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

lerntheoretische Didaktik,
not so much to Schulz’s
lehrtheoretische Didaktik
or his 
kritische Didaktik,
although there are many similarities between Schulz
(1980) and the school didactic model as it is presented in this study.
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
73

---

Generally speaking Heimann (1962) understood didactics as a theory of teaching. His approach included
an analysis of the method, media, content and goals of education as well as the socio-cultural and individual
conditions for the teaching process. In other words, a broad approach to understanding the TSL process was
advocated. According to Blankertz (1987, p. 91), the position was partly developed as a reaction against the
erudition-centred theory of education already discussed which, among other things, was considered so
general that it lacked applications in practice.
The model presented by Paul Heimann, which was later developed on many occasions by Wolfgang
Schulz, consisted primarily of two dimensions; (a) a structural analysis 
(Strukturanalyse)
and (b) an
analysis of the conditions for the teaching process 
(Faktorenanalyse, Bedingungsprüfung)
(see 
Fig. 3.5
).
The Berlin model was also visualized by Blankertz (1987, p. 101).
As the model has been both described and discussed in numerous previous publications and books on
didactics, it is not felt to be necessary to describe it in detail here (see Blankertz, 1987; Gundem, 1980; 
Heimann, 1962, 1976; Jank & Meyer, 1991; and Schulz, 1980). Only the main features of the model will
be commented upon, paying special attention to similarities and differences with respect to the model
presented in this study.
A very clear way of presenting the fundamental points of departure for this model is the following
summary by Heimann (1962):
In instruction 
[Unterrich]
the following always takes place:
a) there is someone who has a very definite intention.
b) To achieve this end he brings some matter
c) within the horizon of a definite group of people.
d) He does this in a very definite manner,
e) using very definite aids, which we call media,
FIG. 3.5. The Berlin model developed by Paul Heimann and Woflgang Schulz presented in accordance with Blankertz
(1987, p. 101).
74
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

f) and he also does this in a quite definite situation.
In other words, in every pedagogical process there is somebody who has a clear intention. With this
intention some content or object is established for a special group of people in some way, by using some
kind of media, and all this is done in a special situation. Even though neither Heimann nor Schulz explicitly
makes use of the notion of school didactics 
(Schuldi
daktik),
it is obvious that their pedagogical models
were developed for analysing instruction in institutionalized schools.
In delimiting the object of research, many similar questions are posed in the Berlin model and the school
didactic model in this study. Both models emphasize the situation as an important question. The context of
the teaching process, i.e. the 
Sozialkulturelle Voraussetzungen,
is defined both in terms of classroom
situation, school, and wider contemporary socio-cultural context 
(der sozialkulturellen Gesamtsituation
unserer Zeit)
. These levels are also identified as central in the school didactic model. In addition, many other
types, levels and aspects of contexts are identified in the school didactic model. Heimann’s first level, the
classroom level with its social climate, was illustrated in the centre of the school didactic model. The school
as context was also clearly pointed out in the visual model. The other contexts were then presented in a
separate table and were analysed in terms of an organizational, resource and curricular dimension.
Another feature closely related to one presented in the school didactic model is that the four aspects of
the first level of didactic reflection (intention, content, method, media) are interrelated. They cannot be
viewed as fundamentally independent of each other; a change in one of them affects the other aspects. The
first level of didactic reflection shows that Heimann’s model is not limited to a description of the
instructional process, or that the method is seen in isolation from the other aspects.
Even though it is admitted that all the aspects mentioned affect each other, intentionality still gets a
somewhat different position in relation to the other aspects (content, method, media) in the school didactic
model. It is clear that all these four aspects are present in every TSL situation, but so are many others. The
reason for the primacy of intentionality in the school didactic model is that through this concept the kernel of
teaching is accepted; teaching is seen as a goal-oriented, conscious effort to enable somebody to reach some
type of competence. Intentionality also reflects the future orientation of teaching.
In the school didactic model intentionality has both a temporal and a non-temporal dimension. The temporal
dimension is emphasized in that the collective dimension always exists before an individual teacher begins
to plan a pedagogical situation. Second, there is a temporal difference between planning before and
planning during a process. Finally the temporal character is present in the differentiation between the phase
of planning, the process and the evaluative phase.
The non-temporal or logical dimension of intentionality is reflected by the structurally defined relations
between intentions, contents, methods and media; the teacher’s goal-setting is primary with respect to the
factors mentioned. Also, in agreement with Klafki, it is not considered possible to deduce norms for
educational practice from the accepted goals. Thus a closed normative system is strongly opposed. Even if
the school didactic model may be normatively subordinated to the national curriculum, this does not mean
that the curriculum must be interpreted as a closed normative system. Subordination does not mean
acceptance. It has been clearly pointed out that the teacher may depart from the goal-setting on the
collective level. But, unlike Klafki’s model, the school didactic model does not show how this departure
should be accomplished. A fundamental problem with Klafki’s position is thereby avoided; if the collective
level were to accept the values advocated by a specific theory of didactics, then that theory would have no
function. It would in a sense be tied to the values presented; how could one claim the importance of the
criticism of the national system if the values considered important in the topical model are identical with
those at the national level? In other words, when a normative model is realized within a specific culture, the
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
75

---

critical power of the model ceases to exist. The school didactic model again emphasizes that the individual
teacher must load the model with ideological gunpowder. As the school didactic model developed in this
study is descriptive in nature, it does not offer goals for education.
Observe however that this is also an ideological position—teachers are given both the freedom and the
responsibility to decide how they relate themselves to the values accepted on a collective level. The
teachers’ value-decisions cannot thus be subordinated to the school didactic model as a didactic model.
The four interrelated aspects are in the school didactic model placed within the fields P1, P2 and P3. A
difference with respect to Heimann’s model is that the school didactic model emphasizes the importance of
acknowledging the four interrelated aspects (intention, content/theme, method, medium) on four different
levels (collective, teacher, interactional, student).
Heimann’s anthropogenic preconditions, i.e. the psychology of individual learning and development, are
partly included within these fields and partly within the dimension called the local cultural context since the
educated individuals partly constitute the very culture within which the school functions.
The decision to place learning here emphasizes that the teacher’s planning is situated between the
collective curriculum and the cultural context on the one hand and the individual’s needs and interests on
the other; the collective goals exist prior to the individual teacher’s planning, and the planning is directed
towards a pedagogical meeting with a specific group of students. Naturally the teacher here analyses both
how human learning is constituted generally and what this view of learning means for the specific group. A
teacher may thus make decisions concerning teaching and study methods on the basis of their understanding
of learning and the type of knowledge it may lead to.
It is, in fact, quite common to view the psychology of learning as a basis of the choice of methods of
teaching and working, of relevant media, contents and even goals. One could imagine a teacher viewing
learning in a hierarchical way similar to Gagné’s (1965) typology of learning from simpler to more complex
forms. But we should not forget that the relation can be the opposite as well; some of these factors (media,
contents, etc) may also affect the teacher’s understanding of what the student’s learning is about. Limited
available resources may also lead to a change of opinion on the part of the teacher as too how the individual
is expected to learn some specific items or reach some specific goal. There is thus no simple relation
between anthropogenic preconditions and the other factors demanding decisions.
Perhaps one could say that the school didactic model distributes the anthropogenic preconditions over
several different fields, while Heimann gives them a very distinct position. In the school didactic model,
learning psychology is seen much more in relation to the didactic aspects content and methods of teaching.
Another feature that makes the school didactic model similar to the Berlin model is that both are neutral
with respect to explicit goals or values. In neither of the models are the goals of education explicitly
formulated. Both models emphasize instead that education in schools occurs in a social and cultural context
which largely determines its contents and goals. This also means that the teacher acts under quite specific
conditions. The teacher cannot decide upon the goals of the school without considering collective
expectations.
The instruments offered by Heimann in this respect are criticism of norms and evaluation of facts and
forms of teaching