芬兰课程改革背景下图书馆员和教师的多元文学观念

Siinamari Ylivuori, Anu Ojaranta
{"title":"芬兰课程改革背景下图书馆员和教师的多元文学观念","authors":"Siinamari Ylivuori, Anu Ojaranta","doi":"10.47989/ir284506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The aim of this study is to describe how the concept of multiliteracies is interpreted by teachers and librarians. Method. Two qualitative research projects involving teachers’ and librarians’ interviews are combined in this study. Individual and group interviews are analysed to explore the conceptions of teachers and librarians on multiliteracies. Analysis. Interviews are analysed using an inductive approach. Data categorisation is discussed and decided by both authors together. Results. The results indicate that there are differences in conceptualising multiliteracies and in the confidence in defining the concept between teachers and librarians. In addition, the concept of multiliteracies is seen as both a skills set and a pedagogical tool. Conclusions. There is a need for conceptual clarification of multiliteracies both in grassroots-level work and in the curriculum context to avoid multiple interpretations of the concept and to guide how multiliteracies could be pedagogically implemented.","PeriodicalId":509289,"journal":{"name":"Information Research an international electronic journal","volume":"59 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Librarians’ and teachers’ conceptions of multiliteracies in the context of Finnish curriculum reform\",\"authors\":\"Siinamari Ylivuori, Anu Ojaranta\",\"doi\":\"10.47989/ir284506\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. The aim of this study is to describe how the concept of multiliteracies is interpreted by teachers and librarians. Method. Two qualitative research projects involving teachers’ and librarians’ interviews are combined in this study. Individual and group interviews are analysed to explore the conceptions of teachers and librarians on multiliteracies. Analysis. Interviews are analysed using an inductive approach. Data categorisation is discussed and decided by both authors together. Results. The results indicate that there are differences in conceptualising multiliteracies and in the confidence in defining the concept between teachers and librarians. In addition, the concept of multiliteracies is seen as both a skills set and a pedagogical tool. Conclusions. There is a need for conceptual clarification of multiliteracies both in grassroots-level work and in the curriculum context to avoid multiple interpretations of the concept and to guide how multiliteracies could be pedagogically implemented.\",\"PeriodicalId\":509289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information Research an international electronic journal\",\"volume\":\"59 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information Research an international electronic journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47989/ir284506\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Research an international electronic journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47989/ir284506","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言。本研究的目的是描述教师和图书馆员如何解释多元文学的概念。研究方法。本研究结合了两个定性研究项目,分别涉及教师和图书馆员的访谈。通过分析个人访谈和小组访谈,探讨教师和图书馆员对多元文 化的概念。分析。采用归纳法对访谈进行分析。数据分类由两位作者共同讨论决定。结果。结果表明,教师和图书馆员对多元文盲概念的理解存在差异,对定义这一概念的信心也不尽相同。此外,多元文 化的概念既被视为一套技能,也被视为一种教学工具。结论。无论是在基层工作中还是在课程设置中,都有必要澄清多文 化的概念,以避免对这一概念的多重解释,并指导如何在教学中实施多文化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Librarians’ and teachers’ conceptions of multiliteracies in the context of Finnish curriculum reform
Introduction. The aim of this study is to describe how the concept of multiliteracies is interpreted by teachers and librarians. Method. Two qualitative research projects involving teachers’ and librarians’ interviews are combined in this study. Individual and group interviews are analysed to explore the conceptions of teachers and librarians on multiliteracies. Analysis. Interviews are analysed using an inductive approach. Data categorisation is discussed and decided by both authors together. Results. The results indicate that there are differences in conceptualising multiliteracies and in the confidence in defining the concept between teachers and librarians. In addition, the concept of multiliteracies is seen as both a skills set and a pedagogical tool. Conclusions. There is a need for conceptual clarification of multiliteracies both in grassroots-level work and in the curriculum context to avoid multiple interpretations of the concept and to guide how multiliteracies could be pedagogically implemented.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Who is using ChatGPT and why?: extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model Training in open access for doctoral students: results of a survey of current and recent students and supervisors Regimes of participation: theorising participatory archives from the outset of archivists' views on archival institutions and user participation in Scandinavia Reorienting information searching research by applying a situated abilities perspective Approaches to information-seeking behaviour in psychology: a comparison of early and contemporary studies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1