York: Open University Press, 2004); Donald A. Schön, Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987). 8 Day et al has noted that veterans are not always more effective than novice teachers: Christopher Day et al, Teachers matter: connecting work, lives and effectiveness (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2007), 101. Low morale might be a problem after a long service as a teacher according to Huberman and Poppleton and Riseborough: Michael Huberman “Working with life history narratives” in Narrative in teaching, learning and research, ed. Hunter Mc Evan and Kieran Egan (New York: Teachers college press, 1995); George Riseborough and Pam Poppleton “Veterans versus beginners: A study of teachers at a time of fundamental change in comprehensive schooling” Educational Review 43, (1991): 307-344. 9 Gudmundsdottir. 34.
differ from novice teachers “in many and profound ways” 10. Paul Schempp et al described that, in comparison with new teachers, experienced teachers were more sensitive to their students’ needs, more reflective, more varied and adaptable in their methods and that they had more insight into different forms of knowledge.11 Staffan Stukát has described experienced teachers’ planning as more far-reaching and dynamic than that of their less experienced colleagues. He also observed that they had more teaching methods accessible and their notions concerning social science subjects were richly varied.12 In his study of teachers’ intentions, Lars Naeslund considered experienced social science teachers’ dynamic thinking to be an interesting and important research area. Naeslund contrasted younger and newer teachers’ confusion with their experienced colleagues’ ability to generalize and structure.13 This ability to generalize, structure and to work in the long-term seems to me pivotal for choosing interviews as a way of obtaining experienced teachers’ view of history teaching as a whole. Through qualitative interviews with highly experienced teachers, comprehensive narratives about teaching history in a Swedish context become accessible. This is a way to map and analyze veteran teachers’ perceptions of history teaching, in the present and in the past.
Methodology My decision to do interviews with highly experienced teachers has been based on a desire to document their long experiences from teaching history. To try to achieve a spread of experience, without any claim to be representative, I have chosen teachers who have worked at different types of upper secondary schools and in two different cities. All six teachers – here called Mr. Anderson, Mr. Berg, Mrs. Carlson, Mr. Dahl, Mrs. Ericsson and Mr. Falk – have been teaching for more than 30 years.14 These six teachers whom I chose to interview were recommended by former students, colleagues and headmasters when I was seeking experienced history teachers for my study. I later found out that four of the teachers, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Berg, Mr. Dahl and Mr. Falk, have won awards for their work with history and/or their teaching. 10
David C. Berliner, “Learning about and Learning from Expert Teachers” International Journal of Educational Research, 35, no 5, 466. 11 Paul Schempp, et al., “Differences in Novice and Competent Teachers’ Knowledge” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. 4, no 1, 1998. 12 Staffan Stukát, Lärares planering under och efter utbildningen, (Diss. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1998) 65-66, 202-203. 13 Lars Naeslund, Lärarintentioner och skolverklighet: Explorativa studier av uppgiftsutformning och arbetsförhållanden hos lärare på grundskolans högstadium. (Diss. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet) 131. 14
The names of the teachers have been changed to protect their identity.
The research questions, “what”, “why” and “how” you should teach history and the teachers’ experiences from history in school was investigated by semi-structured interviews in an exploratory way. During and after interviews I also examined their teaching materials and plans for teaching, as a part of their life histories. The exploration and initial interpretations of their responses have been developed over time e.g. the concepts of insights and strategies have been developed in close interaction with the empirical data. The transcriptions from the taped interviews and my initial understanding of their statements were sent back for clarification, follow-up and acceptance by the respondents. Interviews and follow up with each teacher ranged from 2-3 hours. Their interviews have been visualized and analyzed as life histories. The teachers’ life histories cannot be presented in full in this article. I will present my results from the study and the teachers’ narratives will only be used as short illustrative quotes.15 In my analysis I have stressed the variation in their narratives, well aware that I have missed some of their complexity. In order to deal with a complex world we must, nevertheless, simplify. As David Carr has noted, the world is always much more complicated than the stories we create in order to handle it.16 However, the stories also enable us to broaden our own view of the world through making it accessible in the light of other’s stories. 17 Teachers’ life histories and how they have understood teaching history are stories about how they bring order, in various ways, into the complexities of teaching. 18 During the interviews and when putting together the results I have tried to see history teaching from the teachers’ vantage point. On the basis of their narratives I have created meaning from various interpretations in a systematically thematic analysis19 and thereby been able to show different conceptions of history teaching in the past and present. The analysis has been based upon theories of subject didactics, history and pedagogies.20 The teachers’ conceptions of history teaching have after the analysis been compared with previous Anglo-American research on history teaching.
15
The life history profiles in full (in Swedish) are available in my thesis Erfarna lärares historiedidaktiska insikter och undervisningsstrategier at www.diva-portal.org/umu/abstract.xsql?dbid=1976 16 David Carr “Narrative and the real world: An argument for continuity”, in Memory, identity, community: The idea of narrative in the human sciences, ed. Hinchman, L. P. & Hinchman, S. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001). 17 Jerome Bruner, “Self-making and world-making”, in Narrative and Identity ed. Brockmeier J. & Carbaugh, D. 3031 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001). 18 See Jens Brockmeier and Donal Carbaugh, Narrative and Identity (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2001),13; Ivor F. Goodson and Pat Sikes, Life History Research in Educational Settings: Learning from lives (Buckingham: Open University Press 2001). 19 Ken Plummer, Documents of Life 2: An invitation to critical humanism. (London: SAGE,2005),180. 20 Svein Sjøberg, Naturvetenskap som allmänbildning: En kritisk didaktisk studie, (Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2000), 26-33; David Ludvigsson, The Historian Filmmaker’s Dilemma: Historical documentaries in Sweden in the era of Häger and Villius. Uppsala:Historiska institutionen. (Diss. Uppsala:Uppsala universitet, 2003), 164-342; Gunnar Handal and Per Lauvås, Handledning och praktisk yrkesteori, (Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2001), 202-219; Mikael Uljens, Didaktik, (Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2002) , 180.
Development and insights in history teaching In their narratives the six teachers with many years of experience in teaching history illustrate how differently one can understand the subject – and also how similarly. Their histories relate how they arrived at several standpoints about history teaching over the years. Their understanding of what works in practice, in detail and on a more aggregated level I have chosen to call insights. In their life histories they present their insights, what they perceive as the nature of history teaching. According to all those interviewed, history teaching has developed over time. The interviewed teachers describe different paths of development, but they all state how they have learned from teaching, become freer in their relationship to textbooks and developed strategies for selecting materials and methods. Everyone interviewed, except for Mr. Berg, attest to how they experienced so-called turning points21 in their teaching, which made their teaching better. Mr. Anderson noted how new perspectives in higher education and literature meant a pathway into a teaching of history that increasingly stressed multiperspectivity. Mr. Dahl and Mrs. Carlson described how strongly as new teachers they experienced their relative lack of preparedness for teaching, which caused Mr. Dahl to doubt his choice of profession, and both to reevaluate their understanding of history teaching. All this led them to change and develop both content and methods. Mrs. Ericsson related how her teaching became goal-oriented thanks to her work as a headmaster with a new curriculum. Mr. Falk explained how strongly influenced he was by perceiving that teaching could be both knowledge and relation-oriented. Mr. Berg mentioned no turning point; rather he described how from an early age he had understood and developed an increasingly rich narrative history, all the way from his mother’s lap. The development of their insights into the teaching of history may be expressed as encompassing both refining practice in small steps and more revolutionizing turning points. All the interviewed teachers agreed that teaching history requires a good knowledge of the subject and a great deal of reading above and beyond one’s formal studies. They claim several reasons why good subject knowledge is demanded for teaching history: it legitimizes, gives confidence and creativity to the teacher. For example, Mr. Falk claims that: The gateway to a teacher’s legitimacy is that the teacher knows his/her subject, for that is what the students encounter first. When that is established, then one can develop relationships that reinforce legitimacy and respect.
21
Plummer, Documents of Life, 194.
According to the teachers, good knowledge of the subject also facilitates finding illuminating examples and parallels and it opens up for creative teaching and lesson planning. Mrs. Ericsson states that It’s vital that as a teacher one has knowledge of the subject, much much more knowledge than the student […] For teacher candidates theoretical knowledge is incredibly important – otherwise one cannot manage to give full reign and dare to be a teacher. One doesn’t know what there are for alternatives if one only follows the book.
They all attest to the fact that history teaching has become more international. The degree of internationalization varied - Mr. Berg stressed more clearly than the others national history as the point of departure for studying history. Like the other five, Mr. Berg talked about teaching becoming more global, not least because more world history is included in the literature on all levels. In an ever more global world, several of the teachers pointed out the importance of World History. A shift towards more modern history was also indicated in the interviews, and they stated that contemporary society is given more and more attention in history teaching. The teachers handled the first term in somewhat different ways, but all of them thought it important that the initial history course provided an orientation in the subject and an overview. To give a time perspective and a chronology of periods was considered basic for the subject. The first term was described as a foundation course, in which a great deal has to be got through. Even if selections have to be made, all the teachers claimed that the foundation has to be rich in content. They said that their freedom to choose different orientations was greater in the advanced courses where more intensive studies in particular areas are possible. It was also in the discussions around the advanced courses that the importance of gathering knowledge from different types of sources and source criticism was most stressed. The teachers’ narratives also reveal the significance of combination of subjects. The four teachers who taught history and social science – Mrs. Carlson, Mr. Dahl, Mrs. Ericsson and Mr. Falk – have clearly been influenced by the system and theory formation of social science. The humanistic values contained in history, like narratives and historical empathy, are more dominant in the interviews with Mr. Berg and Mr. Anderson. To be able to work in an interdisciplinary way, at least in one’s own teaching, was described as valuable since it can contribute to the understanding of history. The teachers did not have the same emphasis as regards relations with students, but all of them referred to students when motivating the value of their subject on the basis of the question, “why teach history?” Trying to explain the world we live in, to give a feeling of context both in the present and in history, training students to see the world from different perspectives, encouraging critical thinking, awakening interest and engagement are examples of the teachers’ varied concerns when meeting their students in the classroom. This has meant that for the students’ best interests, teachers have not always
agreed to students’ wishes; for example Mrs. Ericsson states that she has avoided lectures because she thinks her students needed analytical training more than “stories”, even though the students had asked for more lectures. Mr. Dahl, however, emphasize that longer lectures are good preparation for the university, even though students find them demanding. The teachers support student influence on the content and form of teaching, while on the basis of their own insights, the teachers assert their own expertise in choosing what is important over students’ comparative lack of knowledge. Mr. Falk and Mr. Dahl are the teachers who most definitely stress working in relation to their students and supporting students’ personal development. The basic data in the present study is small, but the tendency for female social science teachers to be more supportive and caring and male teachers to be more analytical and challenging, noted by Christine Bennett and Elizabeth Spalding, is not borne out in my material. 22 Mr. Falk is the teacher who most focuses on personal growth and social interaction, and this focus is echoed by Mr. Dahl. Mrs. Ericsson and Mr. Anderson most clearly foreground challenging students’ analyses. Mr. Falk stresses that teachers can and need to work with both knowledge and relationships, and this is confirmed in different degrees by the others. That several of the history teachers underline the importance of clarity and knowledge of the subject for legitimacy shows how subject knowledge and relationships correspond in a history didactic perspective. All the interviewees agreed on the need for variation. To be able to diversify one’s teaching, using different types of material, is vital for reaching students in different ways and for making the subject interesting. All six teachers demonstrated a broad repertoire of possible teaching methods, even though they chose to work more with some methods than with others. Lectures, narratives, concentration and discussions have all been used by the teachers but in varying degrees. Mrs. Ericsson, with her view of students’ goaloriented learning, was the teacher most inclined to arrange the learning situation. Mr. Berg is the teacher who talks about himself as being most in the centre, with his narratives and his role of discussion leader. On a scale from invisible to visible, the teachers vary in how much in the centre they describe themselves. Choice of method and degree of visibility are clearly steered by what the teachers want to achieve and what part of teaching is observed. Mrs. Ericsson speaks about herself as being very much in the centre during challenging seminars, whereas otherwise she strives for a less pivotal role. Regardless of how visible they are in the classroom, the teachers state that they have tried in various visible and invisible ways to direct the learning situation towards different goals – as visible leaders in the centre or as arrangers more in the background. 23 Mr. Dahl advocates a sensitive balance: “It should be both/and. We should give good lectures and the
22
Christine Bennett and Elizabeth Spalding, “Teaching the Social Studies: Multiple approaches for multiple perspectives” Theory and Research in Social Education. 20, no 3 (1992). 23 Wineburg and Wilson, 305-347; S. G. Grant, History lessons: Teaching, learning, and testing in U.S highschool classrooms, (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003), 30-34.
students should also work on their own – a combination. It took several years before I arrived at this balance.”
Strategies in history teaching The teachers described how the shifting contents and methods in teaching have been used to highlight different values and kinds of knowledge – for example, lectures for an overview, anecdotes for interest, exercises in source criticism for historical thinking and concentrated assignments for handling information and presentations. Thus these highly experienced teachers may all be described as eclectic in their choice of content, of method and focus on historical values.24 The interviewed teachers, however, have developed what I chose to call teaching strategies in which certain goals, methods and content have become very significant. When one compares their life histories, three different teaching strategies emerge, depending on how they handle the questions of “what”, “how” and “why”. Their teaching strategies clearly demonstrate how the teachers have transformed their understanding of history and pedagogies into multiperspective, narrative and social scientific history in order to adapt the subject to teaching. The strategies illustrate the different orientations of the highly experienced teachers’ long-term goals and structure, the overarching conceptions of history teaching in upper secondary school.
Multiperspective orientation I interviewed Mr. Anderson twice in a small room at his workplace. The school which today teaches science and art classes is an old secondary grammar school. Mr. Anderson had, at the time of the interviews, been working there 38 years as a teacher; at the age of 65 Mr. Anderson has been teaching history and Swedish in upper secondary school most of his life. Besides a Master of Education in History and Swedish he has also read university courses in art history, history of ideas, ethnology, women’s history and environmental history. Mr. Anderson emphasized in the interview that through viewing history from different perspectives teaching can challenge and augment students’ concept of the world and provide a better basis for independent conclusions. He also maintains that through training students to critically scrutinize and “see things from different vantage points”, the subject of history can be a vital part of democracy, both to expose manipulation and to increase understanding for other people’s situations and points of view. Mr. Anderson
24
See Jere Brophy and BruceVan Sledright, Teaching and Learning History in Elementary Schools. (New York: Teachers College Press, 1997), 42.
relates that “a number of new aspects from new areas” have cropped up since the 1980s. He describes how encounters with new perspectives in literature and in-service further education have affected his teaching. The new historical perspectives – for instance, the history of mentality, women’s history, a more global history – according to Mr. Anderson broadened his view of the subject, made it more interpretive and empathetic. He claims that in his teaching “the era of Sweden as a great power has become the country of soldier widows”. Reading a smaller selection of material from different perspectives has replaced the previous more extensive overview: Because one has fewer possibilities to take up everything – not even all the major periods – it has become extremely important, that when one works with one period, to focus on that period in an extensive way so that it gives all possible problem-oriented thinking and different perspectives.
In Mr. Anderson’s teaching strategy, students’ collecting and working with information from a variety of sources, individually and in groups, has been increasingly emphasized in order to practice critical scrutiny and to perceive and evaluate different points of view. According to Mr. Anderson, it is important to teach what students know very little about, but it is even more important to challenge their preconceived notions. As a history teacher one should “disturb and confuse” and “provoke into alternative thinking, another way of looking at what [students] might have a bit of basic knowledge about”. The teaching strategy that emanates from Mr. Andersons conceptions where different points of view and interpretations of history are central I have chosen to call a multiperspective orientation.
Narrative orientation I met Mr. Berg in his home, and the interview took place in his living room which was filled with books. Mr. Berg had at the time of the interview been teaching history for 37 years at the school where he started his career. The school that used to teach primarily economics is today an upper secondary school with many theoretical programs mainly in social studies and media. Mr. Berg has a Master of Education in History and Swedish and he has also read history of art and ethnology. He has also for many years been an active member of the local historical association. Mr. Berg’s teaching strategy, which he describes as developed since he was very young, is highly narrative in character. In the interview he focuses on the importance of historical narratives for giving an overview and making the subject interesting and vital. I want the students to understand the main elements of development; I want them to have a broad cultural and historical orientation and I have always taught according to this model. I have not allowed myself to be affected by fashionable trends. I have tried to create a certain amount of variation through adding some individual and group work,
but my teaching is still steered by the teacher behind his desk. I like to tell stories and I think I’m pretty good at it […] I try to animate history – that’s the most important.
The history of Sweden is the grand narrative, the backbone and point of departure in Mr. Berg’s teaching strategy in order to give the students a feeling for how everything is connected by cause and effect. The importance of chronology can be explained by the fact that Mr. Berg emphasizes the importance for students to see the causal relations in history. Creating explanatory meta-narratives of historical events through teacherdirected dialogues is another core part of his teaching strategy. “I often say that I apply the Socratic majeutics to get [students] to understand along the way.” He states that he deals with source criticism through student assignments. According to Mr. Berg the grand narratives have been complemented with many smaller stories from near and far about historical events, figures and places. Smaller stories enrich the subject and make it more accessible to students. Through being personal and telling students about his own experiences in historical milieus, Mr. Berg claims that he has tried to animate the subject: “That one has had personal experiences I think also affects the students, it’s not just something one has read in a book.” Mr. Berg states that he has included students’ own experiences in order to make cultural heritage more visible. As examples of his efforts to demonstrate how history exists all around us he presents how he takes students on city walks, visiting local ironworks and “every year I take the students to the churchyard and use the graves to talk about [the city’s] history.” Mr. Berg also describes how he focuses on local history as stories about us that are anchored in our immediate surroundings. Mr. Berg stresses how history can give us security and understanding of our surrounding world. Making the subject alive through stories is the cardinal point.
Social scientific orientation On separate occasions I met the four teachers that I have categorized as having a social scientific history teaching strategy. I conducted the interview with Mrs. Ericsson at her workplace and the other three I interviewed in their homes. They all have a Master of Education in History and Social Studies, and they all have been teachers for most of their lives, but in different cities and in different types of upper secondary schools. Their life histories differ in many ways, but they all share social scientific conceptions of history teaching. History as a social science is characterized by the subject’s comparative and structural values. Mrs. Carlson, Mr. Dahl, Mrs. Ericsson and Mr. Falk are highly experienced teachers with this view of history teaching and they also exemplify how history can be transformed into an analytical subject with a will to activate students when its social science attributes are emphasized. The importance of making comparisons over time and
between countries and seeing patterns in why things happen and what could conceivably happen in future is strongly held by these teachers, who have studied political science and other social science subjects and taught social studies/civics. “One cannot understand exactly but one develops an entirely different feeling for what happens” as Mr. Dahl describes it. Countries’ lines of development, government and nations relations with each other become central elements when history is mainly perceived as a social science. To show how everything is connected politically, economically and socially is used in this teaching strategy in order to understand the world. Mrs. Ericsson maintains that “one can see so much with the help of history. One can draw conclusions and compare periods, one can see developments in different countries by seeing what has happened.” According to the four teachers history should give a background to today’s world and they place great weight on providing a structured overview of historical developments – as Mrs. Carlson expresses it, “an overview of the past and present”. Developments in the world are illuminated primarily through European political history as a point of departure and non-European countries are then analyzed on the basis of this overview and structure. An historical overview is needed in order to make comparisons, see historical connections and the structures that have shaped society and the problems we see in the world today. Governments and current world politics are often focused on when, in accordance with this teaching strategy, one encourages students to critically examine the growth of democracy or China’s history and significance today. In seminars and discussions in the classroom students present their analyses and argue their conclusions. Interpretations, individually and in groups are encouraged as is seeing how everything hangs together. To make comparisons, draw conclusions, see developments in different countries and understand “history as a universal explanatory mechanism” are central elements in the teaching strategy I have called a social scientific orientation.
Different and yet the same In their teaching strategies the interviewed teachers are different but yet the same. They stress in different degrees the subject’s narrative, social scientific and multiperspective values, which can be seen in figure 1 below. Their teaching strategies, which are symbolized by circles, overlap, but they incline towards different poles.
Multiperspective
Mr. Anderson
Mr. Berg
Mr. Falk Mr. Dahl Mrs. Carlsson Mrs. Ericsson
Narrative
Social Scientific
Narrativ
Figure 1. Different orientations in teaching strategies in history
Teaching strategies as theoretical model The teaching strategies described above comprise the various orientations related by the teachers in their interviews. In the interviews the experienced teachers state clear conceptions of what, how and why one should teach history. Their statements about how they view the subject’s values, content and methods reveal clear differences. These differences should not be exaggerated, but they indicate how conceptions of teaching history can vary. The importance of having a clear and deliberate plan for how one teaches has been stated by many pedagogues as well as researchers in history teaching. 25 The history teachers in the present study describe how, through their experiences and choices, they have developed different teaching strategies. The teaching strategy illustrates structure and long-term goals as a way of managing the complexity of teaching history. When one places the teachers’ experiences in relation to theories about subject didactics, history and pedagogy one can illustrate the significance of a teaching strategy as in figure 2.26
25
Lorrei Di Camillo, An Exploration of Classroom Thoughtfulness in High School US History Classes, (Diss. The University of San Francisco, 2006), 181-192; Joseph Onosko, “Comparing Teachers Thinking about Promoting Students Thinking” Theory and Research in Social Education, 17, no 3, (1989); Roger F. Yoho, “Effectiveness of Four Concept Teaching Strategies on Social Studies Concept Acquisition and Retention” Theory and Research in Social Education, 14, no 3, (1986); Freema Elbaz, Teacher Thinking: A study of practical knowledge. (New York: Nichols Publishing Company, 1983), 170; Handal and Lauvås, 202-219; Bo Andersson, Vad är historiedidaktik? Några begreppsliga och teoretiska utgångspunkter för ämnesdidaktisk vetenskap, skolnära forskning och lärande i skolan, (Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet, 2004), 53. 26 Sjøberg, 2000, 26-33; Ludvigsson, 164-342; Handal & Lauvås, 202-219; Uljens, 180.
Figure 2. History didactic teaching strategy in dynamic interaction with the cycle of subject didactic considerations, intentions, teaching and reflection.
For many years these experienced teachers have planned their classes, met their students’ reactions and reflected upon what functioned and what did not. As reflecting practitioners they can benefit from their experiences.27 As may be seen in the model, teaching strategy (the dark triangle) can affect considerations, intentions, teaching and reflection. Goals, methods and content in teaching are largely steered by the teaching strategy through the subject didactic considerations made by the teacher. These considerations could impact the intentions that exist at every teaching occasion; how as a teacher one understands and deals with teaching and the experiences one takes away. The underlying teaching strategies can be described as elaborated during this cycle and refined in the formation of great and small development of knowledge in history teaching. When the goals are as varied as animating history (a narrative orientation), explaining contemporary world politics (a social scientific orientation) or interpreting on the basis of different perspectives (a multiperspective orientation), it demands differences in choice of content, forms of teaching and reflections around learning. Depending on what the teacher stresses, the subject of history can be expressed as narrative, explanation and interpretation. The subject didactic considerations which must be examined create conceptions of history teaching that has different values and forms. That the “why” question, the goal of teaching and the subject’s legitimating, can be determining comes out clearly in the interviews, but the “what” and “how” are closely bound up with the “why”. Narration in order to animate history – but also the 27
Hargreaves, 67; Schön; Uljens, 189-193.
experience that it functions methodically with the content that Mr. Berg describes as central – shows the connections between “why”, “how” and “what” and how they are linked to each other in his conceptions of teaching. Mr. Anderson’s presentation of access to new perspectives, material, courses, and his experience of successful methods demonstrates how these three questions interact in the development of his teaching strategy. When the teachers with a more social scientific view of history stress the weight of independent comparative analyses, the activating of the students is in itself also a goal – both “how” and “why”. Thus what is determining is tightly interwoven in the considerations described by the teachers, and in their teaching plans, goals, methods and content they can all have a decisive importance for the history teaching strategy.
International comparison By comparing the teachers’ strategies with prior results from research on history teaching, the conceptions of history teaching are placed in a wider context. Even though no other research on history teaching has studied highly experienced history teacher this way, the understanding of the history teaching in Sweden and internationally can benefit from an international comparison. Similarities and differences can help the development of concepts for history education and reflections on history teaching, a common and diversified language for a better understanding of history teaching in different perspectives and cultures.28
Multiperspectivity History teaching strategies similar to the multiperspective orientation described by Mr. Anderson seldom crop up in international research on practice. No previously studied teacher has brought out so many different historical perspectives as has Mr. Anderson in his narrative of teaching. In Kathrine Anne Patrick’s Australian study there are two teachers who assert the value of different perspectives for interpretation, understanding and democracy: one of these teachers uses the viewpoint of minority groups identity from a post-colonial perspective, the other stresses an empathetic social history perspective. 29 Without the use of multiperspectivity as a concept for the teaching of history as practiced 28
Brian Hudson “Comparing Different Traditions of Teaching and Learning: What can we learn about teaching and learning?” European Educational Research Journal, 6, no 2 (2006) 29 Kathrine Anne Patrick, Teaching and Learning: The construction of an object of study. (Diss. Centre for Higher Education. The University of Melbourne, 1998), 180, 199-223.
by the teachers it is nevertheless obvious that this is what Patrick describes in her study. The teaching that Mr. Anderson describes, with different interpretations from the history of gender, of mentality, historical empathy, social history, cultural history etc underlines more perspectives than the teachers in Patricks study. The difference between Mr. Anderson and the teachers in Patrick’s study may be that the latter, in her study, investigated specific elements from a phenomenographic perspective, while Mr. Anderson presented his view of teaching history in upper secondary school as a whole in a life history context. Being interpretive, critical and using several perspectives has been held to be good teaching by Lorrei Di Camillo in a practice-oriented American study.30 In the 21st century, multiperspectivity in school history teaching has been declared by the Council of Europe as an important tool for peace and understanding between peoples and countries. Multiperspectivity, as first presented by Bodo von Borries, is seen as an important path for historical thinking and a broader and more all-encompassing way of writing history.31 The Council of Europe’s multiperspectivity is, however, in relation to Mr. Anderson’s teaching strategy, very limited since it mainly works with interpretations of historical conflicts and not with the wide range of perspectives that are present in Mr. Anderson’s teaching strategy. Multiperspectivity could be a useful concept for describing a history teaching with many perspectives and critical thinking in a world influences by postmodernism.32 The experiences of Mr. Anderson make a rich concept visible and his narrative makes it possible with this concept anchored in practice, to continue the research on history teaching with a broader understanding of multiperspectivity.
Storytelling and narrative history Mr. Berg’s history teaching strategy shows great similarities with history teachers described as “story tellers”.33 According to Brophy & Van Sledright, a good storyteller can make history come alive, imaginative, engaging and accessible.34 In a British study Kate
30
Di Camillo, 77-111 Robert Stradling, Multiperspectivity in history teaching: A guide for teachers (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2003), 9-29 32 See Peter Seixas, “Schweigen! Die kinder!” in Knowing, teaching & learning history: National and international perspectives, ed. Peter N. Stearns, Peter Seixas & Sam Wineburg, 19-35 (New York: University Press 2000); Sirkka Ahonen, “Historia som kritisk process” in Historiedidaktik, ed. Karlegärd, C. & Karlsson, K.-G. 115-139 (Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1997). 33 Ronald W. Evans, “Teacher Conceptions of History” Theory and Research in Social Education, 17, no 3 (1989): 215-17; Brophy and Van Sledright, 68-69; S. G. Grant, “It´s just the facts, or is it? The relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ understandings of history” Theory and Research in Social Education. 29, no 1, (2001): 70-75. 34 Brophy and Van Sledright, 45-71. 31
Hawkey35 has described how stories can be used as a way into knowledge and how teachers at the blackboard can create through simple questions a complex historical narrative together with students, a practice which resembles that which Mr. Berg calls “Socratic majeutics”. Advocates of a more narrative history teaching claim that stories can offer both large and small perspectives, context and meaning to a complex world and thereby create historical consciousness.36 Narrative history is however more than storytelling. Narrative history endeavors to connect the present with the past and expectations for the future. The deeper understanding of narratives on different levels and the creation of metanarratives is not necessarily common for all “storytellers”. Mr. Berg’s life history shows how storytelling and narrative history can be combined but also how this demands great effort and consciousness, and how it is much more than just telling stories.
History and social science The social scientific history of Mrs. Carlson, Mr. Dahl, Mrs. Ericsson and Mr. Falk lies close to a view of history teaching that has been described by James Craig Harding as “antecedents of current issues”.37 The Canadian teachers in Harding’s study were inclined to explain and analyze the problems of contemporary history from an historical background. In their teaching strategy, the Swedish social science history teachers describe a more global and comparative perspective on history, but their focus on the analytical and the contemporary is similar. Differences can in part be explained by Harding’s study being phenomenographic and circumscribed to a specific unit of history teaching. The teachers in Harding’s study focus on the importance of illuminating contemporary dilemmas, comparing conflicts, seeing what solutions have been attempted in history, noting significant historical phases, providing insights into how history has shaped society and working with critical analysis. These are in line with the fundamental and commonly shared aspects of the teaching strategy I would call social scientific history. In his study, Ronald W. Evan’s especially highlights a type of history teacher he calls “the scientific historian”.38 Evans describes these history teachers as academics who focus on history as explaining present-day society and its problems. By focusing on a
35
Kate Hawkey, “’Could you just tell us the story?’ Pedagogical approaches to introducing narrative in history classes” Curriculum Inquiry. 37, no 3, (2007) 270-272 36 Hawkey, 263-264; Christer Karlegärd, ”Den historiska berättelsen” in Historiedidaktik. ed. Karlegärd, C. & Karlsson, K.-G. (Lund: Studentlitteratur 1997); Jörn Rüsen, “Functions of historical narration: Proposals for a strategy of legitimating history in school” Historiedidaktik i Norden 3. (Bergen, 1987). 37 James Craig Harding, Teachers’ Conceptions of History Education: A phenomenographic inquiry. (Diss. University of Columbia, 1999) 170-184. 38 Ronald W. Evans, “Educational Ideologies and the Teaching of History” in Teaching and Learning in History, ed. Leinhardt, G., Beck I. & Stainton, C., (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994)
methodical collection of information and preparing it, one can, according to these teachers, draw general conclusions. A critical relation to sources that follows the historians’ approach to the subject has also been favored in British school reforms according to Denis Shemilt.39 Seminars and texts produced by students are, according to Evans, clear examples of how students in this type of teaching have to seek general patterns and train their analytical abilities. Evans holds that this analytical teaching, highly influenced by the social sciences, is beneficial to learning, making students more critical in their view of history and the present time. Especially Mr. Dahl and Mrs. Ericsson emphasize the value of using seminars to present, analyze and examine various historical elements. All the teachers who state this teaching strategy insist on the importance of discussion, critical analysis and independent tasks for understanding the surrounding world and world politics. That the teachers in my Swedish study are more internationally oriented than those appearing in Anglo-American research may be due to the fact that Sweden is a small country with a peaceful modern history, which is very dependent upon the rest of the world, and that it has a national curriculum that stress global and contemporary history. A focus on explanatory models and an international orientation has existed for a long time within comparative history research, but their practice in history teaching has not previously been noted and studied. The narratives from practice that emphasizes a teaching of history oriented towards social science, including comparative history, certainly show how history can be seen as a part of social studies. In Sweden where history is a part of the humanities teachers can transform it into a strategy with a clear orientation towards social science.
Conclusions The teachers in the present study have, on the basis of their long experience from practice, arrived at insights and developed strategies for teaching history. The teachers’ narratives indicate that the insights and strategies have derived from refinement of practice and/or experiencing turning points in their conceptions of teaching. It seems that they have understood and manifested several similar values in their teaching, but they have also developed teaching strategies with different orientations in order to teach the subject of history. The broad spectrum of teaching strategies presented in this study suggests that highly experienced history teachers in Sweden can understand history teaching in different ways and have had the liberty to determine to a great extent the goals, methods and content of teaching. The teachers’ stories illuminate how, through 39
Denis Shemilt, “The Caliph’s Coin: The currency of narrative frameworks in history teaching” in Knowing, Teaching & Learning History: National and international perspectives, ed. Stearns, P. N., Seixas, P. & Wineburg, S. (New York: University Press, 2000)
their teaching strategies in interaction with their insights, they have created an overview and structure in the complex reality of history teaching. Their stories show how the subject of history can be transformed into teaching strategies with multiperspective, narrative or social scientific orientations. In the conceptions of history teaching the teachers clearly emphasize different parts of the comprehensive national guidelines. It is notable that no respondent talked about historical consciousness, even though this has been a major part in the history didactic research in Sweden and is a part of the national curriculum. The theoretical model for teaching strategies could be an instrument for further investigation of overarching influences on teachers’ conceptions of history teaching in upper secondary school as a whole. In an international perspective the conceptions of history teaching show similarities, and also some differences, to what has been noted in earlier studies of less experienced history teachers. The veteran teachers in this study show in their conception of history teaching not a single “old traditional teaching style”. The results rather indicate that a lifelong experience from history teaching can give both clarity and richness in the conceptions of “why”, “what” and “how” we should teach history. Further research on highly experienced teachers’, and other teachers’ and students’ conceptions, may find more insights and strategies in history teaching. The teachers’ strategies could be used to benefit the understanding of the different values and shapes of history teaching and as a guide for teacher reflection about different ways to teach history.
