Introduction

This chapter focuses on Swedish elementary school teachers’ perspectives on history in 1920–1946, a period characterised by the democratisation of Swedish society and education. This process saw challenges to the history subject, which up to then had been central to citizenship education. The perceived conservative nature of the subject was deemed a core problem: Many pointed out that a subject designed to transfer traditional norms and values of the past could hardly contribute to the education of independent citizens in the democratic society of the future. The epistemic character of the history subject thus seemed close to what some would term “a copier stance”, in which the role of history teaching is to reproduce the past (cf. Stoel et al., 2022). Previous research has, mainly through studies of political debates, curricula and textbooks, highlighted these aspects of the role and character of the history subject in the interwar period (cf. Englund, 1986). However, in this chapter, I aim to nuance these views through empirical studies of teachers’ perspectives on teaching. By contextualising and analysing teachers’ teaching in relation to perspectives on knowledge and the history subject’s role in fostering citizenship, I discuss how the view of knowledge must be related to what was conceived as the role of the history subject in a changing society.

An overall starting point is the assumption that teachers usually have varying views of what is central to teaching and what the central epistemic knowledge is (Cuban, 1993; Nygren, 2009; Elmersjö, 2021). My analysis of epistemic perspectives is inspired by Sven Sødring Jensen and Wolfgang Klafki. Sødring Jensen (1978) discussed the view of historical knowledge from a historical perspective, which makes this theory relevant in this context (cf. Klafki, 2001). They used the concepts of objective, formalist (formell in Swedish) and categorical views of history. In summary, the objective view is close to the “collective memory approach”, while the formalist perspective, focusing on the form of learning, has more of a progressive view of the history subject in which historical knowledge is closely associated with students’ actions and interests (Fallace, 2010).

My broader research interest is in early twentieth-century Swedish teachers’ perspectives on history in the context of the democratisation of Swedish society. More specifically, my aim is to identify the types of epistemic perspectives of history taught in Swedish elementary schools (years 1–7), as manifested in teachers’ accounts. The material used in this chapter thus consists of a large collection of 600 teachers’ descriptive accounts of teaching collected in 1946 through a government inquiry. These descriptions clearly reflect the perspectives that the teachers had on historical knowledge and the history subject. The presentation of the analysis is based on a selection of teacher accounts, with references to contemporary norm-setting texts in connection with various statements made in those accounts.

Educational Context

The time after the 1920s in Sweden was marked by radical modernisation, as characterised by progressive proposals in housing and social politics. In the interwar years, there was also discussion of reforming what many saw as an obsolete parallel school system of a six- to seven-year elementary school for workers and farmers, and a grammar school for the bourgeoisie. The importance of elementary school is evidenced by the number of pupils and teachers. In the 1940s, there were around 25,000 elementary school teachers and approximately 500,000 pupils in Sweden. In comparison, there were 2700 grammar school teachers at the beginning of the 1940s, and around 4000 school graduates received their matriculation certificate from grammar schools at that time (Statistisk årsbok för Sverige 1950, 1950). Elementary school was the predominant form of education all over Sweden in major cities, as well as in towns and rural areas (Richardson, 1978).

The democratisation of Swedish society influenced the view of how teaching should be conducted. A pupil-centred perspective was, for example, considered to be more in line with a democratic society, and after World War I, Swedish education was therefore gradually adapted to such a perspective on education and teaching (Popkewitz, 2005; Samuelsson et al., 2022). The view of history and history teaching also underwent changes in Sweden in 1920–1950. At the general curriculum level, the main purpose of the history subject—to foster citizenship—was questioned. With the democratisation of society, its conservative and nationalistic character seemed problematic—a subject that promoted citizenship needed a different orientation. Ultimately, this led to a change in the curricular nature of history as social science perspectives were given more attention to make the subject more socially relevant (Englund, 1986; Samuelsson, 2021).

In addition, pupil-centred approaches and methods became increasingly important. Altogether, this resulted in the emergence of a new view of the epistemic nature of the history subject. From a topic involving the conveying of an objective, material and firm ground of “historical granite”, aspects of “making history” now received greater emphasis and gained ground (Samuelsson, 2021; Sødring Jensen, 1978). In terms of present-day historiographical perspectives, there was a transition from a reconstructive to a more constructive perspective (Elmersjö, 2022).

The period primarily treated in this chapter was, in short, a breaking point in the Swedish character of the history subject, which meant that teachers were situated between a traditional view of the subject and a view emphasising the interests of pupils.

Epistemic Perspectives on the Recent Past

The Swedish interwar debate on the epistemic character of the history subject was lively and can partly be connected to discussions about knowledge, as initially implied in the introduction. Criticism emerged towards not only the subject’s content but also the character of the knowledge allegedly conveyed by history. Researchers have stated that a modern Bildung perspective must acknowledge the importance of using knowledge in real life; specifically, dead knowledge unusable in daily life is rather meaningless (Cassel, 1942). Possibly, this is a violation of history, but this more pragmatic view of knowledge is not far removed from more critical and deconstructive perspectives in its emphasis on knowledge as socially relevant, re-assessable and usable.

Current research has also referred to “a copier stance”, meaning that history is an objective reproduction of the past and, when applied to education, requires pupils to be informed about this past. The concept of a “criterialist stance” can serve as a kind of antipole to the copier stance and is close to the constructive perspectives which regard historical knowledge as an interpretative activity to be understood in relation to contemporaneity (Elmersjö & Zanazanian, 2022; Stoel et al., 2022). When addressing epistemic issues in the field of history education, this is mostly done in relation to contemporary circumstances. As my interest concerns the recent past, other perspectives on history and historical knowledge are more relevant. In this chapter I thus rely on perspectives involving both an interest in the epistemic character of history and a rejection of it as merely a subject fostering citizenship in a historical context. The Danish history education researcher, Sven Sødring Jensen, as inspired by Wolfgang Klafki, developed a history teaching typology which in many contexts has been applied to historical material. This typology has often supported the history of education studies on the subject’s development in the twentieth century. Specifically, Sødring Jensen (1978) linked these perspectives to societal development and the mission of schools in this process of change. The typology contextualises historical content, teaching methods and views pupils in relation to societal development, which makes the perspectives relevant to this article’s context.

Sødring Jensen (1978) further highlighted some central perspectives on history education, namely, material, formalist and categorical ways of viewing the subject. In the material conception, history is regarded as a kind of neutral observation of the past. According to Sødring Jensen, history in this perspective is a collection of “granite stones” in the terrain, and it is the teacher’s job to transfer knowledge of this collection to pupils. There is no need to problematise or discuss the past (Ammert, 2008; Sødring Jensen, 1978).

This perspective also has a sub-category that Sødring Jensen (1978) termed classic history teaching, which combines the fostering of national citizenship and the transfer of a national canon. Classic history teaching is characterised by a focus on education for subservience and national pride, which is achieved through cautionary tales with contemporary relevance.Footnote 1 Methodically, narration has a strong position, and the teacher is the national educator whose task is to foster national unity. History primarily deals with the growth of the nation, often in terms of political and territorial perspectives. Contrary to the objective conception, however, the teacher is obliged to make a selection of stories and examples from history that may function as inspirational and didactic examples (Karlsson, 1987). This perspective is close to the copier stance, as the essence of the subject is to capture events of the past, and through teaching, pupils can take part in that past through memorisation (Stoel et al., 2022).

History teaching emphasising formalist aspects takes the pupil’s needs as the starting point, with the central aim of developing knowledge and skills for a present or future society. Through source criticism, for instance, the history subject can develop competencies relevant to contemporary citizens. Source critical studies, in combination with other parts of history teaching that train pupils to discuss and adopt different perspectives, are assumed to enhance a critical mind useful in modern and democratic societies (Sødring Jensen, 1978). The development of a more formalistically oriented history teaching has been argued to be the result of the fact that the classic conception is no longer considered socially relevant in modern societies.

These two perspectives also have different views of pupils. The material perspective centres on content and societal interest, while the formalist variety is concerned with pupils and their ability to function as citizens in a future society. But these perspectives also include various approaches to historical knowledge. Material perspectives are close to reconstructive perspectives on history and historical knowledge in stressing their static nature and immutability and history as something that is created and changed. In turn, the formalist perspective has certain similarities with the constructionist position, as history is not primarily an objective phenomenon to be learnt; rather, the emphasis is on the interpretive aspects of the subject (Elmersjö & Zanazanian, 2022).

Lastly, the categorial conception is an attempt to make content aspects relevant while considering pupils’ interests and questions. Relevant historical content is that which contributes to pupils’ knowledge development in a way deemed beneficial to them. As in the formalist perspective, the categorical conception emphasises the role of the pupil in teaching, but this is combined with an interest in the contents’ aspects. Central to this approach is that education should provide the tools required for pupils to understand society by creating time and space coherence. Content, methods, pupils and society are aspects to consider in teaching. In the choice of content, it is crucial to consider its contemporary relevance to the pupils, so teaching content that may only possibly become relevant in the future should be excluded. In this category, the goal of teaching is to ensure that pupils are equipped to understand the present situation and critically approach it, all while pointing out means of future improvements. History also becomes a highly critical social science subject, as it is aspects of society that are to be made comprehensible in time and space. Thus, historical content has no intrinsic value (Klafki, 2001; Sødring Jensen, 1978).

Focus, Material and Methods

Defining teachers’ and pupils’ attitudes to epistemic issues is complex, as pointed out in several studies. One challenge is the relation between what teachers say that they do and what they actually do in the classroom (Sendur et al., 2022; Wilke et al., 2022). Another is studying the epistemic perspectives emerging among teachers and in classrooms from historical perspectives. However, through extensive source material, there is an opportunity to get close to how Swedish teachers viewed historical knowledge in their teaching during the first half of the twentieth century. The material used in this chapter is a product of a call issued by a government inquiry in the 1940s: the 1946 Schools Inquiry Commission (SOU 1948:27, 1948; Minutes no. 14, February 27). Approximately 600 elementary school teachers responded to the call. The investigation formed the basis of the political decisions that led to the new compulsory education for every child. The inventory of teachers’ practice was intended to ascertain “to what degree reform pedagogical activities were currently taking place in Swedish schools”, and teachers were encouraged to submit their accounts via teacher training colleges, inspectors and teacher unions (Minutes no. 14, February 27). Of the accounts, 360 represented teaching practices in the “theoretical subjects” (Swedish L1, Christianity, mathematics, natural science, history, local history and geography).

From these accounts I chose examples that represent different perspectives on history and teaching. My analysis was theoretically driven in the sense that I was inspired by the perspectives of others, such as Sødring Jensen and Klafki. Here, I also present relatively detailed descriptions of norm-setting texts, such as curricula and methodological literature on history teaching in elementary schools. In several cases, my analysis of teaching was linked to specific textbooks that the teachers explicitly referred to in their accounts. This involved a certain degree of interpretation of how the textbooks were used, but through this complementary addition, a broader description of their teaching could be provided.

The material gives insights into the teachers’ perspectives on teaching and historical knowledge. But, as mentioned before, a challenge is the possible variation between what teachers say and what they actually do. Educational history studies have also shown that written reports from teachers can be subjective (Nieminen, 2018). Objections can thus be made to this material, but I would like to emphasise some of its strengths. Notably, the teachers described the teaching they conducted or had recently conducted at the time of the call, so the accounts are not a form of retrospective life story at the end of their careers. The material is extensive, and as far as I know, it is an unparalleled collection of accounts of actual teaching practices in twentieth-century Sweden. Another aspect is the importance of taking the stories of separate individuals seriously. In this case, it is ultimately about seeing teachers as experts and authorities (Thor Tureby & Johansson, 2020).

Memory, Science and Poetry: The Ideal History Subject in Norm-Setting Texts

In early twentieth-century Sweden, there were guidelines on how the teaching of history should be conducted. The concept of “direct instruction” was used in the national curriculum, along with “silent exercises” (Undervisningsplan för rikets folkskolor 1919, 1923, pp. 17–18, 100–109). In history, narration had a strong position, and it was through the “teacher’s oral narration” that history was conveyed. The curriculum also emphasised that narration should be “detailed and vivid” and designed to capture the pupils’ interest. Poems (with historical topics, presumably) were also mentioned as teaching resources in history, along with the surrounding community. Old roads, bridges and fields which “have yielded crops since time immemorial”, as well as ancient monuments, were examples of material resources. Immaterial historical legacies such as local customs and legends could also be advantageously used. Regarding poems, the intention was to create an emotional atmosphere and add “life and colour to the historical presentation”. Previous research has described the purpose of the history subject in line with the concept of nineteenth-century material classic history. However, changes were made after 1919, when the national subservience aspects were toned down in favour of the social aspects (Englund, 1987).

In 1928, Nordlund, Sörensen and Wikberg, prominent figures in Swedish education, published a norm-setting textbook, Arbetssättet i folkskolan: metodiska uppsatser (The Way of Working in Elementary School: Methodical Essays) on history methods designed for teachers and teacher training (Nordlund, Sörensen, & Wikberg, 1928). The school subject described was multifaceted and held a broad spectrum of methods, content and approaches to teaching. Historical content was important, but history could not involve “a great number of historical items and dates swotted with sweat and toil”. Even so, history education for adults involved providing perspectives and seeing context and development. Pupils also required the opportunity to experience history in the same way as they read a fairy tale or fantasy, meaning adventure was an important element. Teaching thus demanded drama, contact with historical items and lively narratives. The teacher was to be “a magician breathing life into dead bones” and also, without underrating the subject content, “a scientist and a poet”: The ideal teacher had a scientist’s sharp eye for historical context and rich knowledge, in combination with a poet’s ability to add “life and must and colour to the material” (Nordlund, Sörensen, & Wikberg, 1928, pp. 191–225).

Instruction had to involve several methodological approaches as well. The book mentioned that the “antiquated” narrative method was self-evident, but besides the narrating teacher, pupils should be given the chance to work on their own. Epochs could be a natural starting point for pupils, and their presentations could incorporate other themes, such as the principles of power distribution between the Parliament and the King. Statistical assignments could be based on tables created by the pupils themselves, with themes of emigration, iron production, trade or population development. Historical monuments in the pupils’ surroundings provided an excellent method of study as well, just as did collecting Stone Age remnants, which were also recommended teaching elements.

Content-wise, Nordlund, Sörensen and Wikberg (1928) advocated a relatively classic view of history, and the curricular content suggestions were to be seen as a “stockpile” rather than a given canon to walk through. The more modern society–related part of the subject was also emphasised, since knowledge of municipal responsibilities and organisation appeared. Methods familiar to a social science expert were also discernible in the book’s suggestion of simple graphs and columns; columns could, for instance, display information about grain production and trade.

Teachers’ Perspectives on Their Teaching

The epistemological perspectives on history emerging from these curricula and norm-setting texts demonstrated a relatively broad view of the essence of the history subject—even though part of it was a kind of “historical granite” to be transferred to pupils. However, these perspectives were complemented by content and methods that highlighted pupil activity and social relevance.

In the following sections, I treat some parts of the teaching reported primarily in terms of content and method, which are clearly manifested in the material.

Historical Granite

In the teachers’ accounts, the historical granite, or traditional history content, is the basic frame of teaching. In one sense, this matches what can be called a classic material teaching conception, or an objective perspective (cf. Sødring Jensen, 1978).

There are some recurring content themes, of which one is hardly surprising: national history with a focus on prominent personalities and central events. One example comes from Erik Westerdahl of Kölleröd’s elementary school. He was aware of the lack of time and therefore used intensive study in his teaching. Westerdahl’s annual planning showed that his teaching centred on clear classic content. For example, King Karl XII’s various battles and wars were referenced as the battle of Poltava and the capitulation at Dnjepr (account by Erik Westerdahl, 1946).

A material- and classic-based history teaching normally rests on textbooks, as the transfer of the material is supposed to take place via the textbook. However, textbooks in the interwar period could also reflect more formalist and constructivist perspectives of history, and in the material, there are indeed a number of references to different books. One example is Sjöholm and Goës’s Arbetsövningar i historia (Exercises in History; 1930), an exercise book in several parts and a contemporary sell-out at a million copies sold, according to the publishers (Åkerlund, 1948). It is impossible to know exactly what the books the teachers referred to contained, but this exercise book included exercises with links to a nationally focused “history of kings” (account by John Winkvist, 1946). The exercises, to which I later return, were representative of classic history through, for instance, “cut and paste” exercises involving kings.

Annie Lindahl, an elementary school teacher with experience at several schools in Sweden, also relied on the historical granite in her teaching. Her pupils studied runic stones and remains of hill forts (account by Annie Lindahl, 1946). Lindahl also used the textbook Sveriges historia för folkskolan (Sweden’s History for Elementary Education), which contained aspects of Swedish history in line with a Swedish classic teaching tradition, such as Vikings, Ansgar, Gustav Vasa and the Thirty Years’ War (Wahlman & Rosén, 1937).

Teaching content with a clear classic orientation had an obvious position in teaching and was in concord with the subject’s selective traditions and the curriculum at the time (Englund, 1987). However, there was only content bordering on a formalist progressive and contemporary history subject (cf. Fallace, 2010; Sødring Jensen, 1978). Besides national history, there were also substantial elements of content linked to the pupils’ surroundings. One example can be found in the teaching of Lindahl, mentioned above, in which older history was linked to the immediate surroundings of the school. In the town of Nora, for example, Sven Ringström used the benefits of a local and regional connection by basing his teaching on the mining and metallurgic industries in the district of Bergslagen. Additionally, when his students were studying Gustav Vasa, he utilised the “Dalecarlian Woman’s Song of Gustav Vasa” (account by Sven Ringström, 1946).

Formalist and Socially Relevant Perspectives

Although classic content dominated in the teachers’ accounts of their teaching, there were other elements more suggestive of modern history. Some classrooms involved aspects of economics, for instance. Sven Ringström dealt with the importance of Bergslagen for economic development, while other societal aspects and institutions were treated in connection with civic education (account by Gunnar Olofsson, 1946). In the textbooks referenced in the accounts, there were recurring elements of a socio-historical character (e.g. Stone Age food habits and daily life in a medieval town; Hagnell & Olander, 1947; Sjöholm & Goës, 1930). Likewise, a more social science–oriented subject emerged in some teachers’ accounts. For instance, Hilding Sahlen in the town of Ljusdal introduced these aspects of history when teaching themes of industry and governance (account by Hilding Sahlen, 1946).

There were also examples of teachers with the ambition to develop their pupils’ ability to see historical developments in terms of cause and effect. In the municipality of Korpilombolo, for example, Edvid Jawert had hopes that delaying history teaching would make the pupils mature enough to apply cause/effect concepts to history (account by Edvin Jawert, 1946). In elementary schools, history could in fact be more than a narratively reconstructed subject, as suggested in various support materials. The importance of the use of source collections is highlighted, for example, in Ahlberg and Lindälv’s Sveriges historia i bilder (Swedish History in Pictures; 1941), which primarily reproduced objects, buildings and art.

There are also examples of teachers letting pupils become mini historians who unveil the past, as in Lindahl’s aforementioned teaching. Her pupils acted as cultural heritage conservators and school archaeologists after Lindal discovered that there was a burial ground in the vicinity of the school, where she found runic stones and menhirs. With rakes she and the pupils started to clean up the area, as she also used to conduct history lessons outdoors, weather permitting. The pupils filled in the runic stones with chalk and made sketches of them. They also interpreted them with the help of an archaeologist’s notes and were asked to sit in the field and ponder “what it had looked like here”. In connection with their excavations, the pupils discovered a coal layer and pieces of flint in the soil, as well as stone axes that they took care of. With the help of legends collected from their families, they could identify with life in the parish (account by Annie Lindahl, 1946). Lindahl’s teaching thus offered a more formalist perspective on history, as it encouraged a high degree of pupil activity.

Many Roads Lead to Rome: A Multitude of Perspectives

Previous studies have tended to emphasise the link between “what” and “how” (Sødring Jensen, 1978). The classic conception, for instance, holds that teaching is narrative and teacher-centred, with passive pupils. This reflects the role and function of history to foster national subservience, according to previous research (cf. Englund, 1986). In simplified terms, one could say that teaching traditional and nationally fostering content, such as the fate and adventures of Gustav Vasa, would require a method in which teaching is characterised by a teacher’s narration rather than a pupil’s activity. However, the teachers’ accounts of their teaching inform that this was not necessarily the case.

One example can be found in the town of Falun, where Anja Nyblom, a teacher at Falu Östra Elementary School, let her pupils work with exercise books and classic content. Nyblom had been inspired by progressive methods in the early 1930s, but she also underlined the importance of a broad range of teaching methods, because “where children’s education is concerned, many roads lead to Rome”, as she put it. She also added examples of good methods, such as “individual tasks, group work, whole class instruction, silent work, intensive detail swotting and elaborate narration”. Pupils could also be activated by letting them dramatise history. How Nyblom accomplished this is not clear, but in the textbook she referred to Arbetsövningar i historia, which could be a simple design based on traditional content. A task in the book entitled “A Short Play About the Grey Coat [King Karl XI]” suggested that with the help of the book Läsebok för folkskolan (Elementary School Reader), pupils could stage a simple dialogue between the wife of a parish priest and the King (account by Anja Nyblom, 1946). Even if Nyblom did not explicitly mention this, it is reasonable to assume that dramatisation was a way to activate pupils while stimulating affective and sensory abilities. One possible argument is that Nyblom had a “wobbling” view of teaching and the kind of historical knowledge to focus on, but there is no denying that several other researchers have shown that teachers had a broad teaching repertoire and that context played a role in the kind of history that happened to be central (cf. Cuban, 1993; Elmersjö, 2021).

In the town of Hälsinborg, Tora Sannel had, since the 1920s, used “the school as workplace” method in history, combined with reading quizzes. According to Sannel, the memory of historical knowledge was often “poor” but something everyone needed, and if teaching was too “free”, this knowledge was at risk. Sannel emphasised that the ideal was to “soften the old methods with the school as workplace idea” (account by Tora Sannel, 1946). In practice, Sannel’s idea of how modern pedagogy should be enriched with traditional teaching was also applied by many of the teachers who had submitted accounts to the commission. Several teachers referred to exercise books such as Arbetsövningar i historia, with readers (i.e. pupils) first introduced to a given epoch via a timeline containing central processes, events and persons. There were a number of pictures and exercises to be solved individually or in groups. Each epoch concluded with review exercises, recalling pupils’ memory linked to the respective heading (e.g. “What should I remember about the Kalmar Union?”).

A common feature is that teachers and textbooks often “wobbled” between different epistemic approaches (cf. Elmersjö, 2022). But this must not be understood as an inconsistent approach; rather, it indicates a broad professional knowledge base and ability to adapt teaching to context, which also means that these teachers adopted different approaches to historical knowledge in their teaching.

Summarising Conclusions: A Classic History Subject with Elements of Formalist and Categorial Perspectives

Studying teachers’ own perspectives on knowledge and teaching broadens our understanding of what kind of history students were offered. But this study also shows that the subject of history prepared students for a democratic society to a greater extent than previous studies have noted (cf. Englund, 1986).

As it emerged from the teachers’ accounts of their teaching, the history subject in early twentieth-century Swedish elementary schools was certainly ingrained in the historical granite, but this granite came to be a teaching resource for more formalist perspectives, such as dramatisation of the lives of Swedish kings and individual exercises based on traditional content. This teaching praxis also reflects an epistemic perspective aligned with a copier stance or a reconstructivist perspective (cf. Stoel et al., 2022; Elmersjö, 2021). At the same time, local resources such as churches, heritage sites, ancient monuments and museums were used in teaching. In addition, the history subject that emerged in the accounts has striking elements of a material conception of history, even a reconstructive conception, which is supported by studies of curricula and textbooks (cf. Englund, 1986; Elmersjö, 2017). But what is also typical of “the epistemic game” (or teaching) is the epistemic wobbling between different perspectives on historical knowledge (cf. Elmersjö, 2022; Cuban, 1993). This can be understood in relation to the conditions under which the teaching was conducted. There were general expectations that education should be democratised during Sweden’s inter- and post-war periods, and using pupil-active methods was a means to this end. This involved dramatisations and individual work, or pupils becoming mini historians who unveiled history themselves. This should also be understood in relation to the practical problems teachers had, such as teaching several classes at the same time, meaning that some classes had to work independently while others received instruction and enjoyed narrated teaching (Samuelsson et al., 2022). Within the scope of a teaching period, several epistemic perspectives could be at work. The varying views of historical knowledge represented should, then, be related to contextual factors as well as the subject tradition of classic history teaching.

Also evident in the teachers’ teaching, and in parts of the literature they were informed by, is the creation of a formalist and possibly categorial subject. Pupils worked with statistical yearbooks, visited social institutions and independently worked on various tasks, which can all be seen as enhancing useful abilities for future citizens in a democratic society. History became a relevant contemporary subject, as it gave students tools to function as members of the new modern Swedish society. Even if the presence of such elements should not be exaggerated, they were there. This representation of the history subject is close to Sødring Jensen’s (1978) deliberation on the function of history for a democratic society. The role of the subject in a democratic society also coincides with a view of historical knowledge that is not restricted to reproducing an objective past. In relation to epistemic perspectives on historical knowledge, there are elements of constructivist perspectives, as the pupils in some cases had the opportunity to develop skills in compiling information, thinking about causal links and seeking out historical artefacts themselves. A recent survey of teachers’ epistemic perspectives on history showed that it can be difficult to straightforwardly identify and categorise teachers’ views of historical knowledge. However, the study also indicated that the predominant perspective is reconstructivist in nature, followed by the constructivist perspective (Elmersjö, 2022). The same tendency was evident in the teachers’ accounts from the 1940s, even if the reconstructivist elements were more frequent.

This chapter focused on the history teaching encountered by most pupils in Sweden in the early twentieth century. However, a minority moved on to grammar schools, where several epistemic perspectives were practised concurrently, but with a considerably higher degree of formalist and perhaps categorial perspectives present (Samuelsson, 2021). This shows that historical contextualisation is also important in studies of epistemic perspectives.

References and Sources

Sources

Unprinted Sources

Swedish National Archive

Skolkommissionen 1946–1952

Minutes no. 14, February 27. V2 A1ab

Accounts from teacher

Jawert, E. (1946). Jerijärvi folskola, Korpilombo. FII V9.

Lindahl, A. (1946). Stockholm Hägerstensåsens folkskola. FII V7.

Nyblom, A. (1946). Falu östra folkskola, Falun. FII V8.

Olofsson, G. (1946). Harplinge. FII V8.

Ringström, S. (1946). Nora folkskola. FII V7.

Sahlen, H. (1946). Ljusdal. FII V11.

Sannel, T. (1946). Hälsingborgs folkskolor, Hälsingborg. FII V7.

Westerdahl, E. (1946). Kölleröds folkskola. FII V7.

Winkvist, J. (1946). Sollebrun. FII V7.

Printed Sources

SOU 1948:27. (1948). 1946 års skolkommissions betänkande [Government report of the 1946 schools inquiry commission]. Ivar Häggströms Boktryckeri.

Statistisk årsbok för Sverige 1950 [Statistical yearbook for Sweden 1950].

Undervisningsplan för rikets folkskolor en 31 oktober 1919. (1923). Smålandspostens boktryckeri AB.

Textbooks

Ahlberg, G., & Lindälv, E. (1941). Sveriges historia i bilder [Swedish History in Pictures]. Svenska bokförlaget.

Hagnell, A., & Olander, G. (1947). Läsning till Sveriges historia [Reading to the history of Sweden]. Skolförlaget.

Nordlund, K., Sörensen, A., & Wikberg, S. (Eds.). (1928). Arbetssättet i folkskolan: metodiska uppsatser. 6. [The way of working in elementary school: methodical essays. 6. Christianity. History]. Norstedts.

Sjöholm, L. G., & Goës, A. (1930). Arbetsövningar i historia [Exercises in history]. Gothenburg.

Wahlman, J., & Rosén, A. (Eds.). (1937). Sveriges historia för folkskolan. 1, Tiden till 1660 [Sweden’s history for elementary education]. Svenska bokförlaget.