This essay examines which didactic choices religion teachers make in the course Religion 1 based on the didactic questions what?, why? and how?. The aim is to investigate how religion teachers at upper secondary school teach the central content of the Religion 1 course within the time frame of 50p. Relevant for the analysis are firstly the ruling governing documents for upper secondary school and secondly that teachers are expected to build their teaching on a scientific basis and proven experience. Previous research addresses teachers’ assignments, relevant knowledge and challenges for religion teachers, as well as the foundation of religious education. The method for this essay is a digital survey and the selection frame is upper secondary school religion teachers who at some point during the last eleven academic years (2011-2022) taught the Religion 1 course at the upper secondary school at least once. 119 religious teachers contributed to the survey. The results from the survey are presented descriptively. The conclusion is that the religion teachers who participated in the study know what they have to do, but that many experience a challenge with the content in relation to the given time for the course. Even the didactic choices the respondents make based on the didactic questions why? and how? is affected by lack of time. Despite the lack of time religion teachers have, the majority of the respondents in the survey shows that they generally make knowingly didactic choices based on governing documents, scientific basis and proven experience. This is also supported by the research that this paper builds on.

The thesis aim is to get an understanding of how Uppsala University Library teaches about information searching and with this gain an insight on positive and working aspects in the teaching and how it can be developed for the better. To achieve these aims, three didactic questions were used as an overall theme and as a base for the research questions. These questions consisted of what (content), how (methods) and why? (goals and purposes). The methods consisted of observations and semi-structured group interviews that were conducted from December 2017 to April 2018.  Another method that was used is a directed content analysis of legal texts and guidance documents that the informants deemed important for their work. In regard of what, the result showed that lectures were more basic on earlier semesters, and more advanced later into the education. The content was also adapted to students by subject-specific databases, search examples and exercises that reflected students’ subject, future profession and everyday life. However, I could also see signs of less adaption in some search examples and because certain content was more frequent and used on several occasions. For example, many lectures focused on going through databases, source evaluation, reference management, various types of material and the meaning of scientificity. Also, many informants meant that they were generalists and did not have time to familiarize themselves with students' subject in a greater extent. In the question how, it became apparent that active actions were frequent as well as adaptation in teaching. This was shown in the form of exercises, own search time, regular use of questions and that an active dialogue occurred with students and was deemed important. Various rhetorical aspects of the teaching were that the frequent use and need of computers made the informants’ eye contact and body language less apparent and limited. The informants often seemed well prepared on the content. Some exceptions from this occurred a few times where some signs of uncertainty in body language and speech were shown. In regard of this, most informants indicated that they had sufficient planning time; however, they could also have other tasks that took priority. Regarding the question why, many goals and purposes could be identified. The most common ones focused on information sources. Many informants, law texts and guidance documents emphasized the importance of getting knowledge about different types of materials, their advantages and disadvantages, using appropriate databases and to being able to search, evaluate and find information. The conclusions of the thesis are that the informants recognize and use many positive and working aspects that pedagogical literature and research says is important. Some examples are that they adapt the content in various ways to the students, let the students be active under the lessons, ask many questions, use evaluations and integrate guidelines. Regarding how the teaching could be developed, a conclusion is that it could be more adapted, advanced and more subject-specific if there was more time for librarians to teach and plan lectures. This could also contribute to a better relationship with the students, more time for collaboration with their teachers, being able to develop pedagogical methods and become familiar with the student’s subject. To achieve this, it could be appropriate that some librarians have a more dedicated role as well as prioritized tasks as library educators. This is a two years master's thesis in Library and information science.