How can a learning study model contribute to teachers’ professional development? Perspectives from a community of history teachers

Table A1History teaching has often prioritised the transmission of content knowledge, with limited attention to the disciplinary thinking through which historical knowledge is constructed (Reisman et al., 2019; Rosenlund, 2016). Such practices frequently reflect an objectivist stance, presenting historical accounts as fixed rather than interpretative and contested (Nokes, 2010). As this article argues, high-quality history teaching requires the integration of substantive content with disciplinary strategies, enabling students to understand how historical knowledge is produced and justified (Lee, 2011). Without such instruction, students are unlikely to distinguish between the past and history or to critically engage with competing accounts of both past and present phenomena. Meeting these aims places substantial demands on teachers. In addition to deep content knowledge, teachers need a well-developed understanding of disciplinary strategies and epistemological assumptions that position history as an interpretative subject – an understanding that research suggests cannot be taken for granted (Tuithof et al., 2019). Moreover, teachers must be able to enact teaching strategies that support students in developing such disciplinary understanding. This is particularly challenging given that students often uphold conceptions about epistemology (Maggioni et al., 2009) and second-order concepts (Lee and Shemilt, 2003) that can constitute major obstacles to the development of such competence. Consequently, teachers’ capacity to integrate content knowledge, disciplinary understanding and appropriate teaching strategies that are responsive to students’ conceptions is central to the quality of history teaching. In educational research, this interwoven competence is commonly conceptualized as pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and considered a hallmark of skilled teachers (Shulman, 2004). While influential conceptualisations of PCK largely originate from science education research (Magnusson et al., 1999; Park and Oliver, 2008), there remains limited empirical evidence concerning how PCK is manifested in history teaching and how it can be systematically developed (Tuithof et al., 2019).

One promising opportunity for supporting teachers’ professional learning is participation in professional learning communities (PLCs) (Hudson, 2024; Vangrieken et al., 2017). For PLCs to be effective, however, they should be closely oriented towards teaching and learning and provide opportunities for teachers to investigate and refine their own classroom practices. Given the subject- and context-specific nature of PCK, professional development initiatives are unlikely to be successful if teachers are positioned as passive recipients of externally defined knowledge about effective teaching (Santagata et al., 2024; Van Driel and Berry, 2012). Learning Study (LS) represents a PLC approach with particular potential in this regard. Grounded in variation theory and focused explicitly on student learning, LS involves teachers working collaboratively in iterative cycles to identify critical aspects of learning, investigate students’ learning difficulties, and design, test, and refine teaching strategies to address them (Marton, 2015). This article reports findings from a study that examined how a community of history teachers perceive that sustained use of a specific LS model as a PLC approach has contributed to their professional development and changed their teaching practices. The following research questions are pursued in the study:

To meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world, schools need to function as learning organisations that provide opportunities for continuous teacher professional development (Ventista and Brown, 2023). However, traditional forms of professional development, such as external in-service training and isolated workshops, have shown limited and short-lived effects on instructional practice (Hudson, 2024; Nilsson, 2008). Research instead highlights the potential of teacher communities grounded in shared experiences and concrete pedagogical challenges – commonly referred to as PLCs – to support sustained professional growth under favourable circumstances (Hudson, 2024; Vangrieken et al., 2017).

Research suggests that PLCs that function effectively tend to be characterised by an open and inclusive climate, shared beliefs about teaching and learning, collective responsibility for student learning and a willingness to develop practice collaboratively (Stoll et al., 2006). While such communities can strengthen teachers’ collective professional knowledge and improve student learning, their impact depends on supportive organisational conditions. Teachers must perceive participation as meaningful and collectively owned, and school leadership plays a crucial role in signalling the importance of PLC work by fostering a collaborative culture and ensuring structural support, including time for collaboration (Hudson, 2024). In addition, PLCs require access to investigative methods that enable teachers to design, analyse and revise instruction based on students’ learning difficulties (Hudson, 2024; Stoll et al., 2006; Van Driel and Berry, 2012). For such work to influence student learning, teachers must also be able to integrate insights from PLC activities into their everyday teaching, a process shaped by professional values and prior experiences within local contexts (de Groot-Reuvekamp et al., 2018; Nilsson, 2008). Consequently, PLCs may benefit from empirically grounded design principles and collaboration with researchers. Such partnerships can support the joint development of practice while positioning teachers as active partners and drawing on researchers’ familiarity with the local school context (de Groot-Reuvekamp et al., 2018; Santagata et al., 2024; Stoll et al., 2006).

LS is a theory-informed approach that embodies many of the characteristics described above and has been found to be useful for PLC collaboration (Kullberg et al., 2020). In LS, teachers – often in collaboration with a researcher – jointly design and evaluate teaching focused on students’ learning in relation to specific subject matter (Marton, 2015). A defining feature of LS is that responsibility for investigating teaching and learning is collective, which could support dialogues in a non-evaluative climate (Marton and Runesson, 2014; Pang and Ling, 2011; Tan and Nashon, 2013). LS begins with teachers identifying students’ learning difficulties and delineating an object of learning consisting of two dimensions: a direct object linked to subject matter and an indirect object referring to the ability students are expected to develop in relation to that content (Marton and Pang, 2006). In history education, for example, the direct object may concern the Cold War, while the indirect object involves understanding causation, framed through an overarching question such as: What were the causes of the outbreak of the Cold War?

LS is grounded in a theoretical framework, most commonly variation theory. A core assumption of this theory is that students must discern specific aspects of the object of learning in order to develop the intended understanding (Marton, 2015). Once the object of learning has been delineated, teachers design a pre-test to identify students’ existing conceptions. In relation to the example above, such a test may be used to examine how students understand causation. The results from this test inform which aspects are preliminarily identified as critical and therefore targeted in the design and implementation of teaching. After the first iteration, the students complete a post-test. Analysis of this test, together with lesson observations, provides a basis for revising the unit design prior to the next iteration. For instance, if the post-test indicates that students have discerned plausible short-term causes for the outbreak of the Cold War but still struggle to reason about its long-term causes, the unit design can be revised to make this aspect visible. According to variation theory, discerning such aspects requires students to experience systematic patterns of variation in relation to the object of learning; consequently, lessons are designed in line with this principle. In this way, a unit design can be gradually refined throughout the iteration (Marton and Runesson, 2014).

LS’s theoretical grounding may add to its value as a PLC approach (Kullberg et al., 2020). First, it offers explanatory principles that could guide teachers in the design and implementation of teaching, as well as in the analysis of instructional outcomes in terms of student learning (Pang and Ling, 2011; Runesson, 2013). Also, it provides teachers with a shared language related to concepts such as objects of learning, critical aspects and patterns of variation (Magnusson et al., 2023). Applying LS as theoretical and investigative approach has also been shown to support the development of teachers’ PCK (Nilsson, 2014). Such development has been identified in increased awareness of students’ conceptions, enhanced capacity to adapt teaching accordingly and an expanded teaching repertoire (Mårtensson, 2019; Runesson, 2013; Tan and Nashon, 2013).

History education research generally separates between substantive content knowledge, or first-order concepts, and the disciplinary strategies through which such knowledge is constructed. These strategies are usually conceptualised as second-order concepts involving strategic and procedural knowledge that enable students to direct questions to the past, interpret and evaluate sources, and construct historical accounts (Lee, 2011). Engagement with second-order concepts is therefore central to the development of historical thinking. A substantial body of research has examined students’ conceptions of these concepts and related epistemic strategies (Endacott, 2014; Lee and Shemilt, 2004; Maggioni et al., 2009; Nersäter, 2019; Rosenlund, 2016; van Boxtel and van Drie, 2012), as well as instructional approaches that support their development, including enquiry- and source-based teaching, disciplinary reading, and integrated reading and writing practices (De La Paz et al., 2017; Nersäter, 2022; Nokes et al., 2007; Reisman, 2012; Seixas and Morton, 2013; Wineburg, 1991). In addition, several instructional models have been proposed to support the teaching of historical thinking strategies (Gestsdóttir et al., 2018; Wilke et al., 2023).

Despite this growing body of research, empirical studies that explicitly examine PCK in history education, and how this competence can be developed, remain relatively limited. In their review, Tutihof et al. (2019) identified 34 studies addressing aspects related to history teachers’ PCK. Approximately half of these studies examined PCK in relation to disciplinary strategies; however, these were often described vaguely and inconsistently, and only a minority of studies explicitly employed the concept of PCK. Considerable conceptual variation was also evident, particularly regarding which PCK dimensions were addressed. While most studies focused on instructional approaches, fewer examined students’ conceptions, teachers’ subject orientations or curricular and assessment knowledge (Tuithof et al., 2019). Notably, only one study – by Monte-Sano and Budano (2013) – explicitly delineated history-specific PCK, identifying four interrelated elements: representing history – illustrating the subject’s epistemological principles; transforming history – designing instruction to develop students’ historical thinking; attending to students’ ideas – identifying and incorporating students’ conceptions; and framing history – selecting and organising content and disciplinary strategies (Monte-Sano and Budano, 2013, p. 174).

Regarding PCK development, Tuithof et al. (2019) found it to be primarily associated with teaching experience, deeper content knowledge and participation in PCK-focused courses, while collaborative professional learning has received limited attention. A notable exception is Halvorsen and Kesler Lund (2013), who studied middle school teachers’ collaboration through Lesson Study. Their findings suggest that teachers perceived Lesson Study as an effective form of professional development, offering autonomy, flexibility and opportunities for collaboration and reflection. Meanwhile, the study highlighted challenges related to the interpretive nature of history, particularly difficulties in collaborative lesson design when teachers held differing subject orientations and instructional practices. While Lesson Study shares several features with LS, the latter is further distinguished by its grounding in variation theory (Marton, 2015). Previous subject-didactic research in history (Nersäter, 2020), social studies (Larsson and Andersson, 2025) and economics (Wood and Andrew, 2022) has also demonstrated that teaching grounded in identified critical aspects and informed by variation theory can enhance student learning but also has the potential to develop teachers’ PCK. In the present study, teachers combine variation theory with an enquiry- and source-based didactical framework, a model that may support PCK development by enabling joint analysis of student learning, identification of critical aspects and iterative refinement of instruction. Interpreted through Monte-Sano and Budano’s (2013) framework, second-order concepts – focused as indirect objects of learning – support the representation of history’s interpretive nature, while attention to students’ ideas aligns with variation theory’s focus on critical aspects. Finally, variation theory combined with the didactical framework provides conceptual tools and a shared professional language that could facilitate transformation and framing of historical content and second-order concepts in coherent teaching units (see also section, LS model and Didactical framework).

This is a case study (Bryman, 2011) based on data from interviews with five history teachers who describe their experiences of sustained collaboration within a PLC team that uses an LS model adapted for the subject of history.

My role in this study is twofold, as I investigate a context in which I previously worked closely with the participating teachers. For ten years, I served as leader of the PLC in my role as pedagogical development leader and lecturer in history. This dual position requires ethical sensitivity, as my prior relationship with the participants may pose challenges to objectivity. Meanwhile, it gives an insider perspective that may enhance trust and encourage open expression of views. My familiarity with both the method and its implementation also supports informed interpretation of the interview data (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Importantly, the PLC approached unit designs as a collective undertaking, with challenges approached as shared responsibilities. As a former member of the team, I therefore also share responsibility for any difficulties or shortcomings raised by participants during the interviews.

The participants all have extensive experience working as upper secondary teachers. All have a university degree in history and, in addition one, two or three other subject degrees. They have varying experience with the LS model; two of them participated during the original interventions when the model was initiated. One of these teachers has remained a member of the team since then, while the other eventually left the team to be a PLC leader in another subject. The other three teachers have joined the team at different stages after the group decided to apply this model, see Table 1.

The teachers work at a large municipal upper secondary school in one of Sweden’s larger cities, offering university preparatory programmes to students aged 16–19. The school has a heterogeneous socioeconomic composition. History is taught across three courses, the first of which is compulsory for all programmes. The subject has no external examinations, and assessment is conducted by teachers using a six-point grading scale. Until three years ago, opportunities for teacher collaboration were limited to subject meetings of approximately 90 min every three weeks. In history, these meetings previously revolved around test construction, grade comparisons and book purchases. However, there were rarely systematic discussions about teaching designs and student learning. Just over ten years ago, I asked three of my former colleagues to partake in two LS interventions which lasted for one academic year. Following the presentation of these results to the wider group of history teachers, they recognised the value of the LS model and decided to adopt a modified version as a basis for continued collaboration. The team has since used this approach, developing a considerable bank of teaching units that all members can use. Three years ago, school leadership formalised this way of working by establishing PLCs based on LS principles across all subjects, increasing time allocated to PLC collaboration while reducing traditional subject meetings.

At the beginning of each school year, the team selects and delimits an object of learning aligned with the history syllabus. Drawing on pre-tests and shared teaching experience, critical aspects are identified and used to collaboratively design a teaching unit. The nature of the pre-tests varies depending on the chosen object of learning: if focusing on students’ understanding of second-order concepts, they typically consist of an open-ended question linked to a specific context; if focusing on historical sources, they include sources connected to a historical question, with students, for example, asked to assess their usefulness. Students’ responses are then analysed and categorised using principles from variation theory, informed by history education research and the identified critical aspects then guide the design of the teaching unit.

Unlike traditional Lesson Study, this design process typically unfolds over an entire school year, depending on available collaboration time. Once completed, the unit is implemented by one or more team members and subsequently revised based on classroom experiences and student learning outcomes. The unit design is characterised by continuity in didactical principles and is grounded in an enquiry- and source-based framework informed by the identified critical aspects (Nersäter, 2022). The units are framed by an overarching historical question linked to second-order concepts and historical sources, aligning with the didactical principles of Document-Based Lessons (Reisman, 2012). In the teaching units, the indirect objects of learning correspond to a second-order concept, while the direct objects of learning involve delimited syllabus content. For examples of units constructed by the team, see  Appendix 1. During implementation of teaching units, students engage with contextual knowledge, practise second-order concepts, work with sources and alternate between individual, group and whole-class activities. Throughout the lesson sequences, they also have access to various supporting templates whose design is informed by the identified critical aspects (Nersäter, 2022).

This research has followed the ethical guidelines of the Swedish Research Council (2024). When planning the study, the teachers were informed about its purpose and how the collected data would be handled. They were informed that participation was voluntary, and their consent was obtained. The teachers had the opportunity to decide how and in what manner data related to them would be used. After the interviews were concluded, they were allowed to read their own transcripts, add or revise any statements, which none of them chose to do. To meet the requirements of confidentiality, the names of these teachers have been anonymized and do not occur in the article.

As stated above, data for the study is based on interviews conducted with five of the teachers from the PLC team. The length of these interviews varied between 30 and 45 min, and the teachers’ responses were transcribed verbatim. The interviews were conducted in Swedish and subsequently translated into English by the author. Potential risks of meaning loss and researcher bias were addressed through peer-debriefing of both the original and translated interview texts; see also analysis section below. The interview questions were of semi-structured character and gathered in an interview guide that also included an image of our LS model (see  Appendix 2). To strengthen the content validity of the study, the design of the guide was reviewed by a research colleague before the interviews were conducted. The teachers received the guide prior to the interviews in order to allow time for preparation and reflection. The questions were organised into four main thematic categories, each containing open-ended subheadings that allowed for probing and follow-up questions. One category focused on the work processes applied within the PLC team, while another addressed the teachers’ perceived benefits and limitations of the LS model. The remaining two categories explored possible changes in the teachers’ subject orientations and instructional practices, as well as how they perceived these changes in relation to their students’ learning.

The analysis of the interviews followed principles of thematic analysis (Bryman, 2011). To become familiar with the data, the interviews were first read several times. In the next step, the responses were organised into four preliminary categories aligned with the main themes of the interview guide. Within each category, the teachers’ responses were compared across interviews, with the subheadings in the guide serving as analytical prompts. These subheadings were formulated as open-ended questions intended to encourage reflection, and the teachers’ lines of reasoning in relation to them – together with responses to follow-up questions – formed the basis for a more fine-grained analysis of the preliminary categories. The aim of this phase was to identify recurring patterns that could subsequently be developed into themes. Through iterative comparison of similarities and differences, five themes gradually emerged as analytically stable (see Table 2). In the final stage of the analysis, the content and meaning of these themes were further interpreted using concepts and theory drawn from LS and variation theory (Marton, 2015). For themes three through five, the history-specific PCK framework proposed by Monte-Sano and Budano (2013) was additionally employed as a complementary analytical tool (see also section History Teaching Research). To enhance the trustworthiness of the analysis, a peer debriefing was conducted in which a research colleague with substantial experience in practitioner-oriented history education research reviewed the consistency and coherence of the themes. Analytical triangulation was also applied in the interpretation of the themes, both through discussions with the same colleague and in a research seminar setting. This triangulation revealed no notable discrepancies in the interpretation of the interview data.

The themes that emerged from the analysis and which are presented below include rich excerpts aiming to illustrate the teachers’ line of reasoning, but also to increase the transparency of the results (Flyvbjerg, 2006).

The teachers express that adopting the LS model has made their collaboration more structured and more explicitly focused on teaching and student learning, particularly by supporting the design of teaching units that address students’ learning difficulties:

Elaborating on this, they particularly point to the importance of the team jointly choosing and defining objects of learning, so that these serve as the basis for the construction of units and are fine-tuned in an iterative process:

When analysing how they perceive these benefits in more detail, the teachers highlight the importance of using critical aspects as a basis for the design of teaching units: “By starting from critical aspects taken from a pre-test material, I have become more methodical in planning and implementing my teaching, you achieve a focus”. (Teacher 5). One teacher states that the LS model has given them access to new tools that could complement their practical experience:

These statements are consistent with previous research showing that LS can facilitate teacher collaboration (Pang and Ling, 2011; Tan and Nashon, 2013) and provide theoretical tools for the design and analysis of teaching and student learning (Magnusson et al., 2023; Nilsson, 2014; Runesson, 2013). The teachers also point to structural factors which they believe have been important for why the LS model has worked well in their collaboration. Here they emphasize the importance of having guidance from a PLC leader familiar with the method and that the team has an open and trustful climate:

The importance of strong professional relationships for effective PLC collaboration is well established (Hudson, 2024). Safe and nonjudgemental group dynamics increase teachers’ willingness to share experiences and try new instructional strategies (Halvorsen and Kesler Lund, 2013; Vangrieken et al., 2017). In the interviews, teachers also emphasised the value of sustained guidance from a colleague with research expertise, a finding consistent with research highlighting the potential of long-term teacher–researcher collaboration (Santagata et al., 2024; Wood and Andrew, 2022), particularly when researchers are familiar with the local school context (de Groot-Reuvekamp et al., 2018). These trust-based relationships are especially important given that establishing and sustaining PLCs can be challenging and require a long-term approach, particularly when collaborative practices challenge established school cultures (Stoll et al., 2006). Such potential tension was also reflected in the interviews, as illustrated by one teacher who at the time led another PLC team at the school:

This teacher further emphasises that, in light of such attitudes, sustained support from school leadership is essential for PLC teams and their leaders:

The perspectives expressed here are consistent with prior research emphasizing the crucial role of school leaders in providing organizational support and in shaping a school culture where teacher collaboration is recognized as a key element of quality development (Hudson, 2024).

As previously stated, the team has used this model for several years. In the interviews, the teachers express that working together within this framework has led them to develop a high degree of shared understanding of the subjects’ purpose and a mutual subject language:

Analysing these excerpts, we can conclude that the teachers believe that collaboration within the framework of the LS model has contributed to a shared understanding of which abilities they want their students to develop. In addition, it has also given them an understanding of the nature of these abilities and how teaching should be designed to give students the opportunity to develop them. Previous research has reported that LS collaboration could provide teachers with a uniform language for designing teaching and analysing student learning (Magnusson et al., 2023; Nilsson, 2014; Runesson, 2013). The results here indicate that LS collaboration also could contribute to shared subject understanding, which, if lacking, can be an obstacle for efficient PLC collaboration (Halvorsen and Kesler Lund, 2013). In addition to seeing a joint subject language and understanding as an expression of them becoming more professional, they also believe that it provides the opportunity for a more equal assessment practice:

Lastly, they also point to some structural factors they believe have made it easier for them to develop this shared subject understanding:

In addition to the importance of being relatively few, we see that they point out that it has been valuable for the team to be based on one subject rather than being an interdisciplinary team.

PCK involves understanding how students make sense of specific subject matter and designing instruction that supports their learning (Shulman, 2004). Applying the LS model, both dimensions can be strengthened, as it enables the teachers to investigate students’ conceptions of the indirect objects of learning through pre-tests, observations, and collaborative analysis within the PLC team. Variation theory supports them in this process by providing analytical tools for identifying the critical aspects of these objects of learning and by informing the design of the enquiry- and source-based units through its principles of variation. In the interviews, changes in teachers’ PCK are most evident in how they articulate shifts in their subject orientation and teaching practices. The teachers report that their use of the LS model in conjunction with the enquiry- and source-based framework has led them to change their approach to history and its purpose. They state that this approach has made it easier to communicate the interpretive nature of history in their teaching. To illustrate why and how this shift has occurred, they particularly point to the indirect objects of learning such as source work and concepts framed by historical enquiry that forms the basis for the design of the teaching units:

The teachers connect this change of approach with the use of the second-order concepts that constitute the indirect objects of learning when they design teaching units:

Drawing parallels between these excerpts and Monte-Sano and Budano’s (2013) conceptualization of PCK, it is possible to link the teachers’ statements to several elements. Their belief that they have changed their subject orientation in a more interpretive and analytical direction relates to the ability of representing history. This element of PCK emerges in the teachers’ ambition to make the epistemology and methods of history visible, rather than conveying the subject as a fixed narrative. It is also possible to attribute their statements to the PCK-elements of framing and transforming history. These elements are evident in the excerpts stemming from teachers 1 and 3, when they point to the usage of second-order concepts as a means of making the interpretive nature of history visible to the students. The analysis also points to the theory and concepts from LS in conjunction with the enquiry- and source-based framework, having led them to focus more on these concepts compared to before they applied the LS model. They express that this is because they now consciously address both a direct and an indirect object of learning when planning and implementing lessons: “I let the concepts take up more space, I constantly return to the indirect objects of learning – explanations, actor/structure, source interpretation. They are more in focus when I plan units”. (Teacher 1).

Since the objects of learning and their critical aspects serve as a basis for the construction of teaching units, they also find it easier to include and combine different dimensions of the subject when they teach: “The concepts are more visible in my teaching now. I use sources more and do it in combination with the concepts. Previously, source criticism was a separate element for me”. (Teacher 2). They report that, prior to using the LS model, their planning was guided primarily by syllabus-prescribed content rather than by a clearly defined object of learning and its associated critical aspects. Applying the LS model, they instead start planning from a historical question, weaving historical content, second-order concepts, and historical sources together as a whole: “It is not just content, it’s a more lasting knowledge, and the students acquire tools that they can use regardless of what we do in the course and what material they are working with”. (Teacher 5).

When related to Monte-Sano and Budano’s (2013) PCK conceptualisation, their statements primarily reflect capacities for representing and framing history and also suggest elements of transforming history through the integration of content and second-order concepts in the unit designs.

In the interviews, the teachers also highlight the importance of the various scaffolds that have been designed based on identified critical aspects for different objects of learning, such as source work and concepts (Nersäter, 2022). The teachers use them consistently and they believe that their students have good use of them: “The scaffolding structures that have been developed thanks to the mapping of critical aspects are often very useful if you use them consistently until the students no longer needs them”. (Teacher 5). Several teachers link the use of these scaffolds to students’ ability to discern critical aspects of sources and concepts, thereby supporting the development of a more sophisticated understanding:

If we study what the teachers express in relation to their subject orientation and teaching practice, their use of enquiry, concepts and source work framed by supporting scaffolds could be linked to several PCK-elements such as the capacity of representing and framing history and not least transforming history (Monte-Sano and Budano, 2013). From the analysis, it also becomes evident that they believe to have changed their assessment practice:

This change of assessment practice is manifested in them now placing greater emphasis on second-order concepts in relation to subject content compared to before using the LS model.

All the teachers express that they have become more aware of the conceptions that their students display in relation to the subject’s different dimensions. They connect this change to several factors, partly because the group analyses pre-tests and identifies critical aspects together: “It’s easier to understand how they [the students, my comment] think and get around it by focusing on the critical aspects”. (Teacher 3). Partly also because they consciously reflecting on student conceptions while they teach:

These beliefs correspond well with another important PCK element, namely the capacity of attending to students’ ideas about history (Monte-Sano and Budano, 2013). Theory and concepts drawn from LS seem to have made the teachers more aware of the importance of considering students' conceptions and taking these into account when implementing and adjusting teaching.

The analysis also demonstrated that the teachers experience certain challenges when using the LS model in the context of history teaching. Here they primarily point to the complexity of delineating objects of learning, difficulties of identifying, but also illustrating critical aspects:

We see that this teacher believes that it could be hard to define objects of learning in history because the subject’s contextual knowledge is entwined and of great importance for students’ capacity to handle both direct and indirect objects of learning. The same teacher also emphasizes that it could be difficult to generalize critical aspects linked to second-order concepts, as the application of the latter ones could be context dependent: “It is difficult to find something that is applicable to history as such. There are no general laws behind historical development, it is very bound to a specific time or situation” (Teacher 1). The teachers also point to potential challenges of constructing pre-tests, identifying, but also illustrating critical aspects for an object of learning: “Designing pre-tests that really catch what one is after and construct concrete examples linked to the critical aspects is a didactical challenge” (Teacher 2). Lastly, they also address a potential obstacle which primarily relate to the possibility of implementing the enquiry- and source-based framework in their courses: “It can be a challenge to include the concepts because there is so much historical content to cover”. (Teacher 4). This excerpt indicates that teachers are faced with a selection problem due to the extensive content of the syllabus, but also that the subject’s concepts risk being relegated to the background. However, one could argue that this problem is linked to the nature of the syllabus in relation to the amount of time teachers have at their disposal, rather than the LS-model and didactical framework as such.

This study examined how a community of Swedish upper secondary history teachers experienced a specific LS model as a means of facilitating professional collaboration and supporting changes in instructional practice. Previous research has highlighted the importance of PLCs and the organizational conditions required for effective collaboration (Hudson, 2024), as well as the potential of collaborative work to support the development of teachers’ PCK (Van Driel and Berry, 2012). Within the LS tradition, research has demonstrated that teachers in mathematics and science can develop their PCK through participation in LS (Mårtensson, 2019; Nilsson, 2014; Tan and Nashon, 2013). In history education, however, research on PCK – and particularly on how such competence may develop through PLC collaboration – remains limited (Tuithof et al., 2019), with this gap being even more pronounced in relation to LS. In this discussion, findings from the present study are interpreted in relation to research on PLCs and LS, together with a subject-specific conceptualization of PCK for history teaching (Monte-Sano and Budano, 2013).

Addressing the first research question – How a Learning Study model can facilitate collaboration within professional learning communities – the findings indicate that the model provided structure for the teachers’ collaborative work, sustained a shared focus on teaching and learning, and supported the systematic construction of teaching units. Central to this process was the model’s provision of a shared theoretical framework for the design and analysis of instruction, which enabled analytically grounded and focused professional discussions. These findings align with previous studies of LS interventions, which emphasize the role of theory-informed collaboration in supporting instructional development (Kullberg et al., 2020; Nilsson, 2014; Pang and Ling, 2011; Runesson, 2013).

From a school improvement perspective, it is important to emphasize that teacher collaboration needs to be embedded within schools’ regular quality work rather than enacted as isolated interventions (Stoll et al., 2006). Sustainable changes in instructional practice require time, often entail shifts in established professional cultures, and depend on sustained organizational support from school leadership (Hudson, 2024). Meanwhile, traditional LS interventions can be resource-intensive, requiring extensive coordination among teachers and organizational conditions that may be difficult to sustain in everyday school practice. The LS model examined in this study may therefore constitute a viable alternative, as it retains key principles shown to be effective while extending the iterative process over time and embedding it within teachers’ regular collaborative practices – an approach identified as important for sustaining PLC collaboration over time (Stoll et al., 2006). The findings illustrate how this model supported sustainable collaborative development within the PLC team, reflected through shared instructional orientations and practices. Such shared understandings of subject purposes, instructional strategies and assessment practices are an important component of systematic quality work in schools (Hudson, 2024). From a practical standpoint, this suggests that embedding an LS model within teachers’ regular collaborative practice may offer a possible, long-term approach to professional development for both teachers and school leaders.

Addressing the second research question – How a Learning Study model, used in conjunction with an enquiry- and source-based framework, can influence history teachers’ PCK – the findings indicate that the teachers’ subject orientations and instructional practices shifted towards a more interpretive, disciplinary and student-centred approach. Prior to engaging with the LS model, the teachers predominantly approached history from a content-focused perspective. They attributed this shift to an increased emphasis on planning teaching units around both direct and indirect objects of learning, which foregrounded second-order concepts and the systematic use of historical sources. As a result, subject content, second-order concepts and sources became consistently integrated within the teaching units.

From a PCK perspective, this development can be understood as a change in how the teachers represent, frame and transform historical knowledge (Monte-Sano and Budano, 2013). This reorientation was also evident in how they described their instructional practice. Within the PLC, the teachers designed teaching units around overarching historical questions, systematically integrating subject content, second-order concepts and sources, and consistently employing scaffolding templates structured around identified critical aspects. These practices reflect a shift towards more student-centred representations of historical knowledge, in which disciplinary thinking could be more explicit and accessible to students.

Furthermore, the teachers reported that analyses of pre- and post-tests, combined with subject-didactical discussions, enhanced their awareness of students’ conceptions, which in turn informed both instructional planning and classroom practice. This heightened awareness to student thinking constitutes a core component of PCK and aligns with previous research on the effects of LS on teachers’ professional learning (Mårtensson, 2019; Nilsson, 2014; Runesson, 2013; Tan and Nashon, 2013). While earlier research has documented positive effects of LS on teachers’ PCK, this evidence largely stems from mathematics and science education. The present study therefore contributes to a limited body of research by illustrating how history teachers’ PCK can be developed through use of a specific LS model.

At the same time, the findings indicate that the LS model also posed certain challenges which appear to be subject-specific to history education, including delimiting objects of learning within an interpretive and context-dependent discipline, and transferring critical aspects related to disciplinary strategies across different historical contexts. Halvorsen and Kesler Lund (2013) similarly identify the interpretive nature of history as a central challenge in implementing Lesson Study within the subject. This characteristic may help explain why relatively few Lesson and Learning Studies have been conducted in history education, and why research on history teachers’ development of PCK through LS remains limited. Building on the findings of the present study, one promising approach is to combine the LS model with an enquiry- and source-based framework. By framing objects of learning around second-order concepts, the interpretive character of historical knowledge can be explicitly addressed in the design of teaching units. When combined with variation theory, this approach could provide teachers with shared theoretical tools and a professional language for collaboratively designing and revising instruction, thereby supporting the development of their PCK.

The findings of this study have both practical and theoretical value. Practically, they demonstrate how collaborative, theory-informed models can foster more student-centred teaching and enhance teachers’ responsiveness to students’ learning. In this respect, a possibility could be to integrate the LS model into schools’ regular development work, offering a structured framework for systematic, collaborative subject-didactic practice with a clear focus on teaching and learning. In a modified form, it could also be incorporated into teacher education. For example, within a subject didactics course, students might select an object of learning and conduct a field study, and in a subsequent course or thesis, analyse these findings in relation to prior research and develop a lesson design to be tested during a later field placement. Theoretically, the study contributes empirical knowledge to a field where evidence remains limited and advances understanding of how PCK develops through collaborative, theory-informed professional learning in an interpretive subject. The potential for transferring these findings to other contexts appears promising, as previous research has shown that results from LS research can be implemented across a range of educational settings (Kullberg et al., 2020; Runesson et al., 2018).

However, it is important to acknowledge that the present study was conducted under specific structural conditions. The PLC team had worked with the model over an extended period, experienced low member turnover, and was led by a PLC leader with substantial experience of the model. The teachers were experienced and worked within a relational climate characterized by openness and mutual trust. The extent to which similar outcomes may be achieved in other contexts is therefore likely to depend on the degree to which comparable organizational conditions can be established.

Finally, the study has limitations. Being a case study based on teacher interviews, the findings rely on teachers’ self-reported experiences and were not triangulated with lesson observations or student data. Although the risk of socially desirable responses is considered limited due to the relational climate of the PLC, this remains a consideration. Further research is needed to examine the applicability of these findings in other contexts and with different groups of teachers. Future studies could, for example, explore the use of the LS model and its associated didactical framework in other countries and school settings.

The researcher would like to express his deep gratitude to the teachers who partook in this study. Special thanks are also extended to Associate Professor David Rosenlund for generously taking the time to peer-review the categorization and analysis of the data.

Below is a model that provides an overview of the method we use in the history-team:

1. Identify what students need to learn – Select and define an object of learning linked to specific subject-matter and abilities.

2. Map students’ understanding – pre-and post-tests, practical experience.

3. Design teaching-units – Make the critical aspects of the learning object visible using variation theory and modelled scaffolds.

4. Evaluate and revise lesson designs of the different teaching-units.

1. The work process in the history-team – What benefits and challenges do you experience associated with the method we use? Also, try to compare with how we used to work prior to applying this method.

2. Your teaching practice – Have you changed your teaching practice in any way linked to the method we use? If so, how? Feel free to use the subheadings below:

   • ○

     Addressing the nature and methods of history.

   • ○

     Addressing students’ ideas regarding the nature and methods of history.

   • ○

     Planning and implementing teaching.

   • ○

     Shaping assessment materials.

3. Student learning – Do your students find it easier to understand various content and abilities linked to the teaching units the team have developed, or is there no difference?

   • ○

     If so, give examples.

   • ○

     What challenges remain?

4. Which factors have hindered/supported the implementation of our method? Feel free to use the subheadings below:

   • ○

     School organization.

   • ○

     Attitudes and climate within the team.

   • ○

     Leadership within and outside the team.