Introduction
Professional development (PD) of teachers is considered to be essential in creating and maintaining high-quality education (Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002; Guskey, 2002; Hattie, 2009; Opfer and Pedder, 2011). As primary school teachers teach many subjects and therefore often have limited subject-specific knowledge and skills, a focus on subject-specific pedagogical competencies in PD is especially important to keep up to date with curricular developments (De Groot-Reuvekamp et al., 2018; Gibson and Peck, 2020; VanSledright and Frankes, 2000).
History is among the subjects that many primary school teachers find difficult to teach. This has been explained by teachers’ fixed ideas of history being about passing on content knowledge (Gibson and Peck, 2020; Wissinger et al., 2021) as well as a lack of familiarity with different teaching approaches, both disciplinary and cross-disciplinary, in history education (Gibson and Peck, 2020; Grant, 2018; Lévesque, 2008; Levstik and Thornton, 2018). Even when teachers are familiar with different approaches to teaching history, the subject remains complex because of its interpretative and controversial nature (Levstik and Barton, 2015): interpretative, as narratives are based on the choice of questions and sources, which can be incomplete or give conflicting information; and controversial, because there may be conflicting perspectives on what happened, what the causes and consequences are, what is historically significant and what moral judgements are appropriate (Levstik and Barton, 2015; Nichol and Cooper, 2015; Paul, 2015; Seixas and Morton, 2013). Consequently, it is important for pupils to learn historical reasoning. Historical reasoning aims to reach justifiable conclusions about the past with claims about historical events and developments, answering a historical question and making use of substantive and metahistorical concepts, contextualisation and argumentation (Van Boxtel and Van Drie, 2018). Historical arguments are built through analysing and critically assessing both primary sources and existing interpretations, considering not only supporting evidence but also counterarguments and alternative perspectives. Recognising the importance of these competencies for children and acknowledging that pupils, even in primary school, can engage in disciplinary inquiry (for example, Johansson, 2019) enhances the significance of history as a subject. Inquiry-based learning in history thus involves pupils investigating historical questions by actively exploring sources and constructing evidence-based interpretations (Van Boxtel et al., 2021; Voet and De Wever, 2016).
A perspective on history that focuses on historical inquiry and reasoning requires a new vision of what pupils need to learn in the history classroom, how lessons can be organised and what competencies teachers need. Studies on the development of historical reasoning in primary school pupils show that success greatly depends on the teaching and coaching skills of teachers (Levstik and Barton, 2015; Van Boxtel et al., 2021; VanSledright and Frankes, 2000). Research into PD programmes in inquiry-based learning in science indicate that subject-specific PD can be successful in introducing new ways of teaching and thinking about subjects (Murphy et al., 2015). However, subject-specific PD programmes for history in primary schools are rare, and empirically studied PD programmes even more so (De Groot-Reuvekamp et al., 2018; Gibson and Peck, 2020).
This raises the question: what are the characteristics of a PD programme for in-service primary school teachers teaching grades 3–6 (age 8–12 years old) that aims to develop teachers’ ability to design and implement historical reasoning in inquiry-based history lessons and foster pupils’ historical reasoning? In this study based on literature on effective teacher PD, historical reasoning and inquiry-based learning, we used an educational design approach, formulated aims and design principles and developed a PD programme, part of which was piloted with four teachers from grades 3–6 from one primary school in the Netherlands. This study forms a basis for the next step in the design research, in which we implement and evaluate the complete two-year PD programme. The PD design is novel in its focus on engaging teachers in historical reasoning before they design and implement activities for their classrooms.
Theoretical framework
Teacher professionalisation
The central processes in teacher professional development are illustrated in Clarke and Hollingsworth’s (2002) interconnected model of professional growth. This model conceptualises the complexity of professional growth for teachers and how external stimuli like PD activities can bring about change in the personal domain (knowledge, beliefs and attitude), domain of practice (professional experimentation) and domain of consequence (salient outcomes). The mechanisms that set development in motion are mediating processes of enactment (internalising new knowledge and experimenting in practice) and reflection (on teaching and learning) (Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002). Opfer and Pedder (2011) broaden this by conceptualising teacher professional learning as being shaped by the dynamic interaction between individual teacher orientations, learning activities and the wider school and policy context.
Research on effective PD programmes (for example, Borko et al., 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Guskey, 2002; Kennedy, 2016; Opfer and Pedder, 2011; Van Veen et al., 2012) concludes that durable PD is more likely when programmes aim to develop pedagogical content knowledge, encompass active and inquiry-based aspects, involve teacher collaboration, span a longer time frame and are embedded in the school context. Other important factors influencing programme success are the perceived relevance and usefulness for teachers’ daily work, programme coherence and the underlying theory of improvement. Kennedy (2016) emphasises the potential positive effect of the use of coaches, especially when they collaborate with teachers on lesson planning. Many of the more effective programmes Kennedy reviewed were facilitated by coaches close to and experienced in teachers’ daily practice. Organising PD in the form of a professional learning community (PLC) is associated with durable development when teachers study and discuss research on effective practices, focus on effective learning strategies, collaborate as participants and reflect on their learning and on the results of newly practised teaching approaches (Borko et al., 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Kennedy, 2016).
A focus on theory-based and well-researched content is considered the most important condition for effective PD (Van Veen et al., 2012). The programme we describe in this article focuses on pedagogical content knowledge related to inquiry-based learning promoting historical reasoning. Pedagogical content knowledge is the subject-matter knowledge necessary for teaching a subject and combines subject expertise and subject pedagogy (Gibson and Peck, 2020; Shulman, 1986; Tuithof et al., 2019). It develops when participants in a programme are actively involved with the subject matter, work on lesson design and put these lessons into practice.
A broad array of studies into PD in history and social sciences teaching suggests PD elements that promote development of pedagogical content knowledge. Based on their review of American PD programmes in history, Van Hover and Hicks (2018) conclude that classroom-embedded inquiry routines combined with sustained support of teachers promote effective PD for historical reasoning. In line with this, Deery (2024) and Anthony et al. (2016), in the Australian and Singapore contexts, emphasise the importance of connecting to teachers’ practice in their history classrooms, teachers’ personal learning goals and change ideas, and differentiating instruction depending on teachers’ experience. The importance of active, hands-on approaches and active engagement in inquiry activities for developing teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is underscored by Peck (2014) and Murphy et al. (2015). By actively investigating the past through inquiry activities that can also be carried out with pupils in the classroom, teachers may acquire the knowledge that Reisman (2012a) considers essential for professional development aimed at fostering historical reasoning in the classroom, namely deep subject knowledge, awareness of chronology and historiography, ability to recognise pupils’ and own positionality, and skills in recognising and avoiding presentist arguments. Many of these studies, however, focus on secondary school contexts.
In the Netherlands, PD in history education also mainly aims at secondary school teachers and mostly consists of short PD programmes focusing on curriculum topics, activating pedagogy or the use of historical sources. Professional development programmes for history in primary education are less common and are mostly research driven. The PD programme by De Groot-Reuvekamp et al. (2018) aimed to enhance teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge about the understanding of historical time. The adaptable teaching materials in this programme helped participants bring the lessons to practice. In the Development of Historical Thinking project (Dobber, 2018), which involved teachers in grades 3–6 in designing and implementing lessons, practising scaffolding in pupils’ questioning, source use and causal reasoning were key to pupils’ improved reasoning and ability to relate history to their everyday life. Future PD programmes should build on these elements to provide coherent and sustainable support for the development of elementary teachers’ competencies to teach historical reasoning.
Historical reasoning in inquiry-based history lessons in primary schools
To develop a theory- and evidence-informed PD programme based on the elements from the previous paragraph, we elaborate on the theory of historical reasoning and the potential of inquiry-based history learning. History education researchers have recently emphasised the importance of historical reasoning in teaching and learning history (see Lévesque, 2008; Levstik and Barton, 2015; Levstik and Thornton, 2018; Reisman, 2012b; Van Boxtel and Van Drie, 2018; VanSledright and Frankes, 2000). When pupils reason historically, they engage in formulating historical questions, contextualising past events and actions of people, and building claims about continuity and change, causes and consequences and similarities and differences based on a critical examination of historical sources (Van Boxtel and Van Drie, 2018). Teachers should be able to engage in the same kinds of reasoning and inquiry tasks they want their pupils to do. The quality and level of historical reasoning depend on several factors. These include the quality of questions that are asked, the extent of substantive historical knowledge (familiarity with historical facts, chronology, key concepts) and the understanding of meta-historical concepts such as causality and change. In addition, historical reasoning requires the use of appropriate strategies, for example distinguishing between immediate and long-term consequences and different types of causes (Van Boxtel and Van Drie, 2018).
Various studies (for example, Barton, 1997; Johansson, 2019; Levstik and Barton, 2015; Reisman, 2012b; Van Boxtel et al., 2021; Wissinger et al., 2021) provide insight into the capacity of young children to develop historical reasoning competencies when adequately supported. Teacher support can take the form of explicit instruction, teacher guidance, use of scaffolds (for example, causal maps) and classroom discussion.
An approach to historical reasoning that is very close to the nature of historical reasoning and its connected competencies is inquiry-based learning. Inquiry-based learning in history is characterised by historical questions that are partly generated by pupils and active exploration of subject matter to come to substantiated conclusions. Instead of passing down a single narrative for memorisation, pupils are presented with artefacts or accounts of people’s lives and personal choices, and they learn to construct their own narrative based on carefully weighed arguments and interpretations (Voet and De Wever, 2016). Pupils co-construct knowledge under the guidance of the teacher (Dobber et al., 2017). This helps pupils ‘understand the nature of the discipline of history and utilise its procedural methods’ (Gibson and Peck, 2020, p. 229). Various studies indicate that inquiry-based learning can contribute to learning beyond subject-specific competencies and enhance pupils’ scientific thinking strategies and deep understanding (Ben-David and Zohar, 2009), conceptual thinking and problem-solving skills (Murphy et al., 2015), intercultural competencies (Johansson, 2019) and literacy skills (Wissinger et al., 2021). Examples of literacy skills associated with inquiry-based learning are thinking aloud strategies for reading or sourcing a historical text or formulating arguments (Dobber et al., 2017; Levstik and Barton, 2015; Van Baren-Nawrocka et al., 2016). Moreover, inquiry learning supports communication and collaborative learning because pupils learn to talk, think and work in a community of inquirers, which leads to continuous interactions between classroom members (Dobber and Van Oers, 2015). This article focuses on inquiry-based learning in history lessons that promote historical reasoning.
Despite its potential, inquiry learning is not broadly adopted in history education, primarily due to a lack of support in history textbooks and insufficient teacher training in this approach (Levstik and Thornton, 2018; Van Boxtel et al., 2021; Voet and De Wever, 2016). Teachers need to know how to provide explicit strategy instruction, model the steps of inquiry and scaffold the process and be familiar with the competencies specific to the discipline of history. In essence, high-quality inquiry-based teaching requires rich pedagogical content knowledge and practice in applying it in concrete lessons. Our research question therefore is: what are the characteristics of a PD programme for in-service primary school teachers in grades 3–6 that has the potential to enhance teacher development in historical reasoning and design of inquiry-based history lessons that foster pupils’ historical reasoning?
Methods
Educational design studies aim to design and implement interventions that address problems in practice while at the same time developing theoretical understanding that can be of use to others and in other situations (McKenney and Reeves, 2012). In this study, we applied McKenney and Reeves’ three-phase model for educational design research to develop a PD programme on historical reasoning in inquiry-based history lessons for primary school teachers. The outline of the study is presented in Table 1.
Set-up of the study in three phases and two design cycles according to the generic model for conducting design research in education (Source: McKenney and Reeves, 2012)
| Phase 1 Analysis and Exploration |
Phase 2 Design and Construction |
Phase 3 Evaluation and Reflection |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Cycle 1 | Literature review Interviews with participants |
Design of:
|
Evaluation of the pilot programme (analysis of PD meetings, feedback from participants) to monitor teacher development |
| Cycle 2 | Additional literature review | Revision of design principles Design of final programme |
In the first cycle, we reviewed literature on effective teacher PD, historical reasoning and inquiry-based history learning and gained information from interviews with prospective participants (phase 1: analysis and exploration). Based on this, we formulated aims and design principles and designed a prototype programme (phase 2: design and construction). We carried out a limited pilot with four teachers. The pilot was evaluated by analysing the meetings using a coding scheme based on the Interconnected model of professional growth (Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002). Furthermore, we asked the participants to provide feedback on the programme (phase 3: evaluation and reflection).
After reflection on the pilot, in a second cycle of the design process, we adapted the design principles into a final set, which is described in the results section. These design principles form the basis of a two-year PD programme on historical reasoning in inquiry-based history lessons for primary school teachers. This programme will be implemented and evaluated in a follow-up study.
Participants and setting
Participants in the interviews and pilot study were four teachers who teach in grades 3–6 at one primary school (Table 2). These teachers volunteered because inquiry-based learning was a priority of their school, and they indicated they needed additional training to develop inquiry-based history lessons. All participants actively consented to participate in the study. The names we use are aliases.
Participants in the study
| Name | Age | Years of teaching experience | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patrick | 23 | 2 | 3 |
| Naomi | 61 | 19 | 4 |
| Emily | 32 | 11 | 5 |
| Susanna | 36 | 10 | 6 |
All participants had a bachelor’s degree in primary school teaching and no additional training in teaching history. Naomi took a post-bachelor course in arts and heritage, and Susanna did an additional inquiry-based science education course.
Our study was conducted in one public school in the Netherlands. Although the school used inquiry-based learning in several subjects, such as science, history was taught in a more traditional way, with teacher explanations, reading texts and answering questions from textbooks. History lessons started in grade three with one weekly 45-minute lesson based on a school textbook.
The first author, a history teacher educator for primary education, interviewed the teachers and facilitated the PD meetings. The advantage of such a participatory stance is that it offers the possibility to tailor the meetings to the participants’ needs, based on the design principles. Working closely with participants helps to build strong mutual relations and makes it easier to offer coaching and advice, which in turn may facilitate bringing new teaching methods into practice (Smets and Struyven, 2020).
Phase 1: analysis and exploration
Apart from a review of the literature – which we discussed in the theoretical framework – a design process should always involve communication with the people involved in the PD programme (Dobber et al., 2012). Because we take a combined literature-based and grounded approach towards design, we wanted to take teachers’ ideas about the nature of history and history education into account, as well as their own developmental goals. Therefore, we interviewed participants individually during the exploration phase in a semi-structured interview based on the interview protocol by Voet and De Wever (2016). The original interview protocol was aimed at secondary school history teachers. We slightly adapted the questions for primary school teachers. Besides using vocabulary connected to primary education, we added questions on, for example, pupils’ motivation. Moreover, we added questions about teaching practices such as the use of primary sources. Finally, we added questions about teacher agency, such as if they feel room to innovate or come up with their own proposals in their school team. The interviews covered the background of the participant, their beliefs about history, and their experience with and beliefs about history education and inquiry-based learning. Furthermore, teachers were asked what factors in school promote or discourage their experimentation with new ways of teaching.
The interviews lasted about 45 minutes. We fully transcribed the interviews After transcribing the interviews, we developed a first thematic categorisation with open coding. We discussed this categorisation and then refined it using insights from the literature. We merged some categories and renamed others, based on criteria from literature and grounded in the interviews. We identified the following themes: (1) participants’ goals and practice in teaching history, (2) participants’ ideas about the nature of history and (3) participants’ ideas about why and how to teach inquiry-based history lessons. Each category was further elaborated by specifying example statements by interviewees.
Phase 2: design and construction
The aims and design principles were formulated based on the literature review and the interviews. In formulating the aims of the programme, we stayed close to participants’ needs and ambitions. Developing teachers’ knowledge of historical reasoning, knowledge of the interpretative nature of history and knowledge of how to engage in historical reasoning through inquiry-based lessons were central to the programme.
For the design of the prototype programme, we used Van den Akker’s (2013) curricular spider’s web. Based on the aims and our design principles we developed content, learning activities and materials for six 1.5-hour meetings, the design of which was discussed in the research team and with a history teacher educator outside the research team.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the school lockdown in the spring of 2020, the pilot stopped prematurely after the first three meetings. Considering that understanding historical reasoning and developing historical reasoning competencies take time and practice, curtailing the pilot has affected participants’ development. Participants also had little opportunity to design lessons, because lesson design was planned from the fourth meeting onward. The pilot did yield some results of experimentation, because one participant had already started designing lesson activities.
Phase 3: evaluation and reflection
To evaluate the prototype programme, we analysed participants’ interactions during the meetings. For this we developed a coding scheme based on the interconnected model of professional growth (Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002). We looked for indicators of how the meetings functioned as a stimulus for professional development. We chose a combined inductive and deductive approach in developing the coding scheme. Following Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002), the main categories are ‘development in the personal domain’, ‘development in the domain of practice’ and ‘development in the domain of consequences’. Each of these main categories combined subcategories such as ‘observed effects in pupils’ or ‘observed effects in school’ for development in the domain of consequence.
The unit of analysis was one or a few subsequent sentences by one person about the same theme, in response to something that was said by the facilitator or another participant. Before coding, the transcripts were segmented into units. Two separate coders independently scored the teacher contributions in the transcript of the first meeting (2 hours, 109 coded segments). Initially Cohen’s kappa was 0.63 on the level of the subcategories. Choices were discussed and agreement was reached on how to interpret and code certain units. For example, the difference between ‘development of own historical knowledge’ and ‘gained insight’ was not always clear. During the discussion, some code descriptions were explicated to increase clarity. To reduce the complexity of the coding scheme, some subcategories were split or added, while others were removed. After several rounds of discussion, another meeting (2 hours, 163 coded segments) was coded and a proportion of agreement of 77.3 per cent was reached with a Cohen’s kappa of 0.72. Campbell et al. (2013) consider this a sufficient interrater reliability for coding complex interactions such as PLC meetings. The final coding scheme, consisting of 20 subcategories within three main categories, can be found in Table 3.
Coding scheme for interactions among participants and between participants and facilitator during PD meetings
| Main categories | Subcategories | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Development in personal domain | Knowledge and attitude: | |
|
First operation Market Garden, and then the hunger winter came. | |
|
Was it ever the other way around? That you were married, but the husband was unable to work, and that the wife was allowed to have a government job? | |
|
As I understand now, with history lessons you often start with an image or a short text. | |
|
We use this project book for inquiry lessons in school. | |
|
I want to practise more with primary sources because I really liked that. | |
|
I think these texts are too difficult for children. | |
| Epistemic beliefs: | ||
|
This is how it always is in history: different perspectives. | |
| Development in domain of practice | Design of lessons: | |
|
Let’s choose the liberation, we could all work on that. | |
|
I find the hardest part when pupils are doing the inquiry. What is good information? What form do I choose? I liked my start, but how to proceed? | |
|
I prefer to use images as well, because then we can talk about causes and consequences, for example. | |
|
I would suggest that in the first week we tell them: we are going to do this and this. Then that first week we give them information about the period and the subject. In the second week we could start the inquiry. | |
|
Naomi: Let’s design a start for this inquiry lesson. Susanna: Yes, with photos, that would be nice. | |
|
The pupils would say: the liberation was on May 5th, 1945. And that we say: So why does it say September 15th, 1944, here? | |
|
This website is full of materials supporting historical themes. | |
|
I was thinking, I could bring nutmeg and use that as a starting point to teach about the Dutch East India Company. | |
| Experimenting in own classroom: | ||
|
I tried what we did in the first meeting, with the cookies, because our reading text was about speculaas. | |
|
I found many beautiful sources. Did you see those websites? I thought: why didn’t I think about this before! | |
| Development in domain of consequence | Observed effects in pupils | I was really surprised by everything pupils said about it. I didn’t direct them in any way, just let them look and tell what they saw and what their ideas were. |
| Observed effects in school | We will present this during a team meeting and will assist colleagues with this way of thinking and teaching and provide materials. | |
| Reactions from colleagues | We presented the materials in our team and colleagues were enthusiastic. | |
Results of the first design cycle
In the theoretical framework we identified factors that promote durable teacher PD. We also identified elements from history teaching that promote historical reasoning in inquiry-based history lessons. Information from the semi-structured interviews additionally informed the formulation of the aims and design principles of our prototype PD programme (phase 1: analysis and exploration). The interviews provided insight into the concerns of teachers about teaching primary school history, the gap between aims and practice and what they hope to gain from the PD programme.
The main goals for history in primary school, according to the four interviewees, are understanding the present, developing historical understanding, developing a broad and curious view on the world, and learning from the past. In practice, however, they noted a gap between how they wanted to teach history and competencies they wish to develop in children and how they actually taught. Susanna, for example, indicated that she and her colleagues:
started inquiry-based learning in school, also for history, but I am still too much the teacher who decides what’s going to happen and who picks a video instead of challenging their thinking. We want children to formulate inquiry questions, but how can they formulate a question about communication in the Middle Ages, when they hardly know anything about that period?
For our aims and design principles we took from this theme the notion that in the PD programme, participants want to learn to design and teach history lessons using historical sources that make pupils curious and promote learning and understanding history. Adding to this point, we took from the literature the need to develop participants’ understanding that inquiry-based learning can also involve a more guiding role of the teacher and the development of pupils’ knowledge base. In this, we need to consider that historical reasoning is a new approach for these teachers.
When asked about the nature of historical inquiry, all the teachers agreed that literature research and comparing historical sources characterise the historical method. The interpretative nature of historical accounts is something they connected to controversies surrounding statues of colonial figureheads and they acknowledged that, although a strict division between facts and opinions should be made, this can be difficult sometimes because one’s worldview may influence one’s interpretation of sources. All participants realised the method of historical inquiry can be used when designing inquiry-based history lessons, but they were unsure how they themselves would do that. For our aims and design principles we took from this the notion that the PD programme should pay attention to how historical inquiry, based on critical source analysis, can be adapted to inquiry-based history teaching.
All four teachers wanted their pupils to become active inquirers during history lessons. According to them, historical inquiry is about understanding and attributing meaning to the past, but inquiry-based history lessons can also help pupils learn competencies that are needed in present-day society, like critically questioning situations and assessing information. Historical reasoning competencies were mentioned by Naomi:
Pupils need to be able to determine causes and consequences. Also, they need to be able to form their opinion based on arguments and formulate arguments themselves.
The participants realised that they needed to be able to ask the right questions, help pupils critically question information and formulate arguments. But although there already was a structure for inquiry-based learning in the school, three teachers said they lacked the knowledge and skills to design inquiry lessons for history, for example choosing suitable historical sources for a subject. In addition, they lacked coaching skills for historical reasoning. As Susanna articulated:
what would help me is if I had more tools and skills in how to start and set up inquiry with my pupils. Of course, it starts with myself, my attitude in wanting this to work, but good visual materials, good questions and good activities to start inquiry with … that would really help.
All participants agreed that worksheets would help pupils visualise their thinking and reasoning. For our aims and design principles we take from this the notion that participants need to develop design skills for inquiry-based lessons and coaching skills to enhance and support historical reasoning.
Design of the PD programme
The literature study and interview data provided input to formulate the aims and design principles for a PD programme on historical reasoning in inquiry-based history lessons for primary school teachers. The aims of the programme are listed below:
-
participants’ historical reasoning competencies.
-
participants’ understanding that historical narratives are constructed, based on historical sources and a critical examination of these sources.
-
participants’ pedagogical content knowledge about historical reasoning and inquiry-based history education.
-
participants’ skills in finding suitable historical sources and working with them in the classroom.
-
participants’ design skills in creating inquiry-based learning lessons or lesson activities that promote pupils’ historical reasoning competencies.
We came to a set of 18 design principles for the pilot programme, categorised in three domains (Table 4). The sources on which these design principles are based are included in the set of final design principles.
Design principles of the pilot PD programme
| Domains | Design principles |
|---|---|
| A. Foster professional development | 1. The PD programme is organised as a PLC, and meetings are partly developed with the participants as it is carried out. |
| 2. The programme is coherent. | |
| 3. The PD programme focuses on pedagogical content knowledge. | |
| 4. During the meetings participating teachers are active and perform inquiry tasks. | |
| 5. Participating teachers work together on historical reasoning activities and co-design inquiry-based historical reasoning lessons for their pupils. | |
| 6. The starting point of the PD programme is always the participants’ classroom practice. | |
| 7. The facilitator of the PD programme teaches and supports the participants in the preparation of the activities, the design of educational materials and the preparation of teaching. | |
| 8. The facilitator promotes cooperative learning and mutual dependence. | |
| 9. The facilitator promotes openness and reflective professional inquiry. | |
| 10. The PD programme is of sufficient duration, both in span of time and in the number of hours spent in the activity. | |
| B. Foster teaching of historical reasoning | 11. The PD programme focuses on subject-specific content knowledge. Participants practise the various historical reasoning competencies through targeted exercises. |
| 12. Emphasis of the PD programme is on designing lessons and lesson activities for grades 3–6. | |
| 13. In the PD programme attention is paid to the nature of history and the interpretative nature of historical accounts and how historical inquiry, based on critical source analysis, can be adapted to inquiry-based history lessons. | |
| 14. Participants use primary and secondary historical sources in the design of their lessons. In the PD programme they are assisted in finding, choosing and adapting these sources to fit the pupils’ age group. | |
| C. Foster implementation of inquiry-based learning | 15. The inquiry process starts from wonder to trigger curiosity. |
| 16. Asking questions is a central aspect of the inquiry process. Participants learn to ask different types of questions, like inquiry questions, coaching questions, questions which help to build an argument and reflective questions. | |
| 17. In the PD programme participants design historical inquiry lessons in which pupils learn to look at/read, assess and analyse historical sources. | |
| 18. Participants are supported to develop coaching skills for historical reasoning in inquiry. |
The prototype PD programme consisted of six 1.5-hour sessions (Box 1). The design principles led our choices. For example, as our design principles 4, 5 and 11 are about participating teachers working together on historical reasoning activities, we started each meeting with a historical reasoning activity in which the facilitator modelled the teacher role and participants worked on a task collaboratively. Subsequently, based on design principles 3, 11 and 13, implying that the PD programme focuses on subject-specific content knowledge, theoretical background was offered and aspects of the nature of history were discussed in connection with the activity. After that, participants received historical source material and engaged in historical inquiry. This inquiry involved corroborating sources and finding additional historical sources themselves (design principle 13). With each inquiry activity, participants discussed how they could adapt this for their own pupils, following design principles 5, 12, 14 and 17, that participants learn to set up a historical inquiry lesson for pupils in which they learn to read, evaluate and analyse historical sources. Participants were involved in all parts of the meeting, either as active partakers in an activity, as active learners when new information was shared and discussed, or as teachers talking about how an activity could be adapted for their pupils.
Box 1. Content of the PD meetings
| Meeting 1 | Historical reasoning activity: the married civil servants emancipation law of 1956 |
| What is historical reasoning? | |
| Use of primary historical sources in inquiry-based learning | |
| Cinnamon trade in Ceylon: identifying causes and consequences | |
| Meeting 2 | Historical reasoning activity: photographs of the liberation |
| Asking historical questions | |
| Phases in inquiry-based learning: the importance of building knowledge | |
| Mad Tuesday: identifying causes and consequences | |
| Meeting 3 | Timelines: general and thematic |
| A toolkit for designing inquiry-based historical reasoning lessons | |
| The Dutch revolt: identifying multiple perspectives | |
| Meeting 4 | Historical reasoning activity: rediscovering your neighbourhood |
| History close by: heritage and personal history | |
| Designing lessons together | |
| Meeting 5 | Role of teacher in lessons: coaching skills |
| Labour conditions in textile factories in the nineteenth century: identifying multiple perspectives | |
| Designing lessons together | |
| Meeting 6 | Historical reasoning activity: comparing maps (similarities and differences) |
| Searching, choosing and adapting primary historical sources | |
| Floods in Dutch history: use of eyewitness accounts | |
| Designing lessons together |
Evaluation of the PD programme
Over the first three PD meetings, 348 segments of interactions were coded (phase 3). The segments were analysed based on the three domains from the Interconnected model of professional growth (Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002). Table 5 shows coded segments for the three domains of teacher development: the personal domain, the domain of practice and the domain of consequence.
Coded segments in transcribed interactions during three PD meetings
| Main categories | Subcategories | Segments over three meetings |
Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal domain | Own historical knowledge | 53 | 15.23 |
| Historical reasoning by participant | 57 | 16.38 | |
| Gain insight of (teaching) historical reasoning | 9 | 2.59 | |
| Relating to practices in school | 3 | 0.86 | |
| Sense of ownership | 6 | 1.72 | |
| Feelings of resistance | 12 | 3.45 | |
| Ideas about the nature of history | 4 | 1.15 | |
| Total | 144 | 41.38 | |
| Domain of practice | Choice of subject | 11 | 3.16 |
| Aspect of inquiry learning | 24 | 6.90 | |
| Choice of historical reasoning competence | 6 | 1.72 | |
| Exchanging advice | 13 | 3.74 | |
| Designing together | 28 | 8.05 | |
| Encouraging pupils’ historical reasoning | 18 | 5.17 | |
| Use of supporting materials | 30 | 8.62 | |
| Inquiry and teaching skills | 26 | 7.47 | |
| Implementing what has been modelled | 0 | 0 | |
| Personal reflections | 14 | 4.02 | |
| Total | 170 | 48.85 | |
| Domain of consequence | Observed effects in pupils | 22 | 6.32 |
| Observed effects in school | 10 | 2.87 | |
| Reactions from colleagues | 2 | 0.58 | |
| Total | 34 | 9.77 | |
| TOTAL | 348 | 100 |
The personal domain
The PD programme aimed to foster knowledge of historical reasoning and the interpretative nature of history. Over 40 per cent of the interactions in the prototype programme concerned aspects connected to the personal domain, with 15 per cent being participants sharing their own prior knowledge on a topic or what they read in the sources they received.
Learning to reason historically is challenging. From the interviews we knew that the concept of historical reasoning was new to all participants. During the meetings, 16 per cent of the interactions were coded as historical reasoning. However, most of these were short observations or descriptive historical questions asked when viewing a historical source, for example ‘they are chopping off branches or bark, something like that. That person is putting things on the ground and the other places it against a fence. What are they doing with these trees?’ (Emily, meeting 1). Development was seen over the course of the meetings in the increasing use of terminology related to historical reasoning, for example ‘historical source(s)’ (67 instances), and the occurrence of a wider variety of types of historical reasoning, such as talking about similarities and differences (29 instances) and causes and consequences (25 instances). Moreover, participants increasingly connected past and present.
The facilitator modelled the promotion of historical reasoning by asking questions. While in the first session the participants hardly engaged in such reasoning, they managed to do so more successfully in the following sessions. During the first meeting, the facilitator encouraged historical reasoning in 23 instances. A question such as ‘it is interesting to see how the newspapers wrote about it [the liberation of first part of the Netherlands], this is a local, authorised newspaper and this is a resistance newspaper. What differences do you see and how does this compare with the schoolbook text?’ led to responses about the texts and the archaic writing style, but not to a comparison of the sources, nor were causes or consequences mentioned (although they were discussed earlier in the meeting and were present in the articles). During the second meeting the participants studied the image of an American army truck surrounded by people celebrating. In the discussion that followed we saw some beginnings of historical reasoning. Susanna: ‘What do you do: show the date of the photo or not?’ Facilitator: ‘Yes, I would do that.’ Naomi: ‘Yes, of course, because when you see this, you immediately ask yourself: the liberation is on 5 May 1945. How come this image is [dated] 15 September 1944?’ Furthermore, in this meeting two participants started to demonstrate insight into how historical reasoning can be taught: Susanna: ‘So [in historical reasoning] you relate and discuss different aspects of an event.’ And Naomi concluded, ‘First you describe what you see and then you interpret.’ In the third meeting, participants began to demonstrate insight into historical reasoning and the interpretative nature of history. This was illustrated when different participants pointed to different perspectives in the sources they studied:
| Emily: | This is curious, the same things are mentioned, but yes … from a different perspective. In this text he [the Spanish grand duke of Alva] is praised, while in this one … |
| Naomi: | … his cruelties … This is through Spanish eyes and this through Dutch eyes. |
| Susanna: | Here it says decapitation … |
| Emily: | Nowadays we would call him a war criminal. |
| Patrick: | He is praised for everything he has done, how great he was. |
| Emily: | In the schoolbooks we see the Dutch perspective. |
| Naomi: | This is how it always is in history: different perspectives. |
Although the participants – always still prompted by the facilitator – constructed historical reasoning, it remained rather simple, both in their use of underlying substantive knowledge of the topic and in their understanding of concepts such as causation and change (for example, mentioning causes but not distinguishing between different types of causes). This is not surprising, however, as they had only participated a very limited number of times in a historical reasoning activity.
The domain of practice
The PD programme also aimed to foster the teaching of historical reasoning and the implementation of inquiry-based learning in history lessons. Almost 50 per cent of the interactions during the meetings concerned talk about lesson design, how to encourage pupils to reason historically and the choices for a historical reasoning competence with a certain topic or source. The discussions were mostly about general applicability of sources for their own lessons, and less about what a source reveals about an event or era. This can be explained by the fact that more domain-specific knowledge and competencies are needed to analyse and compare historical sources. These meetings were participants’ first introduction to historical reasoning.
Participants exchanged design ideas and collaborated in designing, for example sharing materials they had found and thinking about how to encourage historical reasoning in pupils:
| Susanna: | I did a short experiment and started with a cinnamon stick, but nothing much happened. |
| Emily: | Maybe they needed more background information. |
| Susanna: | What if I had added an image? That could have given more depth to the inquiry … I think I prefer a combination, because then you can talk about causes and consequences. What we saw in the historical reasoning framework. |
The use of supporting materials scored highest in this category, which can be explained from the participating teachers’ wish to scaffold the learning process of their pupils. Patrick, for example, proposed to use a booklet that would guide pupils through the various stages of inquiry.
The search for and selection of historical sources was often discussed during the meetings. Between the second and third meetings Susanna actively searched for historical sources from a list of online resources that was shared during the first meeting. She indicated she ‘was so surprised. Did you see all these resources? Why didn’t I think about this before!’, but also that it was difficult to choose and not to lose yourself in this quest for the best source for a lesson. During the third meeting two participants explicitly noted how much time it takes to design historical inquiry lessons.
Designing their own lessons aimed at fostering pupils’ historical reasoning by inquiry-based history lessons was not part of the first three sessions of the PD programme. Although two participants designed a lesson activity, we cannot describe observed development. We therefore describe in what way the participants spoke about teaching historical reasoning and historical inquiry.
The domain of consequence
Only 6 per cent of the interactions with the participants during the pilot meetings were about effects they saw in their pupils. This was to be expected because there were only three meetings, and it was between the second and third meetings that one participant practised with designing and teaching a historical inquiry lesson. Emily tried out a historical reasoning activity and showed development in both the domain of practice and the domain of consequence:
I chose two historical sources: a Roman map [the Tabula Peutingeriana] and an image of a Roman coin. I was really surprised by all the things pupils said about it. I didn’t direct them in any way but just let them watch and tell. One saw a villa and was hypothesising in that direction. … I really liked their reactions. Also, after I explained things to them. That the map was made in the fourth century and remade in the thirteenth century. We used the 5w-questions and then I asked them: if you were asked to travel from this place to there, using this map, would you manage? … Based on their reactions, I will certainly work in this manner again.
The pupils’ response encouraged her to continue designing historical inquiry lessons: ‘I was really surprised by all the things they said about it. I did not steer them, just let them talk. The ideas they had about it, what they saw.’ We saw an increased motivation of participants to develop inquiry-based lesson activities using sources. It also inspired other participants to try out their designs. Based on this, Susanna, for example, was inspired to try out her lesson activity with cinnamon described in the previous section. Even though her pupils responded differently than she had expected, talking about it with colleagues helped her redesign the activity and think about future lessons.
The role of the facilitator
Although we designed a coaching role for the facilitator, it became clear from the pilot that during the first meetings the facilitator was more of a trainer than a coach. During the first meeting a third of the total coded segments are from the facilitator – mostly attempts to trigger historical reasoning in the participants. In the feedback received from two participants after the pilot had prematurely ended, it was mentioned, however, that they were happy with the support provided by the facilitator, because they found the concept of historical reasoning hard to grasp. Naomi wrote:
Although it seems straightforward when we read or talk about it, historical reasoning is really difficult to do yourself and even more so to think about how to fit this in a lesson.
What helped them most was to understand the importance of choosing the right historical source and that encouraging historical reasoning can be done in small steps, with small activities. Susanna noted:
looking for sources surprised me and made me wonder at the abundance of possibilities and the potential this offers teachers. We can start small by encouraging pupils to ask historical questions.
For the design of the full PD programme, the role of the facilitator needs to be carefully developed. At the beginning of a PD programme that offers a completely new pedagogy and is connected to specific epistemic beliefs, the facilitator needs to actively lead and model. At the same time, over-reliance on facilitator-led modelling can make the change that is aimed for less sustainable and transferable.
Results of the second design cycle
After evaluating and reflecting on the results of the pilot, we started a second cycle of the generic design research model (Table 1, cycle 2, phases 1 and 2). Through additional literature study about professional development (for example, Engeström, 2011; Opfer and Pedder, 2011), historical reasoning (for example, Fogo, 2014; Gibson and Peck, 2020) and the results of the pilot, we specified the design principles further. The aims of the programme listed in the ‘Design of the PD programme’ section remained the same, but the amount of time and the structure of how to reach these during the sessions was adapted and fine-tuned. First, the analysis of interactions showed us the difficulty of grasping what historical inquiry really encompasses. Therefore, the final programme includes reading materials and a website where inquiries and background materials are always available. Second, the participants spent too much time finding suitable sources instead of thinking about how to use the sources to engage pupils in historical reasoning. For the full programme we developed a list of online repositories, like archives and museums, where historical sources with their background information can be found. Third, participants were enthusiastic about searching for historical sources but found it difficult to choose and design a lesson using these sources. The sessions need to have a specific time set aside for participants to work on lesson designs collaboratively and with the facilitator’s assistance.
We adapted several design principles. The main changes can be found in condensed descriptions of the focus on pedagogical content knowledge (design principle 3), how participants are prompted to collaborate in enquiries and lesson designs (design principles 8 and 9) and making the elements of historical reasoning more explicit (design principle 9). The final set of 10 design principles (Table 6) consists of seven design principles on advancing teachers’ professional development and three on fostering historical reasoning in inquiry-based history lessons.
Final design principles of the history workplace (cycle 2)
| A. Design principles to foster professional development | Source |
|---|---|
| 1. The PD programme is organised as a PLC, and meetings are partly developed with the participants as it is carried out (to promote teacher agency). | (Borko et al., 2010, p. 550; Engeström, 2011, p. 606) |
| 2. The programme is coherent. | (Desimone, 2009, p. 184; Van Veen et al., 2012, p. 14) |
| 3. The PD programme focuses on historical reasoning and how to encourage pupils to engage in historical reasoning. | (Desimone, 2009, p. 184; Van Veen et al., 2012, pp. 12–13; Fogo, 2014). |
| 4. The content of the meetings and the support given during the meetings take the daily classroom practice of the participants as the starting point. | (Desimone, 2009, p. 184; Borko et al., 2010, p. 549; Van Veen et al., 2012, p. 12) |
| 5. The facilitator facilitates participants’ activity by modelling, collaborating on lesson development and providing a model of strategic planning. | (Engeström, 2011, p. 611; Kennedy, 2016, pp. 972–3) |
| 6. The facilitator promotes openness and reflective professional inquiry during the meetings. | (Desimone, 2009, p. 184; Van Veen et al., 2012, p. 13; Kennedy, 2016, pp. 973–4). |
| 7. The PD programme is of sufficient duration, both in time span and in the number of hours spent on activity. | (Desimone, 2009, p. 184; Borko et al., 2010, p. 550) |
| B. Design principles to foster teaching of historical reasoning in inquiry-based history lessons | |
| 8. During the meetings participants are actively engaged and learn in a collaborative setting by performing inquiry tasks that promote historical reasoning and reflection after action. | (Desimone, 2009, p. 184; Borko et al., 2010, pp. 549–50; Opfer and Pedder, 2011, p. 390; Van Veen et al., 2012, p. 13; Fogo, 2014, pp. 170–1; Gibson and Peck, 2020, pp. 227–9) |
9. Participants collaborate in co-design of lessons that promote historical reasoning, including:
|
|
| All four interviews; (Dobber, 2018) | |
| Interviews: Emily, Naomi and Susanna | |
| Interviews: Emily and Susanna; (Van Boxtel and Van Drie, 2013, p. 49; Levstik and Barton, 2015, pp. 25–9; Gibson and Peck, 2020, p. 230) |
|
| 10. Participants are supported to develop coaching skills for historical reasoning in inquiry. | All four interviews; (Levstik and Barton, 2015, pp. 11–20). |
Discussion and conclusions
Several studies on historical reasoning in primary schools describe primary school teachers as generally having limited knowledge of historical reasoning, the interpretative nature of history and the application of inquiry-based learning in history lessons (for example, VanSledright and Frankes, 2000; Gibson and Peck, 2020). Descriptions and materials aimed at helping primary school teachers explore and investigate history exist (for example, Levstik and Barton, 2015). Other studies have listed design principles for professional development in secondary history education (for example, Voet and De Wever, 2016) or provided insights from which criteria may be inferred (for example, Reisman, 2012a; Seixas and Morton, 2013; Fogo, 2014). To our knowledge, however, no studies have yet proposed and validated explicit design principles for PD programmes aimed at primary school teachers that emphasise historical reasoning in inquiry-based lessons, align with primary school teachers’ classroom practices and promote active and collaborative working (Borko et al., 2010; Van Veen et al., 2012). This article aimed to fill this gap by outlining design principles and designing a PD programme for in-service primary school teachers in grades 3–6. The programme has the potential to enhance primary school teachers’ development in historical reasoning and their capacity to design inquiry-based history lessons that foster pupils’ historical reasoning competencies. The design principles were developed in two cycles of the design process: the initial set was based on literature and pre-interviews with participants, while the final set was adapted after additional literature study and piloting the prototype programme. Teacher development during the pilot was analysed using the Interconnected model of professional growth (Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002).
Participants in our pilot engaged in various activities and interactions that are considered important for development in the personal domain and the domain of practice. The interactions indicate that change in the personal domain is triggered mostly by performing collaborative inquiry activities aimed at learning to reason historically themselves (Table 6, design principle 8) and by searching for suitable historical sources for their lessons (part of design principle 9). Participants realised the complexity of the competencies involved but were enthusiastic about the possibilities. Development in the domain of practice was triggered by designing lessons and by exchanging possibilities and materials (design principle 9). In addition, trying out lessons in their own classrooms seemed to enhance teacher development in the domain of practice (connected to design principle 10). Although only two participants put a lesson into practice, we saw in both cases that, besides input provided during the meetings, it was the feedback of pupils (domain of consequence) in the form of questions and answers and motivation for the lesson that triggered teachers to continue designing new lessons. These are examples of causal change sequences (Clarke and Hollingsworth, 2002). However, more evidence is needed to be able to speak of teacher growth.
This article confirms that primary school teachers recognise possibilities for historical inquiry and mention historical inquiry elements also described by Fogo (2014), like the use of historical questions and the selection and adaptation of historical sources. However, in our pilot the teachers focused mainly on setting up the inquiry and finding historical sources, and less on discussing how pupils’ domain-specific reasoning could be encouraged and scaffolded. This can be attributed, in part, to teachers’ own struggles with historical reasoning. During the first two meetings, participants responded with short observations or questions when presented with historical materials, and only in the third meeting did we see some comparison of sources or connecting to the context or to comparable present-day situations. To establish progressive change in teachers’ historical reasoning competencies and ability to teach this to pupils, teachers need more time. The full programme therefore includes regular (monthly or six-weekly) meetings (design principle 7) to provide opportunities for development of historical reasoning competencies and peer collaboration. During these meetings, modelling historical reasoning and designing lesson activities together from the classroom perspective and experience of the teacher (design principles 9 and 10) aims to help teachers put lessons into practice. Discussing more structured forms of inquiry (Van Baren-Nawrocka et al., 2016) will also reduce barriers to classroom application.
To stay close to the participants’ needs, to be able to offer just-in-time information in their learning process and promote agency, the final PD programme is not a ready-made design but will be partly developed with the participants as it is carried out (Borko et al., 2010; Engeström, 2011). For only when topics and focus are determined collaboratively can the programme deal with questions or issues from participants’ own practice and do justice to the school context (Opfer and Pedder, 2011).
Future research should focus on analysing the development of teachers participating in the full PD programme that is developed in this study and look into transferability to other contexts. A follow-up study could address how teacher agency in domain-specific teaching is affected in a PD programme like the one developed in this study. PD programmes can strengthen or reduce teacher agency. Schaap et al. (2018) describe tensions that teachers participating in a PLC can experience. Strain between visions on learning between teacher and school management or the (lack of) feeling of being appreciated typically influence teacher agency. The effect of developing teachers’ content knowledge in the PD programme, connected to the choice and use of historical sources, on their teaching practice and sense of agency is also an important focus of future research. Burn (2021) describes the strong effects on teacher practice and teacher agency of two continuing PD programmes in the UK characterised by deep immersion in a historical subject and working with historical sources leading up to the design of new lessons. Finally, a crucial topic in the context of teacher PD continues to be the role of the school in the development of individual teachers. How do visions on learning and (un)familiarity with domain-specific teaching strategies of school management affect the individual and collective learning context in the school (Opfer and Pedder, 2011)?
While the design criteria and the programme were tailored to the context of Dutch primary education, they build on the theory and concepts of historical reasoning and inquiry learning, and on general mechanisms of teacher learning. These can be easily adapted to other national or school settings. Finally, this article proposes aims and design principles for a PD programme focusing on historical reasoning in inquiry-based history education for grades 3–6. Originally planned as a six-meeting pilot, the Covid-19 lockdown forced us to stop after three meetings. Despite signs of teacher development, a longer period is needed to realise substantial growth. Completing the prototype programme may have yielded a more measurable difference in the domain of consequence but even then, six meetings might be too few for sustainable change. The full programme will run over two years.
Only four teachers from one school participated in the pilot programme, limiting any claims about teachers’ professional growth in a broader sense.
To evaluate teacher learning and professional growth in a PD programme, additional instruments, such as pre- and post-tests, interviews or paper-and-pencil tests, are recommended to provide data on the development of participating teachers.
Funding
This research was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), grant number 023.014.017.
Data and materials availability statement
The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations and conflicts of interest
Research ethics statement
The authors declare that research ethics approval for this article was provided by the Ethics Committee of the University of Amsterdam (2019-CDE-11280).
Consent for publication statement
The authors declare that research participants’ informed consent to publication of findings – including photos, videos and any personal or identifiable information – was secured prior to publication.
Conflicts of interest statement
Carla Van Boxtel is a member of the journal’s editorial board. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the authors during peer review of this article have been made. The authors declare no further conflicts with this article.
References
Anthony,A; Yeo,L; Afandi,S. (2016). Towards an effective professional development model to deepen history teachers’ understanding of historical concepts. Humanities and Social Studies Education Online 5 (2) :37–50.
Barton,K. (1997). ‘I just kinda know’: Elementary pupils’ ideas about historical evidence. Theory and Research in Social Education 25 (4) :407–430, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.1997.10505821
Ben-David,A; Zohar,A. (2009). Contribution of meta-strategic knowledge to scientific inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education 31 (12) :1657–1682, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802162762
Borko,H; Jacobs,J; Koellner,K. (2010). Peterson,P, Baker,E;Eand McGraw,BB(ed s .), Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. International Encyclopedia of Education. Elsevier, Vol. 7 pp.548–556.
Burn,K. (2021). Chapman,A(ed.), The power of knowledge: The impact on history teachers of sustained subject-rich professional development. Knowing history in schools: Powerful knowledge and the powers of knowledge. UCL Press, pp.129–151.
Campbell,J; Quincy,C; Osserman,J; Pedersen,O. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods and Research 42 (3) :294–320, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
Clarke,D; Hollingsworth,H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education 18 :947–967, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7
Darling-Hammond,L; Hyler,M; Gardner,M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-prof-dev.
Deery,C. (2024). Bain,B, Chapman,A;Aand Kitson,A;A, Shreiner,TT(ed s .), ‘But we don’t teach history in primary schools’: The implementation of a structured historical inquiry in Australian primary schools. History education and historical inquiry. Information Age Publishing, pp.21–45.
De Groot-Reuvekamp,M; Ros,A; Van Boxtel,C. (2018). A successful professional development programme in history: What matters?. Teaching and Teacher Education 75 :290–301, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.005
Desimone,L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher 38 (3) :181–199, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
Dobber,M. (2018). Leerkrachten en leerlingen duiken samen de geschiedenis in. Didactief online, https://didactiefonline.nl/artikel/leerkrachten-en-leerlingen-duiken-samen-de-geschiedenis-in.
Dobber,M; Akkerman,S; Verloop,N; Admiraal,W; Vermunt,J. (2012). Developing designs for community development in four types of student teacher groups. Learning Environment Research 15 :279–297, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9116-4
Dobber,M; Van Oers,B. (2015). The role of the teacher in promoting dialogue and polylogue during inquiry activities in primary education. Mind, Culture, and Activity 22 (4) :326–341, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2014.992545
Dobber,M; Zwart,R; Tanis,M; Van Oers,B. (2017). Literature review: The role of the teacher in inquiry-based education. Educational Research Review 22 :194–214, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.002
Engeström,Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology 21 (5) :598–628, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354311419252
Fogo,B. (2014). Core practices for teaching history: The results of a Delphi panel survey. Theory & Research in Social Education 42 (2) :151–196, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2014.902781
Gibson,L; Peck,C. (2020). Berg,C, Christou,TT(ed s .), More than a methods course: Teaching preservice teachers to think historically. The Palgrave handbook of history and social studies education. Palgrave Macmillan, Vol. 1 pp.213–251.
Grant,S G. (2018). Metzger,S A, McArthur Harris,LL(ed s .), Teaching practices in history education. The Wiley international handbook on history teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell, Vol. 1 pp.419–448.
Guskey,T R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 8 :381–391, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
Hattie,J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Johansson,P. (2019). Historical inquiry in primary school: Teaching interpretation of archaeological artefacts from an intercultural perspective. History Education Research Journal 16 (2) :248–273, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18546/HERJ.16.2.07
Kennedy,M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching?. Review of Educational Research 86 (4) :945–980, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
Lévesque,S. (2008). Thinking historically: Educating pupils for the twenty-first century. University of Toronto Press.
Levstik,L; Barton,K. (2015). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle school. Routledge.
Levstik,L; Thornton,S. (2018). Metzger,S A, McArthur Harris,LL(ed s .), Reconceptualizing history for early childhood through early adolescence. The Wiley international handbook on history teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell, Vol. 1 pp.409–432.
McKenney,S; Reeves,T. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.
Murphy,C; Smith,G; Varley,J; Razi,Ö. (2015). Changing practice: An evaluation of the impact of a nature of science inquiry-based professional development programme on primary teachers. Cogent Education 2 (1) :1077692. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1077692
Nichol,J; Cooper,H. (2015). Cooper,H, Nichol,JJ(ed s .), Preface. Identity, trauma, sensitive and controversial issues in the teaching of history. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp.xv–xxxix.
Opfer,V; Pedder,D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research 81 (3) :376–407, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609
Paul,H. (2015). Key issues in historical theory. Routledge.
Peck,C. (2014). Sandwell,R, Von Heyking,AA(ed s .), Can teacher education programs learn something from teacher professional development initiatives?. Becoming a history teacher. University of Toronto Press, pp.249–268.
Reisman,A. (2012a). Reading like a historian: A document-based history curriculum intervention in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction 30 (1) :86–112, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.634081
Reisman,A. (2012b). The ‘document-based lesson’: Bringing disciplinary inquiry into high school history classrooms with adolescent struggling readers. Journal of Curriculum Studies 44 (2) :233–264, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2011.591436
Schaap,H; Louws,M; Meirink,J; Oolbekkink-Marchand,H; Van der Want,A; Zuiker,I; Zwart,R; Meijer,P. (2018). Tensions experienced by teachers when participating in a professional learning community. Professional Development in Education 45 (5) :814–831, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1547781
Seixas,P; Morton,T. (2013). The big six historical thinking concepts. Nelson Education.
Shulman,L. (1986). Those who understand knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15 (2) :4–31, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Smets,W; Struyven,K. (2020). A teachers’ professional development programme to implement differentiated instruction in secondary education: How far do teachers reach?. Cogent Education 7 (1) :1742273. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1742273
Tuithof,H; Logtenberg,A; Bronkhorst,L; Van Drie,J; Dorsman,L; Van Tartwijk,J. (2019). What do we know about the pedagogical content knowledge of history teachers: A review of empirical research. Historical Encounters: A Journal of Historical Consciousness, Historical Cultures, and History Education 6 (1) :72–95, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.52289/hej6.106
Van Baren-Nawrocka,J; Dekker,S; Peeters,M. (2016). Wetenschappelijke doorbraken de klas in [Scientific breakthroughs into the classroom]. Wetenschapsknooppunt Radboud Universiteit, pp.17–25.
Van Boxtel,C; Van Drie,J. (2013). Historical reasoning in the classroom: What does it look like and how can we enhance it?. Teaching History 150 :44–52.
Van Boxtel,C; Van Drie,J. (2018). Metzger,S, McArthur Harris,LL(ed s .), Historical reasoning: Conceptualizations and educational applications. The Wiley international handbook on history teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell, pp.145–168.
Van Boxtel,C; Voet,M; Stoel,G. (2021). Duncan,R, Chinn,CC(ed s .), Inquiry learning in history. International handbook of inquiry and learning. Routledge, Vol. 1 pp.296–310.
Van den Akker,J. (2013). Plomp,T, Nieveen,NN(ed s .), Curricular development research as a specimen of education design research. Educational design research. Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development, pp.52–71.
Van Hover,S; Hicks,D. (2018). Metzger,S, McArthur Harris,LL(ed s .), History teacher preparation and professional development. The Wiley international handbook on history teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell, pp.391–418.
VanSledright,B; Frankes,L. (2000). Concept- and strategic-knowledge development in historical study: A comparative exploration in two fourth-grade classrooms. Cognition and Instruction 18 (2) :239–283, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1802_04
Van Veen,K; Zwart,R; Meirink,J. (2012). Kooy,M, van Veen,KK(ed s .), What makes teacher professional development effective? A literature review. Teacher learning that matters: International perspectives. Routledge, pp.3–21.
Voet,M; De Wever,B. (2016). History teachers’ conceptions of inquiry-based learning, beliefs about the nature of history, and their relation to the classroom context. Teaching and Teacher Education 55 :57–67, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.12.008
Wissinger,D; De la Paz,S; Jackson,C. (2021). The effects of historical reading and writing strategy instruction with fourth- through sixth-grade pupils. Journal of Educational Psychology 13 (1) :49–67, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000463