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

die Fachdidaktik der
Didaktik
.
Thirdly, the claim that the conceptual language developed should be close to the language used by
practitioners is also accepted. It was claimed that the aim of didactics must be to offer teachers a language with
which they can explicate their pedagogically relevant experiences in a coherent manner. This has been the
aim of the present model.
Finally, the demand that a pedagogical situation should be understood as historically developed is
accepted by acknowledging the social, political and historical context within which the single teacher
operates. Since the model presented is primarily limited to education within schools regulated by a
curriculum, it is natural to accept the historical demand; the school as a cultural institution is a historically
developed institution. It cannot be understood separately from its historical origin and the tradition from
which it has grown. Nor is it possible to understand it as separate from contemporary society and culture
within which it exists and which it partly constitutes. However, even if this is accepted, the main emphasis
is not laid on an analysis of the historical or cultural dimension of the TSL process, although the model does
offer opportunities for such an analysis. The cultural-historical aspect is also accepted, in the sense that the
presented approach is not understood as a universal theory valid for every form of schooling in the world. In
this sense the approach is also empirical; its validity for different contexts must be tested.
To conclude, the main features of the erudition-centred theory of didactics 
(Bildungstheoretische
Didaktik)
are accepted and followed on a general level. This does not mean that there are no differences
between this theory of education and the present school didactic model. Several differences may be noted. 
The main difference is the way in which the question of 
content
is treated, i.e. what position it is given.
One way of opening the issue of content in the human-science theory of didactics is the widely
recognized five questions put forward by Wolfgang Klafki at the end of the 50s in his 
Didaktische
Analyse
.
16
This analysis was conceived as the fundamental core of planning instruction. The questions
raised at that time were:
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
67

---

1. What wider or general sense or reality do these contents exemplify and open up to the learner? What
basic phenomenon or fundamental principle, what law, criterion, problem, method, technique or
attitude can be grasped by dealing with these contents as examples
2. What significance does the content in question or the experience, knowledge, ability or skill to be
acquired through this topic already possess in the minds of the children in my class? What significance
should it have from a pedagogical point of view?
3. What constitutes the topic’s significance for the children’s future?
4. How are the contents structured (which have been placed in a specifically pedagogical perspective by
questions 1, 2, and 3)?
5.
(a) What facts, phenomena, situations, experiments, controversies, etc. in other words what
intuitions, are appropriate to induce the child to ask questions directed at the essence and structure of
the content in question?
(b) What pictures, hints, situations, observations, accounts, experiments, models, etc. are appropriate
in helping children to answer, as independently as possible, their questions directed at the essentials of
the matter?
(c) What situations and tasks are appropriate for helping the principle to be grasped by means of an
example of elementary case, or the structure of a content, to become of real benefit to the students, helping
to consolidate it by application and practice it (immanent repetition)?
These questions should not be conceived as being in a certain significant order. They were intended to
function as conceptual instruments, laying a foundation for methodical decisions.
17
It is obvious that these
questions are most relevant to any teacher. To my understanding they do not contain anything that is not
acceptable from the perspective of the present model—quite the contrary. The question is only what role or
position this set of questions is given. In relation to the model presented in this study, the five groups of
questions may well be integrated in the fields P2 and P3, i.e. teachers’ planning of instruction before and
during a pedagogical sequence. In the present study didactic analysis is not, however, limited to reflection
related to the planning phase of education.
It is evident that the kernel of Klafki’s way of reasoning is the content and the notion of