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

Situated
Didactic Experience
. The resulting experience for the learner may be called 
Situated
Learning
Experience
. This experience constitutes the preunder-standing from which the teacher continues
intentional and reflective activity.
This model (intention-activity-experience/impression-reflection-didactic experience) of institutionalized
intentional interactional instructional activity, belongs to the family of approaches using the concept of
intentionality in explaining activity (von Wright, 1971; 1985, pp. 51 ff.). Notice that this intentional activity
is to be understood as culturally embedded and that it should not be understood as representing a
mechanistic view of man.
This model works not only for describing the teacher’s situated activity (P3–E3 level) but also for describing
the teacher’s planning before and evaluation after the pedagogical process (P2–E2 level). In this second
case the teacher’s reflection is focused on the process as a whole (i.e. a pedagogical sequence like an hour, a
day, a week, a project).
In changing the object of reflection from reflection during a process in which the teacher is involved to a
future or past process, the context in relation to which the reflection is made varies. In situated reflection the
context is primarily constituted of the immediate situation with its unique demands and characteristics. In
reflection on the process as a whole, the context may consist both of the teacher’s overall pedagogical aims
and ideas about possibilities of realizing them. Planning and evaluation on the collective level may function
as the context for both forms of teacher reflection.
52
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

It should clearly be observed that when the teacher evaluates students’ performance it is as a reflection on
the 
experience
of these performances, not on the performances as such. The same holds true for the
students’ reflection—when students evaluate how useful a teacher’s efforts have been for their study
process the students reflect upon how they have experienced the teacher’s activities.
The Student’s Intentional Activity
It is most important to notice that the model contains a similar cycle from intention to situated experience
both for the student and for the teacher. The student has also specific intentions in the TSL situation which,
naturally, result in specific activities (Koskenniemi, 1946, pp. 78 ff.). And like the teacher, students also
have experiences 
(Erlebnisse)
which are considered to result from reflection connected with their study
activities. The student, like the teacher, reflects on these experiences and the result may be called the
Situated Learning Experience
. As the reader can see, this is clearly indicated in the previous visual model in
that the student is included in the centre of the figure illustrating the descriptive model (
Fig. 3.2
). One
important aim of this model is thus a clarification of the pedagogical process in order to capture the
dynamics of interaction in a pedagogical situation. 
The Student as Teacher—The Teacher as Student.
When it is claimed that students are intentional
individuals it means that the students can educate the teacher—through their intentional study activity, and
otherwise, they can express in what respect they themselves think they need support in order to learn. The
students teach the teacher to teach them. This can happen intentionally and unintentionally. Similarly the
teacher can adopt the role of an intentional learner in trying to figure out how best to help the students in
their efforts to reach competence. The teacher is thus also a student in teaching—a real educator
continuously grows in this respect. A teacher who does not conceive of themself simultaneously as being a
learner with the students as teachers is not an educator in any deep sense of the word (Hollo, 1927, p. 78).
In order to be entitled to call a model of the TSL process genuinely interactional the assumptions
described above must be accepted. Many models of the pedagogical process do not, however, understand
the student as a teacher and the teacher as a learner—the student remains a student and the teacher a
teacher. However, when this is argued for it is clear that the content of what is taught varies with the
interacting subjects’ changing roles—they teach and learn completely different things.
In an interactional perspective it is relevant to ask what understanding teachers have concerning teaching,
studying and learning as well as concerning their role as learners in teaching. Similarly it is important to
actualize:
1. The students’ views of what learning is (e.g. Marton, Dall’Alba & Beaty, 1993);
2. How students think learning can be promoted by study-activity, i.e their epistemic attitudes (Dweck &
Bempechat, 1983);
3. How students think that teachers can help them in their studying-learning process (Mertaniemi, 1990,
pp. 64–68) and;
4. How students and teachers relate emotionally to the content and to the pedagogical process (Ginsburg &
Allardice, 1984; Francis, 1982).
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
53

---

Perspectives on Pedagogical Interaction
We have already pointed out the importance of including the students in a model of didactics by referring to
the concept of interaction, i.e. we stressed that the identification of two subjects’ intentional activities gives
us the possibility of understanding the pedagogical process in a truly interactionist sense.
The next step is to ask about the nature of this interaction. What is it like? What must we understand in
order to capture its essence? In contemporary literature there exist models for “teacher’s
interactive thoughts” (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Shavelson, 1973). The main differences between these
models and the present one is that this model:
1. Includes two intentional and interacting subjects, the teacher and the learner;
2. The social and historical context framing the process is emphasized;
3. Teachers’ and students’ reflection is not conceived of in terms of information processing psychology;
and finally,
4. Teaching is (also) seen as a moral craft.
Some further features concerning the interactive nature of the process will be discussed later.
Among others, Doyle (1986) has characterized the classroom as the working place for teachers and
students (see also Mehan, 1979 and Weinstein, 1991). The classroom is conceived of as a microcontext
having at least the following features. Multidimensionality refers to the fact that in a room where dozens of
people meet, many different and divergent interests are expressed. Decision-making in this complex
environment is not a simple straightforward process. Parallelity is connected with multidimensionality and
refers to the many parallel sequences of activities occurring in classrooms. Further Doyle (1986)
emphasizes unpredictability as a typical feature—even though teaching is generally considered intentional,
it is still not possible to plan everything in advance as the situation may radically change. In addition, the
classroom is, from the teachers’ and to some extent from the learners’ perspective, a kind of public sphere.
The fact that teachers and students regularly meet over a rather long period of time constitutes a specific
historical dimension of teaching and learning in classrooms. The participants are able to construct common
practical, social and ethical conventions and rules. In addition to these aspects pointed out by Doyle (1986)
I would also like to draw attention to the following questions considered useful in trying to understand
interactional dimensions of instructional processes in institutionalized education.