<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/"
         xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
         xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
<ListRecords>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/"
           xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/"
           xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
           xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
           xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
   	<dc:title>Students interpret historical culture: Insights from two data collection settings in an exploratory design</dc:title>
   	<dc:creator>Hartung, Olaf</dc:creator>
   	<dc:creator>Grauthoff, Fabian</dc:creator>
   	<dc:subject>Historical culture</dc:subject>
   	<dc:subject>history education</dc:subject>
   	<dc:subject>cultural semiotics</dc:subject>
   	<dc:subject>empirical learning research</dc:subject>
   	<dc:subject>documentary method</dc:subject>
   	<dc:description>This article asks how students interpret objectivations of historical culture and how far data collection settings pre-structure observable interpretive action. Drawing on cultural semiotics, historical culture is conceptualised as a sign system where meaning emerges relationally between sign-carriers and recipients’ reference concepts; the research setting is treated as part of the semiosis under study. Using the documentary method, group discussions with students from various school types are analysed in two settings: sequential discussions of three objectivations (Hermann Monument, Maurizio Cattelan&apos;s sculpture Him (2001), TikTok search results) and of ten photographic icons, varied through wildcards, reasoned selection and Instagram comments. Four groups serve as illustrative cases. Across groups, a shared sequence of interpretive operations emerges (activating knowledge, naming, contextualising, interpreting elements, evaluating morally), whose depth and reflexivity differ. The article contributes a semiotic vocabulary for students’ participation in historical culture and proposes deliberate variation of elicitation settings as a heuristic data source. All findings are exploratory hypotheses.</dc:description>
   	<dc:date>2027</dc:date>
   	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
   	<dc:type>doc-type:article</dc:type>
   	<dc:type>text</dc:type>
   	<dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501</dc:type>
   	<dc:identifier>https://ris.uni-paderborn.de/record/67664</dc:identifier>
   	<dc:source>Hartung O, Grauthoff F. Students interpret historical culture: Insights from two data collection settings in an exploratory design. &lt;i&gt;Historisches Denken, Kultur und Bildung (HTCE)&lt;/i&gt;. 4(1).</dc:source>
   	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
   	<dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/issn/3042-478X</dc:relation>
   	<dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>
</ListRecords>
</OAI-PMH>
