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

Didaktik als Bildungslehre
a fundamental step in the history of
didactics since the distinction between 
Bildungsinhalt
and 
Bildungsgehalt
was introduced here (Willman,
1903). For Willman the contents of education comprise “something invisible yet tangible which needs to be
grasped if the matter is to be mastered” (Klafki, 1995). He cites Willman’s point of view: “From among the
whole of an object of instruction, we distinguish its educational substance 
(Bildungsgehalt)
and comprehend
the latter as those elements of the former 
[Bildungsinhalt]
where the subject matter can begin to take root
and to be internalized, and on whose retention the value of learning and the practising essentially depends.” 
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
69

---

Klafki points to Herman Nohl and Erich Weniger as those who came to develop Willman’s position.
Willman was criticized for representing a kind of objectivism; it was argued that the educational value of
the subject matter existed in the content as such. Nohl in turn emphasized that the educational value of a
content was to be determined in relation to the subjects that were to be educated and the historical situation
within which they live (“a definite, historical-spiritual situation with the past clinging to it and the future
opening up before it” Klafki, 1963, p. 132). This was identified as the pedagogical criterion 
(das
pädagogische
Kriterium)
by Nohl (1949, p. 427):
Whatever demands are made upon the child by the objective culture and the social relationships, they
must tolerate a transformation which proceeds from the question: what is the sense of this
requirement in the context of the child’s life, for its development and the increase of its faculties, and
what potential does the child have for coping with the demands?
23
Klafki (1963) relies on Weniger (1952) when he develops his view of the historical relativity of education.
Weniger’s historicity points both backwards in time and towards the future. Klafki’s conclusion is that
“whatever claims to form the content of education, must at the same time pay heed to the future of the
subject of education” (Klafki, 1963 p. 133, see also pp. 22 f.).
The other fundamental aspect of historicity may be explicated in existential terms; what 
meaning
does the
content or subject matter have for the individual? An individual is able to make cultural contents their own
personal property. Through this process they become a member of a certain culture and carry it further.
24
Finally the concept of 
kategoriale Bildung
must be acknowledged. The point of departure for traditional
objectivistic
or so-called 
materiale
Bildungstheorien
is the content as such; it is asked what contents of all
possible contents of a culture are so valuable that they should be taught. The formal, functional or 
subjective
approaches 
(formale Bildungstheorien)
again emphasize students’ capacities, which are conceived of as
possible to develop by means of certain cultural contents. For Klafki (1963, pp. 43–44) “categorial
education” means that both the cultural and the subjective aspects must be present in order to identify a
phenomenon as educative (eruditive):
By erudition 
[Bildung]
we mean every phenomenon in which—through our own experience or
through other people’s understanding—we become directly aware of the unity of an objective
(material) and subjective (formal) entity. Erudition [Bildung] is the opening-up of a concrete and
spiritual reality to one human being—that is the objective or material aspect; but at the same time it [also]
signifies the opening-up of this human being to the reality he perceives—that is the subjective or formal
aspect in at once both the “functional” and the “methodical” sense… Erudition