Digital educational portals in use in Danish literature teaching – An empirical study of literature didactic activities from publisher-produced learning materials to teaching in lower secondary school

Digital educational portals , Literature analysis, literature interpretation, understanding, didactic learning materials

Between 2012 and 2017, Denmark experienced an extensive digitalization of learning materials, with digital educational portals gaining significant ground in primary and lower secondary school. These portals provide ready-made teaching courses and annual teaching plans, designed with specific didactic intentions. However, little is known about how these materials are used in the upper grades of Danish language arts, where their prevalence is high. This knowledge is important, as publisher-produced didactic learning materials influence the content of teaching when their suggested activities are applied.

In this dissertation, I focus on analytical and interpretive activities, as they play a central role in literature teaching within the Danish subject. Analytical activities might include character or setting analysis, while interpretive activities can concern messages and themes. Previous research has shown that publisher-produced didactic learning materials for literature teaching in the upper grades often adopt an analytical approach, where interpretation plays a minor role. However, it has not been investigated how this prioritization is reflected in actual teaching practices in lower secondary school. A strong focus on analytical activities provides pupils with opportunities to develop their metalanguage, but if interpretive activities are pushed too far into the background, there is a risk that pupils will not sufficiently engage with what texts convey about human beings and the world. Focusing on analysis and interpretation in literature teaching in lower secondary Danish, I thus aim to investigate which activities are suggested, planned, and conducted in three 8th-grade classes, as well as how these activities are prioritized. On this basis, I provide an overall picture of their literature teaching.

Adopting a sociocultural perspective, I map the interplay between literature-didactic activities in learning materials from educational portals, lesson planning, and classroom teaching. A key analytical distinction is made between intended teaching (activities suggested by the learning material authors and planned by the teachers) and enacted teaching (activities actually carried out in the classroom). This distinction is used to first separate the three empirical foci and then synthesize the overall picture. The intended and enacted activities are analyzed using a classification system developed abductively from the empirical data. The result of this work was the development of ten concepts with accompanying definitions: perception, experience, knowledge, understanding, analysis, interpretation, evaluation, contextualization, framing, and assessment. By incorporating a broad palette of concepts, this theoretical framework enabled a nuanced exploration of analytical and interpretive activities, allowing them to be mapped in interaction with other equally important activities in literature teaching.

The dissertation is based on a case study of three 8th-grade classes, where I use a combination of document analysis and video observation analysis to map the suggested, planned, and enacted activities. The document analysis maps which activities the authors of the didactic learning materials suggest, which activities the teachers plan for the lessons, and how these activities are prioritized. The video observation analyses map which activities are carried out in practice and how they are prioritized. I analyze the combined data through a quantitatively inspired qualitative content analysis, in which the teaching activities are coded into different categories to identify patterns within and across the three cases between intended and enacted teaching. This approach enables a systematic comparison between the three empirical points, each representing an aspect of the process from learning material to teaching practice, namely the beginning, the middle, and the end.

The study’s findings indicate that in the learning materials, analytical activities are prioritized over interpretive ones, which play a minor role. In practice, however, teachers tend to prioritize activities oriented toward basic understanding rather than analytical and interpretive activities, with the aim of ensuring that pupils understand the text's storyline (e.g., summaries and retellings). These findings depict literature teaching using publisher-produced didactic learning materials where working with what the text says is prioritized over how it works and what it means. On the one hand, the consequence for Danish (L1) in these 8th-grade classes is that pupils have limited opportunities to develop their literary competence. On the other hand, a basic understanding of the text is a prerequisite for pupils’ analytical and interpretive work – and if pupils struggle with reading comprehension, this foundational work becomes necessary. These findings raise questions about what constitutes the most appropriate balance between activities aimed at understanding, analysis, and interpretation.

Overall, the dissertation provides insights into the interplay between publisher-produced didactic learning materials, planning, and classroom practice. The specific contributions consist of six peer-reviewed articles, each highlighting from different angles that basic understanding is prioritized over analysis and interpretation in the three 8th-grade classes, as well as a conceptualization of the communities in which this literary work takes place: communities of understanding. The methodological contribution is a coding manual for qualitative content coding of learning materials and literature teaching for research in learning material and literature didactics, as well as for use in teacher education.

Alexander, R. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Blackwell.

Alvermann, D. E., & Hayes, D. A. (1989). Classroom discussion of content area reading assignments: An intervention study. Reading research quarterly, 24(3), 305-335. https://doi.org/10.2307/747772

Anderson, L. W., & Burns, R. B. (1989). Research in classrooms: The study of teachers, teaching, and instruction. Pergamon Press.

Bach, C. (u.å.). Dig og mig ved daggry. Gyldendal. Hentet 29.03.23 fra https://dansk.gyldendal.dk/forloeb/hovedvaerker/dig-og-mig-ved-daggry

Bachmann, K., Sivesind, K., Afsar, A., & Hopmann, S. (2004). Hvordan formidles læreplanen? En komparativ evaluering av læreplanbaserte virkemidler - deres utforming, konsistens og betydning for læreres praksis. Høyskoleforlaget.

Bachmann, K. E. (2004). Læreboken i reformtider - et verktøy for endring? I G. Imsen (red.), Det ustyrlige klasserommet: om styring, samarbeid og læringsmiljø i grunnskolen (s. 119-143). Universitetsforlaget.

Bakken, J., & Andersson-Bakken, E. (2016). Forståelser av skjønnlitteratur og sakprosa i norskfagets oppgavekultur. Sakprosa, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.5617/sakprosa.3669

Beishuizen, J., Le Grand, J., & van der Schalk, J. (1999). No correlation between inferencing causal relations and text comprehension? Learning and Instruction, 9(1), 37-56.

Bjørndal, C. R. P. (2013). Det vurderende øje: observation, vurdering og udvikling i undervisning og vejledning. Klim.

Blackburn, S. (2008a). Analysis. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001/acref-9780199541430-e-155

Blackburn, S. (2008b). Interpretation. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001/acref-9780199541430-e-1682

Blau, S. D. (2003). The literature workshop: Teaching texts and their readers. Heinemann.

Blikstad-Balas, M. (2014). Lærebokas hegemoni – et avsluttet kapittel? I R. Hvistendahl & A. Roe (red.), Alle tiders norskdidaktiker. Festskrift til Frøydis Hertzberg på 70-årsdagen (s. 325-348). Novus Forlag.

Blikstad-Balas, M. (2017). Key challenges of using video when investigating social practices in education: Contextualization, magnification, and representation. International journal of research & method in education, 40(5), 511-523. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2016.1181162

Blikstad-Balas, M. (2019). Literacy i skolen. Klim.

Blikstad-Balas, M., & Klette, K. (2021). Hvilke læremidler bruker norsklærerne på åttende trinn? En systematisk kartlegging av norskfagets analoge og digitale tekster. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 105(3), 268-281. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2987-2021-03-02

Blikstad-Balas, M., & Roe, A. (2020). Hva foregår i norsktimene? Utfordringer og muligheter i norskfaget på ungdomstrinnet. Universitetsforlaget.

Blok Johansen, M. (2016). Hvad er du? om forskerpositioneringer i pædagogisk forskning. Dansk Pædagogisk Tidsskrift(4).

Borman, K. M., Clarke, C., Cotner, B., & Lee, R. (2006). Cross-case analysis. I J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. B. Elmore, A. Skukauskaiti & E. Grace (red.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (s. 123-139). American Educational Research Association.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

Bremholm, J., Bundsgaard, J., Fougt, S. S., & Skyggebjerg, A. K. (2017). Læremidlernes danskfag. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Bremholm, J., & Skott, C. K. (2019). Teacher planning in a learning outcome perspective: A multiple case study of mathematics and L1 Danish teachers. Acta didactica Norge, 13(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.5540

Brinkmann, S. (2020). Etik i en kvalitativ verden. I S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (red.), Kvalitative metoder: En grundbog (s. 581-600). Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Brodersen, P., Laursen, P. F., Agergaard, K., Nielsen, N. G., & Gissel, S. T. (2015). Effektiv undervisning: didaktiske nærbilleder fra klasserummet. Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. I J. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann & G. M. Lloyd (red.), Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction (s. 17–36). Routledge.

Bundsgaard, J., Bindslev, S., Caeli, E. N., Pettersson, M., & Rusmann, A. (2019). Danske elevers teknologiforståelse. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Bundsgaard, J., Bindslev, S. G., Caeli, E. N., Grønhøj, E., & Rasmussen, E. (2024). Danske elevers teknologiforståelse og skærmbrug: Resultater fra ICILS-undersøgelsen 2023. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Bundsgaard, J., Buch, B., & Fougt, S. S. (2017a). De anvendte læremidlers danskfag belyst kvantitativt. I J. Bremholm, J. Bundsgaard, S. S. Fougt & A. K. Skyggebjerg (red.), Læremidlernes danskfag (s. 28-54). Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Bundsgaard, J., Buch, B., & Fougt, S. S. (2017b). Metoden bag den kvantitative undersøgelse af danskfagets læremidler. I J. Bremholm, J. Bundsgaard, S. S. Fougt & A. K. Skyggebjerg (red.), Læremidlernes danskfag (s. 55-77). Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Bundsgaard, J., & Hansen, T. I. (2011). Evaluation of learning materials: a holistic framework. Journal of learning design, 4(4), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v4i4.87

Bundsgaard, J., & Hansen, T. I. (2016). Blik på undervisning: Rapport om observationsstudier af undervisning gennemført i demonstrationsskoleforsøgene. Læremiddel.dk.

Bundsgaard, J., & Hansen, T. I. (2018). Blik på undervisning. I J. Bundsgaard, M. Georgsen, S. Graf, T. I. Hansen & C. K. Skott (red.), Skoleudvikling med IT: Forskning i tre demonstrationsskoleforsøg (s. 106-142). Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Burkett, C., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). “Getting the point” of literature: Relations between processing and interpretation. Discourse Processes, 53(5-6), 457-487. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1169969

Burkhauser, M. A., & Lesaux, N. K. (2017). Exercising a bounded autonomy: Novice and experienced teachers' adaptations to curriculum materials in an age of accountability. Journal of curriculum studies, 49(3), 291-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1088065

Carlsen, D., Christiansen, R. B., Gissel, S. T., Graf, S. T., & Slot, M. F. (2013). En digital læremiddelkultur på vej – it og digitalt læremiddelbrug i Vordingborg Kommunes skoler. Læremiddeldidaktik, 6(1), 4-16.

Carlsen, D., Reusch, C., Lorentzen, R. F., & Oksbjerg, M. (2024). Hvad karakteriserer elevers læsepraksisser i danskundervisningen med digitale fagportaler? Acta Didactica Norden, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.10782

Červenková, I., Václavík, M., & Sikorová, Z. (2023). Ways of using textbooks and digital resources by teachers and students in the lower secondary schools. The new educational review, 71(1), 24-34. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.23.71.1.02

Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading research quarterly, 36(4), 378-411. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.4.3

Christophe, B., Bock, A., Fuchs, E., Macgilchrist, F., Otto, M., & Sammler, S. (2018). New directions. I E. Fuchs & A. Bock (red.), The Palgrave Handbook of Textbook Studies (s. 413-421). Palgrave Macmillan.

Christophersen, J. (2004). Empirisk samfunnsfag eller lærebokfag? I K. Klette (red.), Fag og arbeidsmåter i endring? Tidsbilder fra norsk grunnskole (s. 101-117). Universitetsforlaget.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

Crow, G., Wiles, R., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2006). Research ethics and data quality: The implications of informed consent. International journal of social research methodology, 9(2), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600595231

Cutcliffe, J. R., & Ramcharan, P. (2002). Leveling the playing field? Exploring the merits of the ethics-as-process approach for judging qualitative research proposals. Qualitative health research, 12(7), 1000-1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120313

Danielsen, A. M. M. (2021). Dialog og læremiddelbrug: Den stilladserede dialogs betydning for elevers læremiddelbrug i historieundervisningen. Learning Tech(9), 179-206. https://doi.org/10.7146/lt.v6i9.124190

Datatilsynet. (2023). Foranstaltning: pseudonymisering og anonymisering. https://www.datatilsynet.dk/regler-og-vejledning/behandlingssikkerhed/katalog-over-foranstaltninger/pseudonymisering-og-anonymisering.

Deane, P. (2020). Building and justifying interpretations of texts: A key practice in the English language arts. ETS research report series, 2020(1), 1-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12304

Decesare, M. (2007). A textbook approach to teaching: Structural uniformity among American high school sociology courses. The American sociologist, 38(2), 178-190.

Deloitte. (2018). Analyse af markedet for digitale læremidler på ungdomsuddannelserne. Rapport til Styrelsen for It og Læring. https://www.uvm.dk/-/media/filer/uvm/aktuelt/pdf18/180601-bilag-4--deloitte---analyse-af-markedet-for-digitale-laeremidler-paa-ungdomsuddannelser.pdf.

Dolin, J. (2020). Evaluering på godt og ondt. Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Dorfman, M. H. (1996). Evaluating the interpretive community: Evidence from expert and novice readers. Poetics, 23(6), 453-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(96)00004-6

Earthman, E. A. (1992). Creating the virtual work: Readers' processes in understanding literary texts. Research in the teaching of English, 26(4), 351-384.

Ebrahim, H. B. (2010). Situated ethics: Possibilities for young children as research participants in the South African context. Early child development and care, 180(3), 289-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430701822958

Edling, A. (2006). Abstraction and authority in textbooks: The textual paths towards specialized language [Doctoral thesis, Uppsala University].

Eisenhart, M. (2006). Representing qualitative data. I J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. B. Elmore, A. Skukauskaité & E. Barbara (red.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (s. 567-581). American Educational Research Association.

Elf, N., & Hansen, T. I. (2018). Hvad vi ved om undersøgelsesorienteret undervisning i dansk: og hvordan vi kan bruge denne viden til at skabe bedre kvalitet i danskfagets litteraturundervisning i grundskolen (N. Elf & T. I. Hansen, red.). Læremiddel.dk. http://laeremiddel.dk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Forunders%C3%B8gelse-delrapport-2-dansk.pdf

Elkjær, B. (2012). Et indblik i pragmatisk læringsteori - med udsigt til fremtiden. I K. Illeris (red.), 49 tekster om læring (s. 317-329). Samfundslitteratur.

EMU. (2019). Vejledning til faget dansk. https://emu.dk/sites/default/files/2020-06/GSK_Vejledning_Dansk_2020.pdf.

Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. I J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. B. Elmore, A. Skukauskaité & E. Barbara (red.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (s. 177-191). American Education Research Association.

Ertbølle, S.-C. (u.å.). Sci-fi: fremtiden er her nu. Alinea. Hentet 29.03.2023 fra https://dansk.alinea.dk/course/A9ro-sci-fi-fremtiden-er-her-nu?portalclick=coursessection

EVA. (2009). Undervisningsmidler i folkeskolen: Undersøgelse af hvordan lærerne vælger og bruger undervisningsmidler. Rapport. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut.

FFM. (2019). Forenklede Fælles Mål. Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet. https://www.emu.dk/sites/default/files/2020-09/GSK_F%C3%A6llesM%C3%A5l_Dansk.pdf.

Fish, S. E. (1980). Is there a text in this class?: The authority of interpretive communities. Harvard University Press.

Fjørtoft, S. O., Thun, S., & Buvik, M. P. (2019). Monitor 2019 - En deskriptiv kartlegging av digital tilstand i norske skoler og barnehager. SINTEF Digital.

Flick, U. (2023). An introduction to qualitative research (7. udg.). SAGE.

Fog, J. (2004). Med samtalen som udgangspunkt - Det kvalitative forskningsinterview. Akademisk Forlag.

Gabrielsen, I. L., & Blikstad-Balas, M. (2020). Hvilken litteratur møter elevene i norskfaget?: En analyse av hvilke skjønnlitterære verk som inngår i 178 norsktimer på åttende trinn. Edda, 107(2), 85-99. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1500-1989-2020-02-02

Gabrielsen, I. L., Blikstad-Balas, M., & Tengberg, M. (2019). The role of literature in the classroom: How and for what purposes do teachers in lower secondary school use literary texts? L1-educational studies in language and literature, 19, 1. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.01.13

Gabrielsen, I. L., & Oksbjerg, M. (2022). Læremiddelbruk i litteraturundervisningen – en sammenligning av dansk og norsk grunnskolepraksis. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 106(1), 56-68. https://doi.org/10.18261/npt.106.1.6

Galda, L. (1990). A Longitudinal Study of the Spectator Stance as a Function of Age and Genre. Research in the teaching of English, 24(3), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte199015490

Gallagher, M., Haywood, S. L., Jones, M. W., & Milne, S. (2010). Negotiating informed consent with children in school-based research: A critical review. Children & society, 24(6), 471-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2009.00240.x

GDPR. (2016). Forordninger: Europa-parlamentets og rådets forordning (EU). Den Europæiske Unions Tidende. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DA/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=DA

Gerrig, R. J., & Wenzel, W. G. (2015). The role of inferences in narrative experience. I E. J. O'Brian, A. E. Cook & R. F. Lorch (red.), Inferences During Reading (s. 362-385). Cambridge University Press.

Gildersleeve, R. E. (2010). Dangerously important moment(s) in reflexive research practices with immigrant youth. International journal of qualitative studies in education, 23(4), 407-421. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.492809

Gilje, Ø. (2017). Læremidler og arbeidsformer i den digitale skolen. Fagbokforlaget.

Gilje, Ø. (2021). På nye veier: Læremidler og digitale verktøy fra kunnskapsløftet til fagfornyelsen. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 105(2), 227-241. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2987-2021-02-10

Gilje, Ø., Bjerke, Å., & Thuen, F. (2020). Gode eksempler på praksis: Undervisning i en-til-en-klasserommet. Rapport. Universitetet i Oslo.

Gilje, Ø., Ingulfsen, L., Dolonen, J. A., Furberg, A., Rasmussen, I., Kluge, A., Knain, E., Mørch, A., Naalsund, M., & Skarpaas, K. G. (2016). Med ARK&APP: Bruk av læremidler og ressurser for læring på tvers av arbeidsformer. Rapport. Universitetet i Oslo.

Gissel, S. T. (2015). Læreres brug af iSkriv. Læremiddeldidaktik, 8(1), 42-60.

Gissel, S. T. (2021). Læreres brug af digitale fagportaler i L1-undervisningen. Norsk pedagogisk tidskrift, 105(3), 282-295. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2987-2021-03-03

Gissel, S. T., & Buch, B. (2020). A systematic review of research on how students and teachers use didactic learning materials in L1. Learning Tech(7), 90-129. https://doi.org/10.7146/lt.v5i7.117281

Gissel, S. T., Buch, B., Oksbjerg, M., Kjeldsen, K., & Lytje, M. (2023). Lærervejledningslandskabet i Danmark. Learning Tech(12), 41-74. https://doi.org/10.7146/lt.v7i12.132029

Gissel, S. T., Carlsen, D., Buch, B., & Skov, L. I. (2021). Læremidler og læremiddelbrug i L1 i Danmark: Læreres ibrugtagning, didaktisering og redidaktisering af didaktiske, semantiske og funktionelle læremidler i danskundervisningen. Learning Tech(9), 80-119. https://doi.org/10.7146/lt.v6i9.124762

Gissel, S. T., & Hansen, T. I. (2021a). Learning materials between didactic potential and control: The Danish teacher as inscribed in and mediator of the learning material. I M. Roos, K. L. Berge, H. Edgren, P. Hiidenmaa & C. Matthiesen (red.), Exploring Textbooks and Cultural Change in Nordic Education 1536-2020 (s. 302-317). Brill.

Gissel, S. T., & Hansen, T. I. (2021b). Tilbage til teksten. Hans Reitzel.

Goetz, E. T., & Sadoski, M. (1996). Imaginative processes in literary comprehension. I R. J. Kreuz & M. S. MacNealy (red.), Empirical Approaches to Literature and Aesthetics (s. 221-240). Bloomsbury Publishing.

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in education research. Academic Press.

Goldman, S. R., McCarthy, K. S., & Burkett, C. (2015). Interpretive inferences in literature. I E. J. O'Brian, A. E. Cook & R. F. Lorch (red.), Inferences During Reading (s. 386-415). Cambridge University Press.

Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2000). Case study and generalization. I R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (red.), Case Study Method (s. 98-115). SAGE Publications.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A pace called school: Prospects for the future. McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Gourvennec, A. F., & Sønneland, M. (2023). Examining the value of literary conversations: A critical mapping review of research into literary conversations in Scandinavian L1 classrooms. L1-educational studies in language and literature, 23(2), 1-28.

Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological review, 101(3), 371-395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371

Graf, S. T., Gissel, S. T., & Slot, M. F. (2018). Course designs in Meebook’s course builder: analysis of 102 course designs. Læring og medier, 11(18). https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v10i18.97399

Graham, A., Powell, M. A., & Taylor, N. (2015). Ethical research involving children: Encouraging reflexive engagement in research with children and young people. Children & society, 29(5), 331-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12089

Graneheim, U. H., Lindgren, B.-M., & Lundman, B. (2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse education today, 56, 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002

Graves, B., & Frederiksen, C. H. (1991). Literary expertise in the description of a fictional narrative. Poetics (Amsterdam), 20(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(91)90031-J

Grepstad, O. (1997). Det litterære skattkammer: sakprosaens teori og retorikk. Det Norske Samlaget.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. SAGE.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. Jossey-Bass.

Gygax, P., Garnham, A., & Oakhill, J. (2004). Inferring characters' emotional states: Can readers infer specific emotions? Language and cognitive processes, 19(5), 613-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000016

Gøttsche, N. B. (2019). Det var nok mit største ønske at kunne blive bedre til at læse: et kvalitativt Verbal Protocol-studie af hvordan læseforståelsesvanskeligheder manifesterer sig i overbygningens litteraturundervisning i grundskolen [Ph.d.-afhandling, DPU - Danmarks Institut for Pædagogik og Uddannelse, Aarhus Universitet]. København.

Hagen, E. B. (2003). Hva er litteraturvitenskab. Universitetsforlaget.

Hanauer, D. (1998). The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: Reading poetry and encyclopedic items. Poetics (Amsterdam), 26(2), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(98)00011-4

Hanghøj, T. (2007). Når elever sætter politik i spil – om læringsspil og scenariekompetence i undervisningen. I F. B. Olsen (red.), Læremidler i didaktisk sammenhæng: En antologi (s. 59-76). Institut for Filosofi, Pædagogik og Religionsstudier.

Hansen, J. J. (2012). Dansk som undervisningsfag: Perspektiver på didaktik og design. Dansklærerforeningens Forlag.

Hansen, J. J. (2014). Læremiddellandskabet: fra læremiddel til undervisning. Akademisk.

Hansen, J. J. (2024). Fagspecifik literacy i danskfaget: udvikling og afprøvning af en fagspecifik literacy-model. Acta Didactica Norden, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.10799

Hansen, T. I. (2012). Udtryk og medier. I S. T. Graf, J. J. Hansen & T. I. Hansen (red.), Læremidler i didaktikken: didaktikken i læremidler (s. 165-197). Klim.

Hansen, T. I. (2015). DANSK. Klim.

Hansen, T. I., Elf, N., Misfeldt, M., Gissel, S. T., & Lindhardt, B. (2020). Kvalitet i dansk og matematik: et lodtrækningsforsøg med fokus på undersøgelsesorienteret dansk- og matematikundervisning. Slutrapport. KiDM. http://laeremiddel.dk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Slutrapport-Kvalitet-i-dansk-og-matematik.pdf

Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. Sage.

Heinonen, J.-P. (2005). Opetussunnitelmat vai oppimateriaalit. Peruskoulun opettajien käsityksiä opetussuunnitelmien ja oppimateriaalien merkityksestä opetuksessa [Læreplaner eller læringsmaterialer. Grundskolelærernes opfattelse af betydningen af læseplaner og læremidler i undervisningen]. Helsingfors Universitet.

Helmke, A. (2013). Undervisningskvalitet og lærerprofessionalitet - diagnosticering, evaluering og udvikling af undervisning. Dafolo.

Henkel, A. Q., Frydensbjerg, J., Michaelsen, U. M., Jakobsen, J. T., & Simonsen, A. C. H. (2023). Grib litteraturen - 50 litteraturdidaktiske greb: Lærerens håndbog til en meningsfuld litteraturundervisning. Gyldendal.

Hennig, Å. (2010). Litterær forståelse: innføring i litteraturdidaktikk. Gyldendal Akademisk.

Hillocks, G., & Ludlow, L. H. (1984). A taxonomy of skills in reading and interpreting fiction. American educational research journal, 21(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021001007

Hodgson, J., Rønning, W., Skogvold, A. S., & Tomlinson, P. (2010). På vei fra læreplan til klasserom - om læreres fortolkning, planlegging og syn på LK06. Nordland Research Institute.

Horsley, M., & Sikorová, Z. (2014). Classroom teaching and learning resources: International comparisons from TIMSS − a preliminary review. Orbis Scholae, 8(2), 43-60. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2015.65

Horsley, M., & Walker, R. (2005). Textbook pedagogy: A sociocultural analysis. I M. Horsley, S. V. Knudsen & S. Selander (red.), Has Past Passed? Textbooks and Educational Media for the 21st Century (s. 47–69). HLS.

Johannesen, H. J. (2021). Kontroversielle aspekter i historieundervisningen - Fortællinger og læremidler i brug i 7.-9. klasse. Learning Tech(9), 151-176.

Johansen, M. B. (2018). Etisk afgørende øjeblikke – en pragmatisk-dualistisk forskningsetik. Studier i pædagogisk filosofi, 6(2), 58-72. https://doi.org/10.7146/spf.v6i2.25894

Johansson, M. (2015a). Att bygga upp en förståelse - några aspekter på meningsskapande i svenska och franska gymnasieelevers läsning av en skönlitterär text. I T. Michael & C. Olin-Scheller (red.), Svensk forskning om läsning och läsundervisning (s. 157-168).

Johansson, M. (2015b). Läsa, förstå, analysera: En komparativ studie om svenska och franska gymnasieelevers reception av en narrativ text [Ph.d.-afhandling, Linköpings Universitet].

Jones, M., & Stanley, G. (2008). Children’s lost voices: Ethical issues in relation to undertaking collaborative, practice‐based projects involving schools and the wider community. Educational Action Research, 16(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790701833089

Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. The Journal of the learning sciences, 4(1), 39-103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2

Jørgensen, M. (2019). Tæt på litteratur: fagdidaktik og metode. Hans Reitzel.

Kabel, K. (2016). Danskfagets litteraturundervisning: Et casestudie af elevers skriftsproglige måder at skabe stillingtagen på i udskolingen [Ph.d.-afhandling, DPU - Danmarks Institut for Pædagogik og Uddannelse]. København.

Kaspersen, P. (2004). Tekstens transformationer: En undersøgelse af fortolkningen af den litterære tekst i det almene gymnasiums danskundervisning [Ph.d.-afhandling, University of Southern Denmark]. Odense.

Kaspersen, P. (2012). Litteraturdidaktiske positioner. I M. Jørgensen (red.), Videre i teksten - Litteraturpædagogiske positioner og muligheder (s. 61-74). Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Kelle, U. (2004). Computer-assisted analysis of qualitative data. I U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff & I. Steinke (red.), A Companion to Qualitative Research (s. 276-283). SAGE Publications.

Kispal, A. (2008). Effective teaching of inference skills for reading. Literature review. Research Report DCSF-RR031. National Foundation for Educational Research.

Kjeldsen, C. C., Kristensen, R. M., Bindslev, S. G., & Christensen, A. A. (2021). Matematik og natur/teknologi i 4. klasse: Sammenfatning af TIMSS-undersøgelsen 2019. Aarhus Universitetsforlag. https://unipress.dk/media/18397/timss2019_sammenfatning.pdf

Klette, K., & Blikstad-Balas, M. (2018). Observation manuals as lenses to classroom teaching: pitfalls and possibilities. European educational research journal EERJ, 17(1), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117703228

Klette, K., Blikstad-Balas, M., & Roe, A. (2017). Linking instruction and student achievement. A research design for a new generation of classroom studies. Acta didactica Norge, 11(3), 10. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.4729

Knudsen, H. E. (2021). Brug af læremidler i facilitering af læreprocesser i historieundervisning: Casestudier af historieundervisning på 3. klassetrin. Learning Tech(9), 207-233. https://doi.org/10.7146/lt.v6i9.123757

Knudsen, S. V. (2008). Lærebogen i modvind - nogle teoretiske og metodologiske indspil til studiet i norsk lærebogshistorie. I D. Skjeldbred & B. Aamotsbakken (red.), Norsk lærebokhistorie - en kultur- og danningshistorie: 11 artikler (s. 179-195). Novus Press.

Knudsen, S. V., Graf, S., Hansen, J. J., Hansen, T. I., Haugen, L. I., Honvedt, M., Insulander, E., Maagerø, L. H., Olsen, H. K., Radtka, C., Selander, S., Runestad, A. K. S., Olsen, L. W., & Wikman, T. (2011). Internasjonal forskning på læremidler – en kunnskapsstatus (S. V. Knudsen, red.). Høgskolen i Vestfold.

Kolbeck, G., & Röhl, T. (2018). Textbook practices: reading texts, touching books. I E. Fuchs & A. Bock (red.), The Palgrave Handbook of Textbook Studies (s. 399-410). Palgrave Macmillan.

Kowal, S., & Daniel, C. O. C. (2004). The transcription of conversations. I U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff & I. Steinke (red.), A Companion to Qualitative Research (s. 248-252). SAGE Publications.

Kowal, S., & O'Connell, D. C. (2014). Transcription as a crucial step of data analysis. I U. Flick (red.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (s. 64-78). SAGE.

Kridel, G. (2015). The biographical and documentary milieu. I M. F. He, B. D. Schultz & W. H. Schubert (red.), The SAGE Guide to Curriculum in Education (s. 311-318). SAGE.

Krippendorff, K. H. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.

Kristjánsdóttir, B. (2017). Viden om verden i Fandango 7. I J. Bremholm, J. Bundsgaard, S. S. Fougt & A. K. Skyggebjerg (red.), Læremidlernes danskfag (s. 172-198). Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2023). Qualitative content analysis: methods, practice and software. Sage.

Kuiken, D., Miall, D. S., & Sikora, S. (2004). Forms of self-implication in literary reading. Poetics today, 25(2), 171-203. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-25-2-171

Kurtz, V., & Schober, M. F. (2001). Readers’ varying interpretations of theme in short fiction. Poetics (Amsterdam), 29(3), 139-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(01)00040-7

Kvithyld, T. (2019). Hva skjer når lærere benytter pedagogiske ressurser anbefalt av utdanningsmyndighetene? Nordic journal of literacy research, 5(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.23865/njlr.v5.1431

Kvithyld, T. (2021a). Argumenterende skriving i norskfaget – bidrar bruken av læringsressurser til bedre skriveopplæring? Norsklæreren, 21(3), 54-73.

Kvithyld, T. (2021b). Hvordan iscenesetter to lærere skriveundervisning ut fra den samme pedagogiske ressursen, og hvordan nyttiggjør elevene seg av denne undervisningen når de skriver? Acta Didactica Norden, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.8609

Kvithyld, T. (2022). Muligheter og begrensninger ved bruk av læringsressurser i skriveopplæringen – en komparativ casestudie av to skriveforløp i norskfaget på ungdomstrinnet der samme læringsressurs blir iscenesatt [Ph.d.-afhandling, NTNU].

Langer, J. A. (2011a). Envisioning literature: literary understanding and literature instruction (2. udg.). Teachers College Press.

Langer, J. A. (2011b). Knowledge: Building literacy in the academic disciplines. Teachers College Press.

Larsen, O. S. (2017). Håndbog til dansk: litteratur, sprog, medier. Dansklærerforeningens Forlag.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2. udg.). Academic Press.

Lee, C. D., & Goldman, S. R. (2015). Assessing literary reasoning: text and task complexities. Theory into practice, 54(3), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2015.1044369

Lenski, S., Larson, M., McElhone, D., Davis, D. S., Lauritzen, C., Villagómez, A., Yeigh, M., Landon-Hays, M., LeJeune, M., & Scales, W. D. (2016). What teachers want: A statewide survey of reading and English language arts teachers' instructional materials, preferences, and practices. Literacy research and instruction, 55(3), 237-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2016.1156202

Lesh, R. A., & Lehrer, R. (2000). Iterative refinement cycles of videotape analyses of conceptual change. I A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (red.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education (s. 665-708). Mahwah: LEA.

Levine, S. (2014). Making interpretation visible with an affect-based strategy. Reading research quarterly, 49(3), 283-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.71

Levine, S. (2019a). A century of change in high school English assessments: An analysis of 110 New York State Regents exams, 1900–2018. Research in the teaching of English, 54(1), 31-57. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte201930240

Levine, S. (2019b). Using everyday language to support students in constructing thematic interpretations. The Journal of the learning sciences, 28(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1485023

Levine, S. (2022). Situated expertise in literary interpretation: An expert-expert study of high school and PhD students reading canonical hip-hop and poetry. Cognition and instruction, 40(4), 540-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2022.2092482

Levine, S., Hauser, M., & Smith, M. W. (2022). Authority and authenticity in teachers’ questions about literature in three contexts. English teaching: practice and critique, 21(2), 192-208. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-03-2021-0021

Levine, S., & Horton, W. (2015). Helping high school students read like experts: affective evaluation, salience, and literary interpretation. Cognition and instruction, 33(2), 125-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2015.1029609

Levine, S., & Horton, W. S. (2013). Using affective appraisal to help readers construct literary interpretations. Scientific study of literature, 3(1), 105-136. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.3.1.10lev

Levine, S., Trepper, K., Chung, R. H., & Coelho, R. (2021). How feeling supports students’ interpretive discussions about literature. Journal of literacy research, 53(4), 491-515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X211052249

Lewis, J., & Graham, J. (2007). Research participants' views on ethics in social research: Issues for research ethics committees. Research ethics review, 3(3), 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/174701610700300303

Lewis, W. E., & Ferretti, R. P. (2009). Defending interpretations of literary texts: The effects of topoi instruction on the literary arguments of high school students. Reading & writing quarterly, 25(4), 250-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560903120656

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). The only generalization is: there is no generalization. I R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (red.), Case Study Method (s. 27-44). SAGE Publications.

Lindsey, L., & Berger, N. (2009). Experiential approach to instruction. I C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (red.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: Building a Common Knowledge Base (årg. 3, s. 117-142). Routledge.

Lynggaard, K. (2020). Dokumentanalyse. I S. Brinkmann & L. Tanggaard (red.), Kvalitative metoder: En grundbog (s. 185-202). Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Lützen, P. H. (2003). Analyse og relevans: Grundbog i litterær analyse og fortolkning. Dansklærerforeningen.

Marshall, J. D. (1989). Report: Patterns of discourse in classroom discussions of literature. Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.

Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011: International results in science. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/T11_IR_Science_FullBook.pdf.

Mason, L., Scirica, F., & Salvi, L. (2006). Effects of beliefs about meaning construction and task instructions on interpretation of narrative text. Contemporary educational psychology, 31(4), 411-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.12.001

Maxwell, J. A., & Chmiel, M. (2014). Generalization in and from qualitative analysis. I U. Flick (red.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (s. 541-553). SAGE.

Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. I U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff & I. Steinke (red.), A Companion to Qualitative Research (s. 266-269). SAGE Publications.

Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. I A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping & N. Presmeg (red.), Approaches to Qualitative Research in Mathematics Education: Examples of Methodology and Methods (s. 365-380). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13

Mayring, P. (2022). Qualitative content analysis: A step-by-step guide. SAGE.

McCarthy, K. S. (2015). Reading beyond the lines: A critical review of cognitive approaches to literary interpretation and comprehension. Scientific study of literature, 5(1), 99-128. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.5.1.05mcc

McCarthy, K. S., & Goldman, S. R. (2015). Comprehension of short stories: effects of task instructions on literary interpretation. Discourse Processes, 52(7), 585-608. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.967610

McCarthy, K. S., & Goldman, S. R. (2019). Constructing interpretive inferences about literary text: The role of domain-specific knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 60, 245-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.004

McCarthy, K. S., Magliano, J. P., Levine, S. R., Elfenbein, A., & Horton, W. S. (2021). Constructing mental models in literary reading: The role of interpretive inferences. I D. Kuiken & A. M. Jacobs (red.), Handbook of Empirical Literary Studies (s. 85-118). DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110645958-005

McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological review, 99(3), 440-466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press.

Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British journal of educational psychology, 80(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X479853

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation (4. udg.). Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer Imprints, Wiley.

Merrill, M. D. (2009). First principles of instruction. I C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (red.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: Building a Common Knowledge Base (årg. 3, s. 41-56). Routledge.

Miall, D. S. (2007). Literary reading: empirical and theoretical studies. P. Lang.

Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (1999). What is literariness? Three components of literary reading. Discourse Processes, 28(2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545076

Miall, D. S., & Kuiken, D. (2002). A feeling for fiction: becoming what we behold. Poetics, 30(4), 221-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(02)00011-6

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2 udg.). Sage.

Moravcsik, A. (2019). Transparency in qualitative research. I P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug & R. A. Williams (red.), SAGE Research Methods Foundations. Sage.

Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. Qualitative report, 27(1), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011: International results in mathematics. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/T11_IR_Mathematics_FullBook.pdf.

Møller, H. H., Poulsen, H., & Steffensen, B. (2010). Litteraturundervisning - mellem analyse og oplevelse. Samfundslitteratur.

Maagerø, E. (2010). Teksters tilgjengelighet. Fagspråk. I D. Skjelbred & B. Aamotsbakken (red.), Lesing av fagtekster som grunnleggende ferdighet (s. 185-200). Novus forlag.

Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational studies in mathematics, 62(3), 331-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-5423-y

Nissen, A. (2023). Cognitive activation as an aspect of literature instruction. L1-educational studies in language and literature, 23, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.21248/l1esll.2023.23.1.447

Nissen, A. (2024). Whole-class discussions about literary texts: engaging in dialogue and eliciting literary competence. Nordic journal of literacy research, 10(1), 23-40.

Nissen, A., Tengberg, M., Svanbjörnsdóttir, B. M., Gabrielsen, I. L., & Blikstad-Balas, M. (2021). Function and use of literary texts in Nordic schools. L1-educational studies in language and literature, 21, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2021.21.02.10

Norup, M. S. (2022). Forståelsesfællesskaber. Børn & Bøger, 8, 16-18.

Norup, M. S. (2023). Fra digital fagportal til faktisk undervisning. KvaN, 43(125), 83-96.

Norup, M. S. (2024a). Manual for analytisk kodning af didaktiske læremidler og brug af didaktiske læremidler i danskfagets litteraturundervisning. UC Viden.

Norup, M. S. (2024b). Mønstre i forståelses- og fortolkningsorienterede klassesamtaler i danskfagets litteraturundervisning med digitale fagportaler. Tidsskrift for Æstetik og Pædagogik, 2(1).

Norup, M. S. (2025). Manual for analytisk kodning af didaktiske læremidler og brug af didaktiske læremidler til litteraturundervisning i danskfaget. Læremiddel.dk. laeremiddel.dk/laeremidler/viden-om-laeremidler-2/manual-for-analytisk-kodning-af-didaktiske-laeremidler-og-brug-af-didaktiske-laeremidler-til-litteraturundervisning-i-dansk-og-engelskfaget/

Norup, M. S. (i review-a). Forståelses- og fortolkningsaktiviteter i danskfagets litteraturundervisning – Forlagsproducerede læremidler i brug under planlægning og klassesamtaler. Tidsskrift for danskdidaktisk forskning.

Norup, M. S. (i review-b). Litteraturundervisningens organisering - Læremiddelforfatteres forslag til og læreres faktiske valg af arbejdsformer. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift.

Norup, M. S. (i tryk). Aktivitetsmønstre i litteraturundervisning med didaktiske læremidler – En undersøgelse af prioritering af analytiske og fortolkningsmæssige aktiviteter. Acta Didactica.

Norup, M. S., Gissel, S. T., & Bueie, A. A. (2025). Use of didactic learning materials during whole-class literary conversations. L1-educational studies in language and literature, 25(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21248/l1esll.2025.25.1.740

Norup, M. S., & Rørbech, H. (2025). Litteraturundervisning i udskolingen - En kortlægning af aktiviteter og litteraturdidaktiske tilgange fra læremiddel til klasserum i tre 8. klasser. Learning Tech – Tidsskrift for læremidler, didaktik og teknologi(16), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.7146/lt.v10i16.152586

Nussbaum, M. (1990). Love's knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature. Oxford University Press.

Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the teaching of English, 40(4), 392-412. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte20065107

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1997). The big picture: Language and learning in hundreds of English lessons. I M. Nystrand, A. Gamoran, R. Kachur & C. Prendergast (red.), Opening Dialogue: Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English Classroom (s. 30-74). Teachers College Press.

Oksbjerg, M. (2013). Læremidler og kommunikationskritik: Tendenser i skolens litteraturundervisning i et læremiddelperspektiv. I H. Rørbech (red.), Didaktiske destinationer - 12 bidrag til danskfagets didaktik (s. 77-88). Institut for Uddannelse og Pædagogik (DPU), Aarhus Universitet.

Oksbjerg, M. (2021). Undervisning med litteraturlæremidler på mellemtrinnet [Ph.d.-afhandling, Aarhus universitet]. Aarhus.

Oksbjerg, M. (2023). Læreres redidaktiseringsstrategier: Forståelser af egne strategier og undervisning med et litteraturlæremiddel. Learning Tech(12), 75-102. https://doi.org/10.7146/lt.v7i12.131699

Olsen, F. B. (2007). Lærebogen – en strukturerende ressource eller en spændetrøje? I F. B. Olsen (red.), Læremidler i didaktisk sammenhæng: En antologi (s. 43-58). Institut for Filosofi, Pædagogik og Religionsstudier.

Ottesen, E., & Møller, J. (2010). Underveis, men i svært ulikt tempo. Et blikk inn i ti skoler etter tre år med Kunnskapsløftet: Delrapport 3 Underveisanalyse av Kunnskapsløftet som styringsform.

Penne, S. (2010). Litteratur og film i klasserommet: Didaktikk for ungdomstrinnet og videregående skole. Universitetsforlaget.

Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study. Cognition and instruction, 16(3), 235-263. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1603_1

Peskin, J. (2010). The development of poetic literacy during the school years. Discourse Processes, 47(2), 77–103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959653

Pjedsted, P. D. M. (2020). Det er, som om man er med i bogen - Når elever sanser litterære steder [Ph.d.-afhandling, Aarhus Universitet].

Powell, M. A., Fitzgerald, R., Taylor, N. J., & Graham, A. (2012). International literature review: Ethical issues in undertaking research with children and young people (Literature review for the Childwatch International Research Network). Lismore: Southern Cross University, Centre for Children and Young People/Dunedin: University of Otago, Centre for Research on Children and Families.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: the nature of constructively responsive reading. Erlbaum.

Rabold, J. C. (2019). Approximations of disciplinary literacy in English language arts: An analysis of high school students’ developing understanding of literary analysis [doctoral dissertation, Boston University].

Rambøll. (2018). Indsatsen for it i folkeskolen – evaluering. Rapport til Undervisningsministeriet – Styrelsen for it og læring. https://www.uvm.dk/publikationer/2018/180619-evaluering-af-it-i-folkeskolen.

Rasmussen, I., & Lund, A. (2015). Læringsressurser og lærerrollen – et partnerskap i endring? Acta didactica Norge, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.2352

Rasmussen, M. D. (2019). At se med andres øjne. Et studie af kollektive fortolkningsprocesser i gruppesamtaler i grundskolens litteraturundervisning [Ph.d.-afhandling, Aarhus universitet]. København.

Rasmussen, M. D. (u.å.). Noveller fra 00'erne. Gyldendal. Hentet 29.03.2023 fra https://dansk.gyldendal.dk/forloeb/genrer/noveller-fra-00erne

Reichenberg, O. (2015). Explaining variation in usage of instructional materials in teaching practice: collegial focus and teachers’ decision making power. IARTEM e-journal, 7(2), 22.

Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. I C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (red.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: Building a Common Knowledge Base (årg. 3, s. 3-26). Routledge.

Reynolds, T., & Rush, L. S. (2017). Experts and novices reading literature: An analysis of disciplinary literacy in English language arts. Literacy research and instruction, 56(3), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2017.1299820

Roberts, D. R., & Langer, J. A. (1991). Supporting the process of literary understanding: Analysis of a classroom discussion. Report Series 2.15.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Blackwell Publishing.

Russell, L. (2005). It’s a question of trust: balancing the relationship between students and teachers in ethnographic fieldwork. Qualitative research, 5(2), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794105050834

Rødnes, K. A. (2014). Skjønnlitteratur i klasserommet: Skandinavisk forskning og didaktiske implikasjoner. Acta didactica Norge, 8(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.1097

Rønning, W., Fiva, T., Henriksen, E., Krogtoft, M., Nilsen, N. O., Skogvold, A. S., & Solstad, A. G. (2008). Læreplan, læreverk og tilrettelegging for læring: analyse av læreplan og et utvalg læreverk i naturfag, norsk og samfunnsfag. https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/finn-forskning/rapporter/Lareplan-lareverk-og-tilrettelegging-for-laring-2008/

Rørbech, H. (2017). Litteraturmøder i nyere læremidler. I J. Bremholm, J. Bundsgaard, S. S. Fougt & A. K. Skyggebjerg (red.), Læremidlernes danskfag (s. 199-224). Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Rørbech, H., & Skyggebjerg, A. K. (2020). Concepts of literature in Danish L1-textbooks and their framing of students' reading. L1-educational studies in language and literature, 20(2), 1-23.

Schoen, L. T. (2011). Conceptual and methodological issues in sociocultural research and theory development in education. I D. M. Mclnerney, R. A. Walker & G. A. D. Liem (red.), Sociocultural Theories of Learning and Motivation: Looking Back, Looking Forward (s. 11-40). Information Age Publishing.

Schofield, J. W. (2000). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. I R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (red.), Case Study Method (s. 69-97). SAGE Publications.

Schou, D. V. (2021). Fagportalen dansk.gyldendal.dk – en mosaik af forskellige syn på danskundervisning. Viden om Literacy, 29, 38-45.

Schraw, G. (2000). Reader beliefs and meaning construction in narrative text. Journal of educational psychology, 92(1), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.96

Schreier, M. (2017). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE.

Scott, D., & Lock, J. (2021). Introduction. I D. Scott & J. Lock (red.), Teacher as Designer: Design Thinking for Educational Change (s. 1-8). Springer.

Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record: Documentary sources in social research. Polity Press.

Selander, S., & Kress, G. (2012). Læringsdesign - i et multimodalt perspektiv. Frydenlund.

Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers' use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of curriculum studies, 41(4), 467-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270802696115

Short, M., & Semino, E. (2008). Evaluation and stylistic analysis. I W. v. Peer (red.), The Quality of Literature: Linguistic Studies in Literary Evaluation (s. 117-137). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Sikorová, Z. (2011). The role of textbooks in lower secondary schools in the Czech Republic. IARTEM e-journal, 4(2), 1-22.

Sikorova, Z., & Cervenkova, I. (2014). Styles of textbook use. The new educational review, 35(1), 112-122. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.14.35.1.09

Skarðhamar, A.-K. (2006). Litteraturundervisning: teori og praksis. Gyldendal.

Skjelbred, D. (2019). Skolens tekster – et utgangspunkt for læring. Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

Skjelbred, D., & Aamotsbakken, B. (2010). Lesing av fagtekster som grunnleggende ferdighet. Novus.

Skovmand, K., & Hansen, T. I. (2011). Fælles mål og midler: læremidler og læreplaner i teori og praksis. Klim.

Skyggebjerg, A. K. (2017). Litteraturundervisning fra poetisk leg til prosaisk alvor. I J. Bremholm, J. Bundsgaard, S. S. Fougt & A. K. Skyggebjerg (red.), Læremidlernes danskfag (s. 103-129). Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Slot, M. F. (2010). Læremidler i danskfaget: En undersøgelse af gymnasieelevers og læreres brug af tre læremidler i danskfaget - set i relation til udvikling af tekstkompetence [Ph.d.-afhandling, Institut for Filosofi, Pædagogik og Religionsstudier, Syddansk Universitet]. Odense.

Snell, J. (2011). Interrogating video data: systematic quantitative analysis versus micro-ethnographic analysis. International journal of social research methodology, 14(3), 253-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.563624

Solhaug, T., Borge, J., & Grut, G. (2020). Social science education (samfunnsfag) in Norway: A country report. Journal of Social Science Education, 19(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4119/

Stara, J., Chval, M., & Stary, K. (2017). The role of textbooks in primary education. e-Pedagogium, 17(4), 60-69. https://doi.org/10.5507/epd.2017.053

Stara, J., & Krčmářová, T. (2015). How teachers reflect on textbook materials and how they utilize them. IARTEM e-journal, 6(3), 67-87.

Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. I F. K. Lester (red.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (s. 319-369). Information Age Publishing.

STIL. (2021). Lærerens digitale hverdag – kvantitativ kortlægning. Rapport. Styrelsen for It og Læring. https://www.uvm.dk/aktuelt/nyheder/uvm/2021/maj/210517-ny-kortlaegning-en-velfungerende-digital-hverdag-med-plads-til-forbedring.

Säljö, R. (2003). Læring i praksis - et sociokulturelt perspektiv. Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Sørensen, J. (2014). Den gode tekstanalyse. Lindhardt og Ringhof.

Tannert, M., & Berthelsen, U. D. (2020). Digitale læremidler i danskfaget. Pædagogisk indblik, 4.

Tengberg, M. (2011). Samtalets möjligheter: om litteratursamtal och litteraturreception i skolan. Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposion.

Tengberg, M. (2019). Textanvändning och texttolkning i svenskundervisningen på högstadiet. Nordic journal of literacy research, 5(1), 18-37. https://doi.org/10.23865/njlr.v5.1488

Tengberg, M., Blikstad-Balas, M., & Roe, A. (2022). Missed opportunities of text-based instruction: What characterizes learning of interpretation if strategies are not taught and students not challenged? Teaching and teacher education, 115, 103698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103698

Thurah, T. (2019). Tekstanalyse og litterær metode. Gyldendal.

Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143-179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000528

Uddannelsesstatistik. (u.å.). Grundskole. Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet. Hentet 30.09.2024 fra https://uddannelsesstatistik.dk/Pages/grundskolen.aspx

Ullström, S. O. (2006). Läroboken som lärare: Uppgiftskulturer i läromedel för gymnasieskoloan. I A. Sigrell (red.), Fjärde nationella konferensen i svenska med didaktisk inriktning: Tala, lyssna, skriva, läsa, lära – modersmålsundervisning i ett nordiskt perspektiv, Umeå 16–17 november 2006. Umeå: Nationella nätverket för svenska med didaktisk inriktning.

Ulriksen, L. (2014). God undervisning på de videregående uddannelser. Frydenlund.

UVM. (2014). Den danske kodeks for integritet i forskning. Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet. https://ufm.dk/publikationer/2014/the-danish-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity

UVM. (2018). Oversigt over kommunernes forbrug af puljen til digitale læremidler i 2017. Undervisningsministeriet: Sekretariat for it i folkeskolen. https://www.stil.dk/-/media/filer/uvm/aktuelt/pdf18/180601-notat-oversigt-over-kommunernes-forbrug-af-puljen-til-digitale-laeremidler-i-2017.pdf

Van Peer, W., & Chesnokova, A. (2018). Reading and rereading: Insights into literary evaluation. Novìtnâ osvìta, 5, 39-46. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.125730

Vestre, S. E. (1980). Mønsterplanen og arbeidet i skolen. Didakta Norsk Forlag.

Vipond, D., & Hunt, R. A. (1984). Point-driven understanding: Pragmatic and cognitive dimensions of literary reading. Poetics (Amsterdam), 13(3), 261-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(84)90005-6

Walldén, R. (2020). Interconnected literacy practices. Exploring classroom work with literature in adult second language education. European journal for research on the education and learning of adults, 11(1), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela9202

Wannagat, W., Henkel, M., & Nieding, G. (2020). Children's comprehension of narrative texts: Protagonists’ goals and mental representation of coherence relations. Cognitive development, 56, 100966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100966

Warren, J. E. (2011). "Generic" and "specific" expertise in English: An expert/expert study in poetry interpretation and academic argument. Cognition and instruction, 29(4), 349-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.607929

Watt, M. (2015). Research on textbook use in the United States of America. IARTEM e-journal, 7(2), 48-72.

Weinberg, A., & Wiesner, E. (2011). Understanding mathematics textbooks through reader-oriented theory. Educational studies in mathematics, 76(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9264-3

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Wilhelm, J. D. (2008). You gotta be the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading with adolescents. Teachers College Press.

Williams, G. (2005). Bioethics and large-scale biobanking: individualistic ethics and collective projects. Genomics, society, and policy, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-5354-1-2-50

Wittek, L. (2013). Læring i og mellom mennesker - en innføring i sosiokulturelle perspektiver. Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

Yin, R. K. (2006). Case study methods. I J. L. Green, G. Camilli, P. B. Elmore, A. Skukauskaité & E. Barbara (red.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (s. 111-122). American Educational Research Association.

Zeitz, C. M. (1994). Expert-novice differences in memory, abstraction, and reasoning in the domain of literature. Cognition and instruction, 12(4), 277-312. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1204_1

Zerubavel, E. (1981). Hidden rhythms: schedules and calendars in social life. University of California Press.

Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 20(4), 920-933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.920

Aamotsbakken, B. (2013). Den skjønnlitterære teksten i spennet mellom den generelle litterære kanon og skolens kanon. I N. Askeland, E. Maagerø & B. Aamotsbakken (red.), Læreboka: Studier i ulike læreboktekster (s. 49-62). Akademika forlag.

Aashamar, P. N., Bakken, J., & Brevik, L. M. (2021). Fri fra lærebokas tøyler. Om bruk av læreboka og andre tekster i norsk, engelsk og samfunnsfag på 9. og 10. trinn. Norsk pedagogisk tidskrift, 105(3), 296-311. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2987-2021-03-04