Antes da publicação do artigo as A Função das Leis Gerais em História de Carl G. Hempel em 1942 havia pouco interesse da filosofia em língua inglesa sobre a história entendida como disciplina nas primeiras décadas do século XX. Os estudos existentes se restringiam principalmente a quatro trabalhos: os primeiros volumes do Um Estudo de História de Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), um capítulo do Experiência e seus modos de Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990), um livro sobre relativismo de Maurice Mandelbaum (1908-1987) intitulado O problema do conhecimento histórico e a Autobiografia de Robin Collingwood (1889-1943). Nesse artigo Hempel defende que a história é um conhecimento que deveria mostrar que um evento em causa não era questão de acaso\', mas que seria previsível em virtude de certos antecedentes. Essa expectativa não constituiria profecia ou adivinhação, mas antecipação científica racional baseada na aplicação de leis gerais. Ainda que o artigo não tenha chamado a atenção nos anos imediatamente posteriores a sua publicação em 1942, logo depois do final da Segunda Guerra Mundial a situação se modificou drasticamente havendo uma proliferação de artigos e livros sobre o tema. O motivo fundamental dessa mudança de interesse entre os filósofos foi o artigo de Carl Hempel e sua recepção, especialmente depois de sua inclusão numa antologia bastante conhecida organizada por Herbert Feigl e Wilfrid Sellars em 1949, e em outra coletada por Patrick Gardiner dez anos depois. Tendo em vista a carência de informações sobre o contexto histórico, social e político das origens europeias da filosofia analítica antes da Segunda Guerra Mundial e, em especial da escassez de trabalhos que articulem esse contexto com a produção intelectual de seus principais representantes, desenvolvemos esse trabalho. Pretende-se mostrar nesse trabalho que o contexto formativo de Hempel, realizado especialmente no cenário educacional das universidades alemãs fizeram dele um portador particularmente bem-sucedido do debate acerca do estatuto epistemológico das ciências do homem, até então restrito àquela comunidade, para o cenário filosófico anglo-saxão. / Prior to the publication of the paper, \"The Role of General Laws in History\" by Carl G. Hempel in 1942 there was little interest in English-language philosophy about history understood as a discipline in the early decades of the twentieth century. Existing studies were restricted mainly to four works: the first volumes of Arnold Toynbee\'s \"A Study of History\" (1889-1975), a chapter of Michael Oakeshott\'s \"Experience and Manners\" (1901-1990), a book on relativism of Maurice Mandelbaum (1908-1987) entitled \"The Problem of Historical Knowledge\" and the \"Autobiography\" of Robin Collingwood (1889-1943). In this article, Hempel argues that history is a knowledge that should show that an event in question was not a matter of chance, but that it would be predictable by virtue of certain antecedents. This expectation would not constitute prophecy or divination, but rational scientific anticipation based on the application of general laws. Although the article did not draw attention in the years immediately after its publication in 1942, soon after the end of World War II the situation changed dramatically, with a proliferation of articles and books on the subject. The fundamental motive of this change of interest among the philosophers was Carl Hempel\'s article and reception, especially after its inclusion in a well-known anthology organized by Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars in 1949, and another one collected by Patrick Gardiner ten years later. In view of the lack of information on the historical, social and political context of the European origins of analytical philosophy before World War II, and especially the scarcity of works that articulate this context with the intellectual production of its main representatives, we have developed this work. We intend to show in this work that Hempel\'s formative context, especially on the educational scene of the German universities, made him a particularly successful bearer of the debate about the epistemological status of the human sciences, hitherto restricted to that community, to the Anglo- Saxon.

Antes da publicação do artigo as A Função das Leis Gerais em História de Carl G. Hempel em 1942 havia pouco interesse da filosofia em língua inglesa sobre a história entendida como disciplina nas primeiras décadas do século XX. Os estudos existentes se restringiam principalmente a quatro trabalhos: os primeiros volumes do Um Estudo de História de Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), um capítulo do Experiência e seus modos de Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990), um livro sobre relativismo de Maurice Mandelbaum (1908-1987) intitulado O problema do conhecimento histórico e a Autobiografia de Robin Collingwood (1889-1943). Nesse artigo Hempel defende que a história é um conhecimento que deveria mostrar que um evento em causa não era questão de acaso\', mas que seria previsível em virtude de certos antecedentes. Essa expectativa não constituiria profecia ou adivinhação, mas antecipação científica racional baseada na aplicação de leis gerais. Ainda que o artigo não tenha chamado a atenção nos anos imediatamente posteriores a sua publicação em 1942, logo depois do final da Segunda Guerra Mundial a situação se modificou drasticamente havendo uma proliferação de artigos e livros sobre o tema. O motivo fundamental dessa mudança de interesse entre os filósofos foi o artigo de Carl Hempel e sua recepção, especialmente depois de sua inclusão numa antologia bastante conhecida organizada por Herbert Feigl e Wilfrid Sellars em 1949, e em outra coletada por Patrick Gardiner dez anos depois. Tendo em vista a carência de informações sobre o contexto histórico, social e político das origens europeias da filosofia analítica antes da Segunda Guerra Mundial e, em especial da escassez de trabalhos que articulem esse contexto com a produção intelectual de seus principais representantes, desenvolvemos esse trabalho. Pretende-se mostrar nesse trabalho que o contexto formativo de Hempel, realizado especialmente no cenário educacional das universidades alemãs fizeram dele um portador particularmente bem-sucedido do debate acerca do estatuto epistemológico das ciências do homem, até então restrito àquela comunidade, para o cenário filosófico anglo-saxão. / Prior to the publication of the paper, \"The Role of General Laws in History\" by Carl G. Hempel in 1942 there was little interest in English-language philosophy about history understood as a discipline in the early decades of the twentieth century. Existing studies were restricted mainly to four works: the first volumes of Arnold Toynbee\'s \"A Study of History\" (1889-1975), a chapter of Michael Oakeshott\'s \"Experience and Manners\" (1901-1990), a book on relativism of Maurice Mandelbaum (1908-1987) entitled \"The Problem of Historical Knowledge\" and the \"Autobiography\" of Robin Collingwood (1889-1943). In this article, Hempel argues that history is a knowledge that should show that an event in question was not a matter of chance, but that it would be predictable by virtue of certain antecedents. This expectation would not constitute prophecy or divination, but rational scientific anticipation based on the application of general laws. Although the article did not draw attention in the years immediately after its publication in 1942, soon after the end of World War II the situation changed dramatically, with a proliferation of articles and books on the subject. The fundamental motive of this change of interest among the philosophers was Carl Hempel\'s article and reception, especially after its inclusion in a well-known anthology organized by Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars in 1949, and another one collected by Patrick Gardiner ten years later. In view of the lack of information on the historical, social and political context of the European origins of analytical philosophy before World War II, and especially the scarcity of works that articulate this context with the intellectual production of its main representatives, we have developed this work. We intend to show in this work that Hempel\'s formative context, especially on the educational scene of the German universities, made him a particularly successful bearer of the debate about the epistemological status of the human sciences, hitherto restricted to that community, to the Anglo- Saxon.

The main purpose of this multiple case study is to investigate how high school history teachers in Sweden use historical explanations in their classroom teaching.  Specifically, the study explores how explanations are constructed in the clasroom interactions, and what thinking tools, if any, the teachers use to help students grasp central aspects of the historical explanation in question. The case study is based upon observation data from the classrooms of five Swedish high school teachers. A theoretical underpinning of this study is that historical explanations are best understood as cases of complex causality. In order to describe these cases as they are presented in the context of a classroom, a model for analysis is used which draws upon research conclusions from several fields, chiefly instructional theory (Gaea Leinhardt), theory of history (C.Behan McCullagh) and historical thinking (Peter Seixas). The study presents each teacher as a separate case in one chapter, while another chapter focuses on what different tools each teacher uses in his/her explanations. In the last empirical chapter, the teachers’ explanations are discussed in relation to how they emphasize and relate to diffent historical thinking concepts. The study shows that while explanations are intimately interconnected with causality, their use is intertwined with other historical thinking concepts. Furthermore,  teachers use a multitude of different tools when working with  explanations. While certain tools aim at reinforcing students’ thinking about causality, they may simultaneously weaken the explanation’s value for something else, such as historical empathy. Thus, the importance of planning for specific teaching objectives is emphasized by the study. / Förmågan att resonera om orsaker och konsekvenser för att därigenom förklara historiska skeenden är en central förmåga i historisk kunskap. Hur gör lärare när de arbetar med historiska förklaringar i undervisningen? Den frågan är utgångspunkten för denna studie, som bygger på klassrumsstudier av fem yrkesverksamma historielärares undervisning. Särskild vikt läggs vid att identifiera olika redskap som lärarna använder för att tydliggöra olika aspekter av förklaringar i undervisningen.  Undersökningen visar hur förklaringar i undervisningspraktiken påverkas av faktorer som kursinnehåll, elevgrupp och undervisningens målsättningar. Ett antal didaktiska redskap för att arbeta med förklaringar identifieras. Vidare visar undersökningen också hur förklaringar i undervisningspraktiken kan vara sammanflätade med andra aspekter av historisk kunskap, som historisk empati och källhantering.

The thesis focuses on how students learn history in the classroom, more precisely on their possibilities and difficulties in developing competence in the school subject of history. There is a particular emphasis on how they explain and understand historical processes and concepts within the subject of history. Participants are students of different grades, 8–19 years old. The purpose of the study is to explore how students learn history in concrete learning situations and my focus is on the types of knowledge students understand, learn, develop and use in comparison with what they are expected to learn.  This is done based on three fundamental and well-established principles of learning. To examine what kinds of knowledge students need I use three main types of knowledge: declarative content knowledge (facts and concepts), procedural knowledge (knowledge about how to do things) and self-regulatory knowledge (knowledge about how to regulate our memory, thought and learning). I also use concepts and insights from systemic functional linguistics (SFL) in order to explain why the students use language and communicate the way they do. The thesis shows that history is challenging for young students. Young students have difficulties with complex and abstract concepts in history as they treat concepts as facts. Older, more competent, students use concepts on a more abstract level and use different kinds of linguistic resources when formulating explanations of higher complexity, more similar to the way explanations in the domain of history are commonly written. The youngest students and some of the older students lacked factual knowledge, concept knowledge, domain specific self-regulatory knowledge and linguistic resources. Declarative content knowledge and facts are more important and more difficult for young students to understand, develop, organize and learn than previous scholars have shown empirically. Students’ abilities to understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework and to organize and structure facts with the help of concepts at different level of abstraction (conceptual understanding) are crucial. Students also need linguistic resources, both lexical knowledge and knowledge of text structures. Language is crucial both in the process of acquiring knowledge and in the process of communication. In the learning process, teaching is crucial, since individual students’ potential to develop competence depend on the potential of the teacher to discover and engage their preconceptions and arrange for learning in a way that give students the kind of knowledge they need.