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

(Fachdidaktik)
the
argumentation runs similarly—the way teaching is carried out should be based on the nature of the content.
This kind of normative argumentation is the oldest when the starting point is philosophy (the view of man,
nature and society). All these directions result in normative or prescriptive views regarding the question of
how teaching should be carried out.
The positive result of these approaches is that the teacher may get advice on how to choose relevant
themes out of a large and complex body of knowledge, as well as how to teach different types of content to
different groups of people. Also on a collective (e.g. national) level the normative argumentation is typical;
a nation agrees on some principles concerning the content and goals of education that should guide the
activities in the schools. All this is quite clear thus far, but the problems begin when normative approaches
to teaching, especially those which are based on some world-view, are understood as scientific theories. In
other words, the question is the one referred to earlier: can a conceptual system be scientific if it indicates
the goals of education?
If an educational theory is based on clear normative values concerning the goals of education, then the
difference from educational ideology becomes very unclear. In other words, is a statement concerning the
goals of education a scientific statement? This naturally depends on whether our view of scientific theory
allows for normativity. Consequently, the problem of normativity is to be clarified by every conceptual
system called a model or theory of instruction, didactics or education.
A similar issue is the relation between teaching and education; if every instructional act is always an
educational act, it means that every instructional act is a value-related act as well. If so, we may ask whether
a theory of didactics must also necessarily be normative since pedagogical practice is by definition
normative? Or can educational theory be valueneutral (descriptive) even though its object is a value-laden
activity?
A second problem concerning education as a prescriptive doctrine 
(Lehre)
is that such a model catches
only a limited part of what it is necessary to understand if one wants to understand educational practice;
only the practical implications of planning, activity or evaluation are pointed out. The teacher is treated as a
technician in this light; as a person who should act as effectively as possible in trying to reach goals put up
(not even necessarily internalized by the teacher) by systematically applying accepted instructional
principles. In this view teaching is not viewed as a moral craft, as it should be (Uljens, 1994a, pp. 123–124).
If the view outlined above is accepted, then what, we may ask, are the questions a theory of didactics or
education should actualize? What questions must necessarily be answered if we want to understand
educational reality from a teacher’s perspective?
2. DIDACTICS AND THE TSL PROCESS
15

---

Themes to be Acknowledged by Didactic Theory
In one sentence we may define the object of a theory of teaching in the following manner. In teaching there
is always somebody (who?) that teaches somebody else (whom?) some subject matter (what?) in some way
(how?) some time (when?) somewhere (where?) for some reason (why?) towards some goal (which?) (see
Table 2.1
).
The definition is inspired by Heimann’s (1962) characterization of teaching but tries to develop it and
emphasizes the student’s intentional, active role for the pedagogical process. Teaching can be briefly
defined as a subject’s intentional activity carried out in order to facilitate another subject’s efforts to reach
certain types of competence (e.g. knowledge, insight, skills, etc.).
If we want to understand the pedagogical process, we must accept the legitimacy of all the above-
mentioned questions simultaneously. Acceptance of these as legitimate questions is a first step in defining
the object of a theory of didactics. The main point here is to show that the object of a theory of didactics is
to understand the pedagogical process. The socalled how-question of a 
theory
of didactics should thus not
primarily be answered in terms of how teachers should act in practice. Rather, a theory of didactics should
be an instrument of helping us to 
analyse
relevant aspects of educational reality. Having done this, we at least
know in what respects normative decisions are required. This position also means that the theory of
pedagogical process is not limited to functioning as a predictor of learning results. In this respect
Koskenniemi’s (1968, 1971) idea of the object of a theory of didactics is supported.
The list of questions in 
Table 2.1
should not be viewed as being reductionist or deterministic in the sense
that the background variables would explain the instructional process. Rather, the questions listed in the
table are to be understood as such aspects or dimensions of the instructional process as a theory of didactics
should contain. Didactic theory should thus not be reductionist with respect to content theory, psychology,
sociology or philosophy. It must be a theory accepting the complexity of pedagogical reality and trying to
structure this complexity (Hollo, 1927). Content theory, psychology, sociology and philosophy must thus be
aspects of a theory of didactics. Consequently, a theory of didactics cannot be viewed as a theory based on e.g.
psychological theory, since the approach is then much too limited.
The previous aspects of the pedagogical process considered essential to didactics are briefly summarized
by the following five points: (1) inten 
TABLE 2.1 Aspects of the Phenomenon of Teaching
In teaching there is always
• somebody that
who?
• sometimes and
when?
• somewhere and
where?
• for some reason
why?
• in some way facilitates
how?
• somebody else’s
whose?
• efforts to reach
by means of what?
• some kind of competence
what kind?
• in some field of knowledge
what?
• for certain purposes
what?
• that have been agreed upon
by whom?
so that the individual could better realize his interests
16
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

tionality, (2) student-teacher interaction, (3) cultural context, (4) content, (5) methods.
Intentionality
Teaching is always aiming at something that is not present (Stenbäck, 1855). To teach is to try to make real
what is ideal. In other words, teaching presupposes an individual who is conscious of what is not present.
Thus the fundamental feature of consciousness, i.e. being aware of the non-present as a possibility, is of
utmost importance in teaching. The values represented by an individual teacher decisively direct this
intentionality. Thus a teacher always enters the TSL situation with certain ideas concerning the learner’s
future.
In discussing the question of why somebody is teaching somebody else and what this activity is aiming at
we must remember that a motive is not a goal. We educate towards something for some reason. Second, if
we accept that teaching is directed to some kind of goal, this means that teaching is an intentional activity, a
purposeful activity. The teacher would in this view have an idea about an ideal (or rather, potential) order of
things towards which he was striving. However, accepting that teaching is a purposeful activity, we must
ask what is the nature of this purposiveness. Is it to be understood as just any intentional activity or are there
specific features of teachers’ pedagogical intentionality?
One answer could be that a teacher by his activity tries to help or make it easier for somebody to reach
competence, or simply to intentionally aid someone to learn. A motive for this would be the idea that a
teacher believes that it is by the process of learning that e.g. knowledge is reached. A second feature of
pedagogical intentionality concerns the ethical aspect of instruction, which involves not only the teacher’s
but also the learner’s rights and obligations in the pedagogical situation.
The Interaction of Two Intentional Subjects
A TSL process requires at least two subjects, a teacher and a student (a learner). The reason motivating the
presence of two intentional subjects is naturally that this enables us to talk about the interaction between
them. Models of teaching including only the teacher always run into difficulties when it comes to the notion
of co-operation or interaction. Such models also represent quite unpleasant pictures of the learner; the
learner is a passive receiver of knowledge. Similarly, models of teaching mainly based on the learner’s
perspective are usually one-sided as well. The interactive nature of the TSL process is a secondary question
in such models (Koort, 1974). Thus intention is considered conceptually prior to interaction.
The Teaching-Studying-Learning Process as a Cultural Phenomenon
A pedagogical activity, like every other human activity, takes place in time and space (Andersson, 1995;
Bock, 1994). It may be that some human activities may be understood correctly independently of their
cultural and temporal embeddedness. However, this seems not to be true of education. This is partly due to
the fact that the economic structure in different cultures varies, and while schooling is to a large extent
designed to guarantee the continuity of a culture (Habermas, 1987), e.g. by serving the organization of the
labour market, it is difficult to understand education as being independent of this (Dale, 1981). Also, when
looking at teacher education this becomes evident; every major change of the school system in a country
leads to a change in the education of teachers. It is thus important to notice that even though there are
similarities in teaching between cultures, teaching practices cannot be understood apart from these cultures
(Engeström, 1987; Säljä, 1991).
2. DIDACTICS AND THE TSL PROCESS
17

---