In this paper I present a study about Swedish teacher students’ views History and History teaching. Scholars throughout Europe see that History in school has a potential of developing knowledge and abilities that are important for citizens of a democratic society (Lee, 2005). But if History is to fulfill its potential, the teachers have to be well educated and well prepared for their task, and the Teacher education has a central part to play to make this possible. Previous research indicates that students chose to become history teachers not because they want to become teachers, but because of their deep interest in History as a discipline (Hicks, 2008; Ludvigsson, 2011; Virta, 2002). This indicates that there are quite a number of History teachers in European schools that really don’t want to be teachers. However, in many teacher education systems the students first study the discipline and in the end of their studies get a year of education in pedagogy and didactics. Does the way Teacher education is organized make the students want to become historians, rather than History teachers? In the University of Gothenburg, the disciplinary and the pedagogic- didactic courses are studied in parallel. The students also do an internship in school at an early stage of their teacher education. Does this make a difference in how the teacher students see their professional future? The first research question is: Do the students who study history and pedagogy-didactics in parallel primarily want to become History teachers, or does the discipline attract them, too, to a higher extent than the teaching profession?
The becoming teachers will probably start their teacher education with common-sense views on the didactic questions: Why study History in school? What should be studied? How should the instruction be organized? What difficulties might the pupil face studying History and how can they be mastered? The two didactic traditions of History didactics, the British-American cognitive tradition (Lee, 2005) and the German-Scandinavian tradition focusing historical consciousness (Thorpe, 2015) have different answers to the didactical questions. The two traditions have had an impact on the Swedish History Curriculum, and the study of these traditions also gives an opportunity for teacher education to challenge the students’ everyday conceptions of History in school. During their training they should get opportunities to develop their skills and their understanding of History in school (Husbands, Kitson & Pendry, 2003). In teacher training they should get the opportunity to leave their everyday thinking about the didactic questions, to meet the science-based didactics that enables them to make informed choices in their own teaching.
If the teacher educator is aware of different views on the didactic questions, likely to be found in a group of teacher students, she can form instruction that makes it possible for students to develop their understanding (Marton & Booth, 1997; Shulman, 1986). The second research question is: What are the teacher students’ views on the Why, What, and How of History in school and what do they think will be difficult for their future pupils in their study of History in school? How can their ideas be understood in relation to the two didactical traditions? Which consequences do the conceptions expressed by the students have for Teacher education?
This study will be extended to a longitudinal investigation that raises a third question: Does teacher students’ views on the Why, What, How and for Whom of History in school change during their years in teacher training? If there is a difference, how can it be described?
