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.

Abstract The aim with this study is to examine how practicing history teachers in upper secondary school deal with historical thinking concepts. The three main questions are: which concepts do teachers use in their courses and when do they use them? How can teachers’ use of different historical thinking concepts be described in terms of reconstruction and construction? What factors influence teachers when they work with historical thinking concepts?   To answer these questions, the material, for example tests, lesson plans and notes of seven teachers has been analyzed. These analysis were followed by interviews with the teachers.   The empirical data have been handled in two steps. The first step is a survey of what historical thinking concepts teachers use and when they use them. The survey was done as a detailed reading of the teachers’ material. In this survey two historical thinking concepts, evidence and cause and consequence, have been selected for further analysis, which is the second step.   The results show that when teachers deal with the historical thinking concept of evidence they show their students models and ways to handle evidence. This is not the case when teachers handle the historical thinking concept of cause and consequence. Models are shown here as well but not to the same extent. The result also shows that the teachers’ handling of evidence in a greater extent leads to construction compared with their handling of cause and consequence.   The explanations provided in the study also point to the different character between the two concepts and what form of test the teachers’ use and what words are used to communicate for example cause and consequence. Furthermore, the explanations also indicate that the teachers’ view of what historical knowledge contains of, together with what kind of students and what other subject they teach play some part in their dealing with historical thinking concepts. / Vilka tankeredskap hanterar historielärare i sin undervisning och när framkommer dessa i de kurser lärare undervisar i? Hur hanterar lärare tankeredskap i termer av rekonstruktion och konstruktion? Dessa frågor ställs i denna studie som bygger på en analys av sju lärares undervisningsmaterial och på uppföljande intervjuer med lärarna. I den första delen kartläggs de tankeredskap som lärare hanterar i hela kurser som de undervisar i. Ett resultat av denna del är att orsak och konsekvens är det dominerande tankeredskapet som lärare hanterar. Ett annat resultat är att tankeredskapens förekomst i lärarnas kurser uppvisar stora variationer. I den andra delen sker en fördjupad analys av två tankeredskap, källor och källkritik samt orsak och konsekvens. I denna analys framkommer att lärarnas hanterande av källor och källkritik i större utsträckning kan beskrivas i termer av konstruktion, jämfört med lärarnas hanterande av orsak och konsekvens. I analysen framkommer också att lärare kan hantera tankeredskap i två steg; det som i studien kallas tankeredskap som modell respektive tankeredskap som process. / <p>Ingår i CSD-serien.</p> / Ingår i CSD-serien