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

learned
X” does not make it clear whether the person in question consciously
tried
to reach X or whether this state was reached more or less by chance, without conscious effort. Thus
“He 
learned
X” does not tell us about the individual’s intentions; we only know that this person really did
reach some kind of competence. Thus, to say “He is 
learning
X” does not mean that a person really will attain
knowledge. It only says that they are engaged in a process. However, the expression “He 
was
learning X”
seems to imply that the learner had a goal, while “He 
learned
X” does not imply this. Therefore there is a
certain similarity between “He 
was
learning X” and “He 
was
studying X”. But there is a fundamental
difference between saying “He learned X” and “He studied X”. From the statement “He studied X” it is not
possible to say whether the person actually did reach the desired knowledge. The expression “to study” thus
refers primarily to the conscious activity carried out in order to reach knowledge.
As a preliminary conclusion we might say that we need both terms; to study refers only to the intentional
activity (the process) of a subject trying to reach competence or insight, while learning may refer both to the
process and to a factual change in competence. However, while learning also covers unintentional processes
that lead to knowledge, studying only covers intentional processes or efforts. Against this background I
refer to the concept of studying instead of intentional learning, as studying is an established term, though
not in frequent use (Yrjönsuuri & Yrjönsuuri, 1994). However, it should be observed that the concept of
studying should by no means be delimited to such intentional activities aiming at reaching competence as
occur in institutionalized schooling. Nor should the concept of studying be related to changes in some
specific fields of human competence only. “Studying” as a general concept should thus be used in a content
—and context-transcribing sense.
The passive and active dimensions of the terms make it clear why it is necessary to include the learner in
a model trying to clarify what teaching is about. In fact, learning is a primary phenomenon in relation to
teaching and studying. If there were not such a phenomenon as learning, then activities like studying and
teaching would not be meaningful.
Thus it is reasonable to recognize studying even though it does not necessarily lead to actual learning, i.e.
to the 
reaching
of competence or insight. It is, in other words, not necessary to reach the competence one
strives at in order to call something a study process. In this respect learning (reaching knowledge, insight or
competence) seems to require more than studying; a study process cannot guarantee that the learning aimed
at will occur.
In clarifying the teaching-studying-learning (TSL) process I would now like to refer to one of the
conclusions made in the previous chapter (“On learning”). It may be possible to delimit learning on the
basis of the relation between teaching and competence. Learning may then partly be understood as the reaching
of teachable competence. It may be wise to say that only such human changes aiming at increased
competence as are possible to support by teaching or by studying can be called learning. Other forms of
learning can be called invention or discovery, etc.
Following the same line of reasoning, we might say that studying (intentional learning) often means
trying to reach competence that is identified by the student (the learner). In other words, the student realizes
that somebody in his surroundings is capable of something and then tries to reach a similar capacity.
However, teaching and studying may also be directed towards a kind of problem solving, i.e. the
competence to be reached is not specified in advance. In such a process the result of the process is not
identified before the process starts. This was called discovery learning and was connected with productive
teaching (in contrast to reproductive teaching, which aims at supporting the acquisition of competence
26
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

identified in advance). In the first case, attention is directed towards competence as such, in the second case
attention is directed towards the process.
A preliminary conclusion is that studying and teaching are two types of intentional human activity aiming
at “bringing about learning” (Hirst, 1971). These activities are, however, not necessary prerequisites for
learning, i.e. learning can very well occur without intentional studying or teaching. In addition, teaching and
studying cannot guarantee learning. The position developed thus far may be visualized by 
Fig. 2.7
. 
THE RELATION BETWEEN TEACHING AND STUDYING
Thus both learner and teacher may try to mould the learning process; the teacher does so by teaching and
the learner by studying. If we accept this, we may ask what is the relationship between a teacher’s teaching
and a learner’s learning; is it direct or mediated by the learner’s study activity?
It could be claimed that teaching indirectly affects the learning process through the student’s way of
studying. This is not to say that teaching affects a student’s study behaviour. Rather, what is claimed is that
teaching is conceived cognitively by the student and may then lead to a decision by the student to
consciously try to study in a certain way in order to reach some kind of competence.
The point here is that it is not possible to directly affect learning, since the very act of learning is
unconscious. Thus I agree with Kansanen (1993b, p. 56) when he writes that:
We cannot get learning to take place by means of will power or by means of a decision on the part of
the student. The instructional interaction aims at learning, but it is only possible to steer the activities
of students with the purpose of fostering learning, or the student can wish and try to do something that
s/he or the teacher thinks will probably lead to learning.
The following figure might therefore be more relevant than the previous one. It does not assume that
teaching affects learning directly, but indirectly through the student’s own activity (see 
Fig. 2.8
).
The fundamental idea behind 
Fig. 2.8
is that in intentional teaching a teacher tries to support an
individual’s study process, not the individual’s learning process. This conclusion is supported in the
literature. For example, Fenstermacher and Soltis (1986, p. 39) claims similarly that “[I]t …makes more sense
to contend that a central task of teaching is to enable the student to perform the tasks of learning.”
Matti Koskenniemi (1978, p. 73) has argued that in order for the teacher’s purposiveness to be
successful, this purposiveness must be present as the student’s purposiveness. Therefore it may be most
practical for the teacher to try to move towards the goals indirectly via the goals set up and accepted by the
students. Accordingly, the process through which students construct their learning goals is most interesting
(Wistedt, 1994).
Teaching and studying may thus be called activities supporting individual growth through the process of
learning. Learning in itself is therefore a process, among others, through which individual growth is
achieved. Competence and changes in one’s personality may then be called the results of individual growth.
FIG. 2.7. Teaching and studying as leading to competence and personality development through the process of learning.
2. DIDACTICS AND THE TSL PROCESS
27

---

If learning in the general sense of the word is unconscious, then learning in its active sense, i.e. learning
as studying, is conscious. Also teaching must generally be considered a fundamentally conscious activity.
The Learner’s Intentions
Teaching is thus an intentional activity aiming at facilitating someone’s possibilities of reaching some kind
of competence. Primarily, teaching affects the student’s study activity. The learner’s own activity in this
process, i.e. the study activity, is intentional as well; the student has identified some competence and
consciously tries to achieve it.
However, assuming that both the student’s and the teacher’s activities are intentional, we have made the
picture more complex, especially as these intentions may differ from each other.
We could now imagine a situation where the learner (student, pupil) has 
tried
to reach what was agreed
upon together with the teacher, but failed. In this case we would have one subject who has tried to teach,
another subject who tried to learn but did not reach competence. Now, was teaching present in this case?
Yes, I think so. If the teacher tries to teach in a situation where the learner tries to study, then teaching is
present.
The next question is whether a teacher has taught if the student does not try to learn, i.e. study? Some
researchers give a negative answer (e.g. Yrjönsuuri, 1994, p. 103). The argument is that if the student’s
intention has not been to learn the content presented and taught by the teacher, then teaching has not
occurred. The teacher has been doing something else. I disagree with such a conclusion on the following
grounds.
I do not require that the learner in the institutionalized school necessarily strives or tries to learn in order
to recognize a teacher’s intentional activity to support the study process as teaching. Otherwise it could be
said that a teacher teaches only those children in a classroom that at that moment intend to learn, and that
the teacher does not teach those in a classroom who do not intend to learn. This is obviously false. Naturally
the teacher normally tries to teach all students in a classroom. Sometimes, of course, the teacher focuses
attention explicitly on one student, thus disregarding for a moment the rest of the class. In fact, a teacher
quite often pays attention to and tries to teach those who do 
not
intend to learn.
3
Further, the content in a TSL situation is not one and the same thing for the different participants. The
teacher can by no means guarantee that the content will be understood in the same way by all the students
(Marton, 1981). Therefore a student may be engaged in trying to solve a completely different problem from
the one that was meant to be solved, because they understood the task differently from what the teacher
intended. Thus, even though students would