Mostra i principali dati dell'item
Practice vs. Theory and Rüsen’s New Historik
| dc.contributor.author | Demantowsky, Marko | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-05-18T08:57:23Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-05-18T08:57:23Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Marko Demantowsky, Practice vs. Theory and Rüsen’s New Historik, «Public history weekly», 1, 2013, n. 14, [Consultabile solo online], dx.doi.org/10.1515/phw-2013-889 | it_IT |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2197-6376 | it_IT |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://public-history-weekly.degruyter.com/1-2013-14/praxis-vs-theorie-und-ruesens-neue-historik/ | it_IT |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://elea.unisa.it:8080/xmlui/handle/10556/6059 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.14273/unisa-4151 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The article takes Jörn Rüsen’s new book on the theory of history as an opportunity to think more closely about the relationship between theory and practice, especially when it comes to teaching in the field of public history. The argumentation is based on recent research in the psychology of learning. | it_IT |
| dc.description.abstract | Die Praxis als Fetisch? “Theorie” ist ein geschichtsdidaktisches Zauberwort zur Professionalisierungsprovokation. Die meisten Studierenden wollen sie nicht und ertragen sie nur widerwillig. Vielen praktizierenden LehrerInnen aller Berufsphasen geht es ebenso, wenn sie ihnen in den seltenen Fortbildungen oder in den (nicht oft gelesenen) geschichtsdidaktischen Texten begegnet. | it_IT |
| dc.format.extent | Solo online | it_IT |
| dc.language.iso | de | it_IT |
| dc.publisher | M. Demantowsky, Practice vs. Theory and Rüsen’s New Historik, «Public history weekly», 1, 2013, n. 14 | it_IT |
| dc.rights | CC BY 4.0 | it_IT |
| dc.source | UniSa. Sistema Bibliotecario di Ateneo | it_IT |
| dc.title | Practice vs. Theory and Rüsen’s New Historik | it_IT |
| dc.type | Article | it_IT |
| dc.relation.ispartofjournal | Public history weekly. The open peer review journal | it_IT |
