Planning and preparation (PaP) are vital for high-quality teaching and thus for student learning. Nevertheless, the infrastructure to support teachers' PaP is often poorly developed. This project brings together the fields of subject didactic and school development in order to investigate PaP as part of an organised infrastructure and as qualified activity. We focus how infrastructure can be organised to support PaP in sustainable ways for professional development, efficient for transforming knowledge into relevant teaching activities, and is systematic and dialogic in its formative approach. The aim is to develop knowledge about a didactical collegial practice as well as about its role in the local school infrastructure. Our research-based hypothesis is that teachers PaP benefit from a collegial collaboration (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017) and that the implementation of such a designated work needs the local school management's active support (Jarl et al., 2017). We have followed the commencement and implementation of twelve subject-based planning teams (audio recorded meetings; documents). A modified version of the Tyler-model (Tyler, 1950), and tools from legitimation code theory (Maton, 2014) frames the analysis. The contribution to the fields of subject didactics bridge the knowledge gap about PaP qualities and competencies. It is likewise important for school improvement, as there is a parallel gap about leading PaP as a strategy for improvement. This knowledge is vital for improving school-reform programs, and teacher education. 

This paper reports on a project aiming to develop empirical and theoretical knowledge about teachers' planning and preparations (PaP) of lessons as a didactical collegial practice and how this shapes and is shaped by the local school organization. One goal is to explore and theoretically describe PaP as a collegial practice by contrasting different subjects over time. Another is to analytically explore how these settings affect and enable teachers' ability to make strategic decisions for students' learning. Finally, the aim is to examine local school improvement efforts. The project is based on longitudinal case studies wherein teachers of different school subjects had time to plan and prepare lessons. The collegial setting was organized to facilitate teachers' focus on student learning, primarily subject-oriented and sometimes cross-curricular, but always oriented to a learning object. This design allowed us to study teachers' transformational competence over time and between subjects by following their decisions about content, learning goals and objects, sequencing, and adjusting to students' needs and interests. This design opened up for comparative analyses to better understand similarities and differences between and across subjects. Further, the schools have different management cultures, one more individual and one more collegial. How PaP is implemented and refigured in regard to the local school organization is also examined in the project. We will be asking three research questions: 

• RQ1: How do teachers' PaP appear as a transformational competence when scheduled as collegial collaboration? 
• RQ2: How does the collegial teaching setting affect teachers' ability to make strategic decisions in relation to students' learning? 
• RQ3: How is school leading prefigured in the implementation process of scheduled collegial PaP at participating schools, and what are the implications for the local school organizations? 

What motivates this focus on PaP? In short, we know little about how collegial planning affects teachers' transformational competence and how this may be context-bound to different subjects, nor about its infrastructural function in the local school organization (Hirsh, & Lindberg, 2015; Yuan, & Zhang, 2016). Such evidence-informed knowledge is needed as PaP involves complex strategic decisions that have been shown to benefit from adequate collegial cooperation (Nordgren et al., 2019; 2022). As teachers can make a difference in student learning beyond socio-economic restraints (Hattie, 2008), school authorities and research communities alike have invested in enhancing teachers' professionalism both through collegial and individual strategies (Chetty et al., 2014; Lefstein et al., 2020). Consequently, it is a paradox that planning is largely overlooked as a fundamental activity for generating qualitative teaching. Boeskens and Nusche (2021) note that student learning does not correlate with lesson time as such, but with 'the time students spend engaged with tasks that are of adequate difficulty' (p. 12). To improve teaching quality, teachers have to canalize their knowledge through their PaP. If PaP is compromised due to organizational or ability restrictions, teaching quality will also be compromised. Yet, the role of teachers' planning is seldom distinguished in political reforms nor as a salient practice in school improvement research. In subject-didactical research, the planning–teaching–reflecting cycle is acknowledged as core to teachers' professionalism (Carlson & Daehler, 2019), yet it is seldom targeted for study (Boeskens & Nusche, 2021). Evidence indicates that whether the school improvement efforts target collegial cooperation or teacher leadership, a necessary condition for enduring improvements is teachers' ability to think strategically and autonomously about students’ learning processes (Kennedy, 2016). 

Methodology

Selection: The project was carried out in cooperation with one upper secondary school and one lower secondary school in Sweden. Voluntary schools were selected based on interest and size. In addition, the school leaders had to participate actively, and the teachers had to be allotted joint weekly planning time. The upper secondary school is in a mid-sized city. There are six planning teams organized based on teaching content: history, mathematics (three on three levels), technology, and physics. Each team consists of two to four participants. The whole management team (two directors and six principals) is participating in the project. The lower secondary school is in a municipality. The teachers are divided into six planning teams in one subject, Swedish, each with two teachers. One principal represents the lower secondary school. In total, the project monitors around 25 teachers, nine school leaders, and 600 students. Implementation: Planning teams (PTs) were set up to meet weekly at a scheduled time. Each PT plans and prepares teaching sequences. Each PT had one contact in the research group with subject-didactical expertise. A specific focus was on to what extent the collegial setting supports teachers' formative strategies. School leaders were actively involved in implementing the project. The school leaders met regularly to discuss the project's implications with experts in school development research.

Data: Audio-recorded PT group meetings, audio-recorded interviews with school leaders, and additional planning documents. Analysis procedure: Audio recordings from the PTs has been analyzed thematically. We have developed a framework for categorizing the data. Categories developed a priori (previous research and theory) were combined with categories a posteriori (deductive and inductive steps in the analytical procedure) (e.g. Österholm et al., 2016). The framework makes it possible to navigate the extensive data and analyze singular themes (e.g. teachers' choice of activity), correlation (choice of activity and formative teaching), or the whole iterative process of how teachers transform content plays out over time and in different subjects. Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) and particularly the dimension of Specialization is used to analyze teachers’ transformational competence as they take strategic decisions on students' learning (Maton, 2014). The NVivo coding enables us to search the extensive data to make comparative analyses overtime on what themes different PTs decide to focus. The coded PT meetings are also influential in searching for and unpacking the collegial setting and the complexity of strategic decisions. 

Conclusion

As already mentioned, we have comprehensive data. Our analytical results are preliminary and most of the material has not yet been analyzed. The initial findings can briefly be summarised: Collegial PaP as practice: After a negotiating period, a collegial PaP practice was developed. The teams started targeting specific areas that they wanted to explore. After a while, teachers began to implement research-based models to develop their teaching. PaP as transformation: Teachers do have formative ambitions but struggle to find effective and functional methods. A comparative perspective: Planning teams approach the PaP process differently, which seems to be related to subject-specific causes. For example, the planning team in History spent 36% on specifying objectives and knowledge whereas the planning team in Mathematics spent 5% on that theme. In a closer analysis of the teachers’ interactions, different beliefs about knowledge and knowers appeared where a hierarchical knowledge structure and a horizontal knower structure were identified in Mathematics and a horizontal knowledge structure and a hierarchical knower structure were identified in History (Jakobsson et al., 2022). PaP Implementation: It seems to take a rather limited amount of time for teachers to take PaP ownership. The local management culture seems to be of importance but in a complex way. The results show how methods that support dialogue, intersubjectivity, and unforced consensus enable the progress of an equivalent collaboration (Forssten Seiser, & Portfelt, 2022). In addition, the results reveal how a lack of shared agreements regarding the purpose of collaboration constraints, or even prevents, co-ownership. Hence, PaP is a complex and strategic decision; schools need to consider how to organize this activity adequately. We suggest that this calls for a balance between teachers' time for individual planning and marking and time with colleagues as a supportive setting for joint planning and strategic decisions. 

References

Boeskens, L., & Nusche, D. (2021). "Not enough hours in the day: Policies that shape teachers' use of time". OECD Education Working Papers, No. 245, OECD Publishing.

Carlson, J., & Daehler, K. R. (2019). The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education. In: Hume A., Cooper R., Borowski A. (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers' knowledge for teaching science (pp. 77-92). Springer.

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2593-2632.

Forssten Seiser, A., & Portfelt, I. (2022). Critical aspects to consider when establishing collaboration between school leaders and researchers: two cases from Sweden. Educational action research, 1-16.

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement: Routledge.

Hirsh, Å., & Lindberg, V. (2015). Formativ bedömning på 2000-talet–en översikt av svensk och internationell forskning. Vetenskapsrådet

Jakobsson, M., Randahl, A. C., & Nordgren, K. (2022). Planification et préparation collégiale des cours en Suède. Revue internationale d’éducation de Sèvres, (90), 127-137.

Kennedy, M. (2016), "How does professional development improve teaching?", Review of Educational Research, Vol. 86/4, pp. 945-980

Lefstein, A., Vedder-Weiss, D., & Segal, A. (2020). Relocating research on teacher learning: Toward pedagogically productive talk. Educational researcher, 49, 0013189X2092299.

Maton, K. (2014). Building powerful knowledge: The significance of semantic waves. In: B. Barrett & E. Rata (Eds.), Knowledge and the future of the curriculum (pp 181-197). Palgrave studies in excellence and equity in global education. Palgrave Macmillan

Merritt, E. G. (2016). Time for teacher learning, planning critical for school reform. Phi delta kappan, 98(4), 31-36.

Nordgren, K., Bergh, D., Duek, S., Liljekvist, Y., & Jakobsson, M. (2022). Rektorers uppfattningar om undervisningens villkor och en skola på vetenskaplig grund: En uppföljande enkätstudie till undersökningen Lärares planering och efterarbete av lektioner: Infrastrukturer för kollegialt samarbete och forskningssamverkan. Karlstads universitet.

Nordgren, K., Kristiansson, M., Liljekvist, Y., & Bergh, D. (2019). Lärares planering och efterarbete av lektioner: Infrastrukturer för kollegialt samarbete och forskningssamverkan. KUP

Nordgren, K. (2019). Boundaries of historical consciousness: a Western cultural achievement or an anthropological universal? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(6), 779-797. Y

uan, R., & Zhang, J. (2016). Promoting teacher collaboration through joint lesson planning: Challenges and coping strategies. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5), 817–

Österholm, M., Bergqvist, T., Liljekvist, Y., & van Bommel, J. (2016). Utvärdering av Matematiklyftets resultat: slutrapport.Umeå Universitet. 

This chapter aims to discuss history curricula as educational projects in the Anthropocene epoch. Human activity significantly influences the Earth's climate and ecosystem. A lively discussion has debated how this insight should affect school and teaching, often focusing on sustainable development and interdisciplinary projects. In this article, I discuss the conditions of a history curriculum in the Anthropocene era. As a school subject, history is formed around a specialized body of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Possibly, history teaching could contribute a historical gaze on the Anthropocene—as a predicament that is complex but possible to understand. However, such an educational ambition would challenge the subject's traditional epistemology. A historical outlook from the Anthropocene points toward new temporal divisions and new ways of understanding historical significance. From a curricular perspective, the question of how to story the Anthropocene is related to teaching strategies and historical master narratives.

This is a mainly conceptual and argumentative article which presents a model for enquiry-based teaching (Swedish acronym FDU - frågedrivenundervisning). The purpose is to suggest and discuss how enquiry-based teaching can contribute to organising qualified subject teaching in history, religious education and social studies. This is dealt with through two sections. The first section presents a structure for enquiry-based teaching through tested teaching designs in the three subjects, and the second section discusses certain qualities of enquiry-based teaching that we argue should be maintained. Based on actual teaching and teachers' experiences of designing enquiry-based teaching, the article positions FDU as a subject didactic teaching model. Hordern's (2022) framework for normative knowledge practices forms the theoretical starting point for discussing FDU as a subject didactic model that can help teachers in designing, planning, implementing and evaluating qualified subject teaching.The article argues that FDU can be regarded as a normative knowledge practice that is characterised by the qualities of being enquiry-based, prospective, consistent, assessment-oriented, and continuous. 

Föreliggande rapport redovisar resultat från en enkätstudie som riktades till rektorer på grundskola och gymnasium. Undersökningen genomfördes under hösten 2019 inom ramen för ULF (Utbildning, Lärande, Forskning), som är en nationell försöksverksamhet. Målet med försöksverksamheten är att utveckla och pröva hållbara samverkansmodeller mellan akademi och skola vad gäller forskning, skolverksamhet och lärarutbildning.

Enkätstudien syftar till att undersöka om kollegial samverkan runt planering och efterarbete kan utgöra en grund för skolutveckling och forskningssamverkan mellan skola och akademi. Enkäten efterfrågade även hur rektorer ser på forskningens roll i skolan. I rapporten sätts resultat från rektorsenkäten även i relation till en lärarenkät genomförd 2018 (Nordgren et al., 2019).

Våra studier visar att kollegial samplanering runt undervisning skulle kunna vara central för en samverkan om forskning och utveckling. Resultaten påvisar emellertid stora skillnader mellan hur rektorer och lärare uppfattar villkoren för, och organisationen av utvecklingsarbetet runt undervisning.  Ett annat centralt resultat är att rektorer och lärare visar sig intresserade av forskning och samverkan mellan skola och akademi, men båda grupperna ger uttryck för att deras villkor att systematiskt utveckla sin verksamhet är begränsade.

Denna rapport ger ett omfattande och rikt underlag för lärare, rektorer, forskare och skolpolitiker att reflektera över vilka strategier som kan vara långsiktiga och hållbara för att understödja en skola på vetenskaplig grund.

This paper will present an ongoing research project in a Swedish national programme for cooperation between schools and universities (www.kau.se/ulf ). The aim is to provide knowledge regarding how teachers plan and prepare lessons (PaP) in different subjects so that those techniques can be modelled. Further, by comparing different subjects, we will also learn more about the way in which disciplinary boundaries affect the planning process. RQ: How does collegial cooperation affect the practice and the quality of teacher planning and preparation? PaP is vital for high-quality in teaching and thus for student learning (Hattie, 2008; Mertens et al., 2010). Nevertheless, the infrastructure to support PaP is often poorly developed. In Sweden, as in many other countries, PaP is mainly the responsibility of individual teachers, disconnected from the local school organisation (Darling-Hammond & Rothman, 2011; Ellegård & Vrotsou, 2013; OECD, 2020). Indications of deficiencies in such infrastructures include fragmentation of time for planning, absence of functional collaborative settings, lack of routines and relevant input of new knowledge (Nordgren et al.,2019). This project bring together the fields of subject didactic (e.g. Hudson, 2016) and school development (e.g. Jarl, Blossing, & Andersson, 2017). We argue that PaP is a key to school development and that subject specific knowledge and skills associated with good PaP should be at the centre of teacher professional development (cf. Carlgren, 1999; Deng, 2018) to meet the challenges having creativity, literacy, and critical thinking as central aspects of teaching.In our presentation we will discuss how possibilities and restrains in the collegial setting affect the subject-oriented planning teams. We draw on data from planning team meetings (audio recordings, planning documents, etc.). Subject specific, as well as generic variation in the planning teams’ activity enhance our knowledge on how such designated communities can support PaP.

This study explores how teachers perceive the working conditions for planning and preparing their lessons, focusing on collegial collaboration and systematic and formative teaching. The data were collected through a survey (n = 2285) on infrastructure for teaching development and time for planning and preparation. The results show a systematic correlation between a supportive, collegial structure for planning and preparation and teachers' validation of their teaching and working conditions. However, our findings also indicate that collaborative work is insufficient to support efficient formative teaching and that there are general shortfalls in the infrastructural settings around teachers' planning and preparation. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

In this chapter, I use the metaphor of a 45-degree pedagogical discourse to explore powerful knowledge as a relational concept. I discuss the need for history teaching to interrelate vertical knowledge discourses dynamically and systematically with the horizontal discourses of students’ life-worlds and the political world of public life. This relational understanding is not based on an idea of two equal knowledge systems. As Bernstein (1999) pointed out, these two systems do not fit within a shared hierarchy, because they apply to different dimensions. I would agree with Young and Muller that public education has a specific responsibility to give students access to vertical knowledge discourses, as there are no other institutions where this is done. However, knowledge for its own sake is not an accessible basis for building a curriculum and such a position will inevitably be transmuted into a neoconservative anti-intellectualism. Schools need a principled idea of what constitutes powerful knowledge, but educationalists must also ask the question: ‘powerful for what?’.

Humanity’s ecological footprint has come to threaten the earth’s planetary system. Exponential population growth, energy consumption and mass production have led to critical tipping points that endanger central ecological systems. Processes already initiated will continue to harm life on earth beyond the foreseeable future. To reduce the human impact on the environment, profound lifestyle alterations are necessary. Thus, crisis awareness must go beyond the present and take root in our historical consciousness; crisis is temporary, but learning to live with the consequences will be long term. Nonetheless, history education continues to be arranged around the same anthropocentric and methodological nationalism that dominated modern historicism