<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
         xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
         xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
         xmlns:fabio="http://purl.org/spar/fabio/"
         xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
         xmlns:event="http://purl.org/NET/c4dm/event.owl#"
         xmlns:ore="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/">

    <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://ris.uni-paderborn.de/record/67664">
        <ore:isDescribedBy rdf:resource="https://ris.uni-paderborn.de/record/67664"/>
        <dc:title>Students interpret historical culture: Insights from two data collection settings in an exploratory design</dc:title>
        <bibo:authorList rdf:parseType="Collection">
            <foaf:Person>
                <foaf:name></foaf:name>
                <foaf:surname></foaf:surname>
                <foaf:givenname></foaf:givenname>
            </foaf:Person>
            <foaf:Person>
                <foaf:name></foaf:name>
                <foaf:surname></foaf:surname>
                <foaf:givenname></foaf:givenname>
            </foaf:Person>
        </bibo:authorList>
        <bibo:abstract>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.</bibo:abstract>
        <bibo:volume>4</bibo:volume>
        <bibo:issue>1</bibo:issue>
    </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
