School Didactics And Learning: a school Didactic Model Framing An Analysis of Pedagogical Implication of Learning Theory

before
a pedagogical sequence P2 (a school year, monthly or weekly
planning or planning before one lesson) and 
during
a pedagogical process (P3), contain several central
questions (Clandinin, 1986). These questions may be exhibited in four fields on which a teacher makes
decisions. These concern the choice of the goals for education, the choice of relevant content, the choice of
a relevant form of representation and finally the choice of an instructional method to be followed as well as
the choice of relevant working methods for the students. These four fields are briefly characterized below.
At the very outset it should be emphasized that these aspects are considered as closely interrelated. Because
of this it might be more accurate to talk about the teacher’s network of pedagogical intentions than about
goal-oriented planning.
Choice of Goals
Concerning the 
goals
of teaching, each teacher must relate the general goals of the curriculum to their own
goal-setting and personal educational philosophy. But when teachers make decisions concerning the goals
they are forced to pay attention not only to (a) the collective curriculum but also to (b) the subject matter,
(c) the students and (d) the resources available.
The teacher’s beliefs concerning knowledge and ideas about acquiring knowledge of different subjects
affect the choice of goals. The teacher thus asks about the nature of e.g. mathematical knowledge and
historical understanding, i.e. about what kind of goals it is meaningful to set up on the basis of the nature of
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
47

---

some specific subject matter. The relation between subject matter and goals is therefore reciprocal (e.g.
Heimann, 1962, p. 418).
Second, when goals are set up, attention is also paid to the individual’s needs and interests. In fact, these
interests may be understood as a curriculum as such; the students’ intentions affect what collective goals it
is reasonable to set up (Peterson, Marx & Clark, 1978). But naturally other psychological aspects connected
with the learner also influence the goalsetting.
A further question to be considered is the relation between the teacher’s way of working in the classroom
and the goals. Normally both the collective goals and the teacher’s personal goals determine how the content
is dealt with. Ethical norms, for example, regulate the social interaction. Again the situation is reciprocal;
the possibilities available also affect what goals and norms are considered meaningful by the teacher.
To sum up: ideally the goals regulate what items the teacher should deal with and how this should be
done. The teacher’s understanding of the real situation again affects what ideal collective goals are accepted
and realized. The concrete school reality thus partly determines the teacher’s interpretation of how the
collective norms and goals should be realized. Even though a reciprocal relationship exists between the
goals and other factors of educational reality, it is nevertheless true that we may find a general goal-
orientation of teaching more fundamental than many other aspects. In this respect it is relevant to
discriminate between several types of goal-setting. The model emphasizes especially the teacher’s
interpretation of the collective goals and therefore the teacher’s general goal orientation.
That a reciprocal relationship between different aspects and levels of planning is supported naturally
means that a linear model of planning is not supported. Instead of talking about teachers’ goal-orientation, it
is reasonable to discuss the interrelated aspects described above in terms of the teacher’s network of
pedagogical intentions.
In addition—and this is important—only because intentionality is accepted as a fundamental category in
this model, the social, cultural and historical dimensions of the TSL process in schools are by no means
overlooked. On the contrary, one of the fundamental ideas in the present school didactic approach is the
conviction that the school forms a very special context for teaching and studying. Teaching and studying in
schools should thus not be viewed in a decontextualized perspective (Simola, 1995, pp. 123–128).
Choice of Content
Another matter dependent on the teachers’ planning is the choice of relevant content. In making this choice
the teacher reflects on several subquestions.
We may begin with the goals of education on the curricular level. Teachers cannot choose to deal with
just any content in the schools; their freedom is clearly limited by external factors such as the curriculum.
In addition the choice of relevant subject matter must be made in relation to the students to be taught.
This may be done in at least two different ways. Firstly, the students’ cultural background and heritage must
be recognized. Secondly, the psychology of the students must be taken into account.
When these two questions are considered, we may ask what it means for an individual to have these
insights. What kind of knowledge do we have when, for example, we are able to perform gymnastic
movements? What is the difference between reasoning within mathematics and ethical reasoning? And
finally, how do we learn these different things? In answering such questions both the teacher and the
researcher reflect in terms of epistemology and learning theory.
Concerning the cultural aspect, we may refer, for example, to Wolfgang Klafki (1963), who emphasizes
the necessity of paying attention to the students’ reality. We may also refer to the phenomenological
concept of lifeworld, discussed in a pedagogical context by, for example, Meyer-Drawe (1984) and Lippitz
48
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

(1984). Both stress the necessity of analysing and understanding the overall circumstances under which a child
or a student lives outside the educational institution in order to be able to choose meaningful contents and in
order to arrange meaningful occasions for learning.
The second dimension is the psychological, which in turn may be divided into three sub-problems. The
first is a psychological learning problem (how students learn). The second problem belongs to the
psychology of development. Finally, there is the problem of the psychology of personality. This last
problem constitutes of the student’s personal and cultural identity and in educational terms of the teacher’s
educating activities.
Third, the choice of content is to be made in relation to the field of knowledge to be represented, i.e. how
it comes about that a chosen subject matter represents the field generally (Menck, 1993; Menck & Wierichs,
1991). This aspect is closely related to the teacher’s knowledge of the subject matter. But it has also an
epistemological dimension; there is reason to distinguish between the structure of different school subjects
in principle as well. Traditionally we distinguish between aesthetic subjects (music, arts), ethical subjects
(religion), practical subjects (handicraft, gymnastics) and theoretical subjects (e.g. biology, mathematics and
history). The mother tongue and the study of languages might be identified as communicative subjects.
Other divisions are also possible. Furthermore it is clear that all subjects contain ethical and aesthetic
dimensions. Willman’s (1903) idea of the educative dimension as a criterion for choosing contents is also
accepted as fundamental. One must thus focus on the content from the individual’s perspective and from
that of the collective field of knowledge it represents.
Choice of Instructional Methods and Working Methods
The third matter requiring explicit decision-making from the teacher concerns instructional methods. When
discussing methods of instruction within didactics it should be borne in mind that there is no generally
accepted definition of method today (Terhart, 1989).
In trying to delimit what is covered by research on instructional method (German