The current presentation is following an initial research phase in which the perceptions of two groups of History teachers (experienced versus teachers in induction phase) concerning sense making (SM) in their activity was analysed. The topic of SM is relevant for many countries (Fitzgerald, M. S., Palincsar, A. S., 2019; Sakki, I., Pirttilä-Backman A.-M., 2019), considering the debate over the relation between contents and skills. Both commonalities and differences between the two groups of teachers were identified. One of the common points was that SM is important when designing teaching activities focused on the student learning. The topic is of interest in the Romanian setting also because the National Curriculum is supporting classroom applications of its provisions by promoting a new format for designing learning activities for students. The format is focused on identifying the steps taken by students when training for the development of the competences formulated in the National Curriculum. Following the previous research, teachers were asked to design learning activities that are relevant for the development of SM (e.g., explaining technical terms, learning a procedure or technique).

Research question

The focus of our research is the degree to which sensemaking is part of Romanian teachers’ rationale when reflecting on their own teaching practice. That is, if and how sensemaking – as a concept – becomes a tool for organising students’ learning experiences (in terms of selecting relevant historical content, teaching approaches, and assessment instruments). The second research question was to try to identify whether sensemaking in the teachers’ practice is dealt with in isolation or is linked with other concepts that act as a criterion for the selection of contents and teaching approaches. This approach follows the analysis proposed by Ketelaar and colleagues when analysing teacher professional experiences in relation to ownership, sensemaking, and agency (Ketelaar et alii, 2014).

Theoretical background

The first theoretical pillar is Shulman’s analysis of the various types of knowledge that are part of the teachers’ qualification (1986, 1987). The model was upgraded over time to include elements related to SM (e.g., as in Van Boxtel & Van Drie, 2008). The increase in the amount and diversity of knowledge that students, and teachers, have to cope with is among the significant factors that influence teaching. Moreover, teaching is always situated. Material conditions, cultural patterns, educational ethos, the way in which a subject is expected to be taught, all these have an influence on the way in which the teacher reflects on his/her classroom practice.

The second theoretical pillar is Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld (2005: 409) and the process of making a discipline meaningful ‘sense-making’. Sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing. Viewed as a significant process of organizing knowledge, SM becomes crucial in History teaching.

More than creating representations and ordering them in an explanatory sequence, sensemaking implies also that it enables the creation of links between pieces of information, and that these connections inform future action (to anticipate and act effectively).

The problem seems to be both practical and theoretical – to what degree competences (which are aimed much more at educational results that transcend individual school subjects) influence subject-related elements, such as understanding the processes of enquiry and historical concepts and whether this is more meaningful as parts (nodes) in a network of concepts or learned in isolation.

The research is based mainly on qualitative instruments (learning activities projects, students’ learning products, interviews). Given the relatively small number of participating teachers (11), a statistical approach was considered to be less than relevant. However, statistical data was used when analysing students’ learning products. Documentary research included the analysis of the National Curriculum, and the textbooks used by teachers participating in the research. Data was collected from a number of teachers (experienced and in the induction phase) concerning their methods in designing learning activities, and the way in which they reflect on the efficiency of the proposed activities. The data include the analysis of the proposed learning activities (designed for 20-30 minutes of classroom teaching), the analysis of the results of the students’ activity, individual interviews with the teachers to explore the way in which they reflect on the experience and how they evaluate if the proposed activities have attained their intended outcome. For each category of information, a protocol of procedure was developed (including checklist for the design of the learning activities; quality criteria for students’ learning products; the transcript, coding, and analysis of the interviews with the teachers). The data was analysed in accordance with the two groups of teachers, and commonalities and differences were identified. The results were compared with international data available, and with the theoretical models developed over time concerning SM (e.g., from Van Drie & Van Boxtel, 2008 to Ketelaar et alii, 2014).

Teachers seemed interested in the use of sensemaking as a tool for organising learning experiences for their students. Sensemaking is also considered to be useful when selecting primary sources, using digital media, and when establishing links with the present, but also when combining different categories of knowledge during their teaching. In fact, the latter (sensemaking as a designing instrument) seems to be in the forefront of teachers’ considerations concerning the concept. We consider that this situation is also the result of the teachers balancing their beliefs about History as a field of knowledge and History as a school subject. Clear statements about their beliefs are in the background. Another interesting spin-off is that SM in isolation seems to loose its epistemic value. Interviews seem to indicate that teachers – at least History teachers – are more attuned to another important concept, that of powerful knowledge. One of the conclusions is that instead of focusing on individual concepts, teachers view their epistemic position as a network of concepts that organize their practice at epistemic level.

Fitzgerald, M. S., Palincsar, A. S. (2019). Teaching Practicies That Support Student Sensemaking Across Grades and Disciplines: A conceptual review. Review of Research in Education, 43(1) Feucht, F. C., Brownlee, J. L. & Schraw, G. (2017). Moving Beyond Reflection: Reflexivity and Epistemic Cognition in Teaching and Teacher Education. Educational Psychologist, 52 (4), 234-241 Gericke, N., Hudson, B., Olin-Scheller, C. & Stolare, M. (2018). Powerful knowledge, transformations, and the need for empirical studies across school subjects. London Review of Education, 16(3), 428–444 Ketelaar, E., Koopman, M., Den Brok, P. J., Beijaard, D. & Boshuizen, P. A. (2014). Teachers’ learning experiences in relation to their ownership, sense-making and agency. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 20(3), 314-337 Klein, G., Moon, B. & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Making Sense of Sensemaking 1: Alternative Perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70-73. IEEE. 21. 70 - 73. 10.1109/MIS.2006.75 Sakki, I., Pirttilä-Backman A.-M. (2019). Aims in teaching history and their epistemic correlates: a study of history teachers in ten countries. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 27(1), 65-85 Shulman, L. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. In Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-21 Van Drie, J., van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical Reasoning: Towards a Framework for Analyzing Students’ Reasoning about the Past. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 87–110. van de Oudeweetering, K., Voogt, J. (2018). Teachers’ conceptualization and enactment of twenty-first century competences: exploring dimensions for new curricula. The Curriculum Journal, 29(1), 116-133, Vansledright, B. A., Hauver James, J. (2015). Constructing ideas about history in the classroom: The influence of competing forces on pedagogical decision making. Social Constructivist Teaching: Affordances and Constraints, 263-298 Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409-421