Pedagogik för att levandegöra historia : en jämförelse av musei- och arkivpedagogik med hänsyn till historieförmedling
Sammanfattning: The pedagogic purposes and ambitions of both museums and archives are in many ways alike. Their intentions and purposes as institutions in our society are also in many ways very similar to each other, not at least when it comes to the fact that they are both working towards preserving and communicating our cultural heritage and our history. Still though the museums are much better known, recognized and developed when it comes to the pedagogical programs and activities in Sweden. This is the context that act as my starting point for this study. From this I have studied how two museums and two archives in southern Sweden work with history in their pedagogical programming and how they work towards schools with world war two and the holocaust. The research questions being: What distinguishes the pedagogy of museums and what distinguishes the pedagogy of archives? How do they work and what differences and similarities can be found? Which history is mediated and what kind of history is it they want to mediate? I also hope to find out what can they learn form each other when it comes to the future development of the pedagogy for each of them. The study has been carried out as a case study with the main tool being interviews with the responsible personnel at the chosen institutions, but other material has at some points also been taken in and used. This could for example be documentation surrounding the programmes and/or material generated from their work being done. From this has the comparison been made. To find an answer to first and most the second question I’ve been using the theory of history didactics since it deals with questions like: Why history? What is the use of history? etc. and it also provides tools and a useful terminology to study this questions and these problems. When it comes to my first question I found out that the pedagogical work carried out on the institutions I studied were very much alike. They all saw schools as a big target group and they all saw the material conditions at their institution as the most important basis for designing their pedagogical programs. They also had an ambition to teach a scientific way of approaching material. But also wanted the students taking part in the programs to engage themselves and find meaning on a deeper level than usually provided in the school. Talking about how the documents and objects at the institutions could add something “magical” which helped doping exactly that. The defences between them were mostly a matter of their approach to this as the museums focused more on the human aspects and the archives more on the sources. For my second question I found that the institutions with the possible exception of one museum all wanted to build the historical awareness of the students, build and approach their identity in many ways and use places as something that communicates history.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)