Vibeke Lorentzen, Mari-Ann Igland, Randi Solheim
{"title":"Skriving i naturfag : En analyse av nettbaserte undervisningsressurser fra to nasjonale sentre","authors":"Vibeke Lorentzen, Mari-Ann Igland, Randi Solheim","doi":"10.23865/NJLR.V6.2072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Denne artikkelen er basert pa en studie av et utvalg ressurser om skriving i naturfag, hentet fra nettsidene til Skrivesenteret og Naturfagsenteret. I Laereplanverket for Kunnskapsloftet inngar skriving som grunnleggende ferdighet i alle fag, som en gjennomgaende og tverrfaglig kompetanse. De nasjonale sentrene skal, ifolge sine mandat, stotte skolene i arbeidet med a implementere de grunnleggende ferdighetene. Sporsmalet vi soker svar pa i denne artikkelen, er hvordan fagrelevant skriving og skriveopplaering er forstatt og formidlet i nettressurser fra de to sentrene. Analysene viser at faginnhold og faglige uttrykk vektlegges pa ulike mater, noe som kan knyttes til ulike syn pa faglig literacy. Mens Naturfagsenterets skrivedidaktiske ressurser primaert presenterer fagovergripende perspektiver pa skriving i naturfag, legger Skrivesenteret i storre grad vekt pa fagspesifikke spraktrekk og uttrykksmater. Disse funnene blir droftet i lys av literacy-forskning og utdanningspolitiske endringer. \nEnglish abstract \nEnglish title: Writing in science education: An analysis of web-based resources from two national centres \nThis article is based on a study of web-based resources for writing in science education, published by The Norwegian Centre for Science Education and the Norwegian Centre for Writing Education and Research. The Norwegian Curriculum includes writing as a basic skill in all subjects, as a comprehensive and interdisciplinary competence. The national centres should, according to their mandates, support schools in their efforts to implement the statutory basic skills. The question we seek answer to in this article, is how disciplinary writing and writing education is understood and communicated in the two centres’ web resources. The analysis shows that subject content and subject discourse are emphasized in different ways. This can be related to different perspectives on academic literacy. While the Norwegian Centre for Science Education’s writing resources primarily present generic perspectives on writing, the Writing Centre places greater emphasis on linguistic and textual features of scientific texts. These findings are discussed against a backdrop of literacy research and educational policies.","PeriodicalId":315285,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Literacy Research","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Literacy Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23865/NJLR.V6.2072","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

这篇文章基于对自然景观保护的实用资源的研究,该研究以自然景观保护和自然景观保护的网络为基础。在澳大利亚自然保护区规划局(Laereplanverket for Kunnskapsloftet)中,滑冰是所有领域中最重要的一项任务,也是一项艰巨而富有挑战性的任务。国家机构将根据其任务规定,在工作中为员工提供支持,帮助他们实现目标。在本文中,我们将讨论如何将与性别相关的工作和工作计划纳入到我们的工作中。通过分析可以发现,与母语相关的知识和技能可以帮助我们更好地理解与母语相关的知识和技能。自然科学中心的研究人员首先从不同角度介绍了自然科学的发展,并从不同层面介绍了自然科学的探索和应用。这些功能将在扫盲和教育政策中得到体现。English abstract English title:科学教育中的写作:对两个国家中心提供的网络资源的分析 本文基于对挪威科学教育中心(The Norwegian Centre for Science Education)和挪威写作教育与研究中心(Norwegian Centre for Writing Education and Research)出版的科学教育写作网络资源的研究。挪威的教学大纲将写作列为所有学科的基本技能,是一种跨学科的综合能力。国家中心应根据其任务授权,支持学校努力落实法定的基本技能。本文试图回答的问题是,在两个中心的网络资源中,学科写作和写作教育是如何被理解和传播的。分析表明,学科内容和学科话语以不同的方式得到强调。这可能与对学术素养的不同看法有关。挪威科学教育中心的写作资源主要从通用角度介绍写作,而写作中心则更加重视科学文本的语言和文字特征。这些研究结果将在扫盲研究和教育政策的背景下进行讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Skriving i naturfag : En analyse av nettbaserte undervisningsressurser fra to nasjonale sentre
Denne artikkelen er basert pa en studie av et utvalg ressurser om skriving i naturfag, hentet fra nettsidene til Skrivesenteret og Naturfagsenteret. I Laereplanverket for Kunnskapsloftet inngar skriving som grunnleggende ferdighet i alle fag, som en gjennomgaende og tverrfaglig kompetanse. De nasjonale sentrene skal, ifolge sine mandat, stotte skolene i arbeidet med a implementere de grunnleggende ferdighetene. Sporsmalet vi soker svar pa i denne artikkelen, er hvordan fagrelevant skriving og skriveopplaering er forstatt og formidlet i nettressurser fra de to sentrene. Analysene viser at faginnhold og faglige uttrykk vektlegges pa ulike mater, noe som kan knyttes til ulike syn pa faglig literacy. Mens Naturfagsenterets skrivedidaktiske ressurser primaert presenterer fagovergripende perspektiver pa skriving i naturfag, legger Skrivesenteret i storre grad vekt pa fagspesifikke spraktrekk og uttrykksmater. Disse funnene blir droftet i lys av literacy-forskning og utdanningspolitiske endringer. English abstract English title: Writing in science education: An analysis of web-based resources from two national centres This article is based on a study of web-based resources for writing in science education, published by The Norwegian Centre for Science Education and the Norwegian Centre for Writing Education and Research. The Norwegian Curriculum includes writing as a basic skill in all subjects, as a comprehensive and interdisciplinary competence. The national centres should, according to their mandates, support schools in their efforts to implement the statutory basic skills. The question we seek answer to in this article, is how disciplinary writing and writing education is understood and communicated in the two centres’ web resources. The analysis shows that subject content and subject discourse are emphasized in different ways. This can be related to different perspectives on academic literacy. While the Norwegian Centre for Science Education’s writing resources primarily present generic perspectives on writing, the Writing Centre places greater emphasis on linguistic and textual features of scientific texts. These findings are discussed against a backdrop of literacy research and educational policies.
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信