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

Theorie der Erziehung
) primarily refers to the process of
influencing the subject, the concept of 
Bildung
or theory of 
Bildung
is understood as referring to the
individual’s growth as such. Therefore a comprehensive theory of pedagogics covers both the process of
education 
(Erziehungsprozess)
and the process of individual growth 
(Bildungsprozess)
(see e.g. Benner,
1991). We could conclude by saying that while general education discusses the nature, possibilities and
limits of the pedagogical process in general terms, the theory of didactics, being a subfield of general
education, approaches the pedagogical process in terms of teaching, studying and learning.
Different Types of Value-relatedness
It is not argued that a theory of didactics developed within fields 2 and 4 is value-neutral in every sense of
the word. Every scientific theory within the humanities and within social and cultural sciences is value-
laden, and that is also the case with every didactic theory at some level. Therefore it is necessary to identify
the difference between two ways in which a theory of didactics can be related to values. First, in accordance
with so-called normative approaches to didactics, normativity usually refers to propositions concerning
what
teachers should teach as well as 
how
this should be done.
Normativity in the second sense refers to the values behind scientific theory in general. This means that
didactics as a theory may avoid being normative in respect of pedagogical practice but never to be value-
neutral in the second sense. One such question of values behind didactic theory concerns what the theory in
question should be used for. In other words, while the first level of value-relatedness is connected with the
36
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

goals and means of education, the second level is not connected with goals or methods but with what the
theory should be used for and whom it is intended for. This second level of value-relatedness thus concerns
the knowledge interest represented by the theory itself. Descriptive theories of didactics are value-neutral
with respect to the first case of value-relatedness, but not with respect to the second type.
DIDACTICS AND LEARNING THEORY
The descriptive and the normative or prescriptive approaches to educational conceptual systems are related
to learning in two different ways. The descriptive approach makes it possible for us to include the
problem of human learning as one of many questions to be acknowledged by educational theory.
Descriptive theories thus treat learning theory as a question subordinated to educational theory. In addition,
descriptive theory does not aim at laying down pedagogical principles for practice based on learning.
When psychological theory is used as the point of departure in the construction of educational principles,
we may, at best, reach predictive, hypothetical theories, i.e. prescriptive propositions. These propositions
would suggest certain practical pedagogical procedures, that is, instructional or pedagogical principles
aimed at guiding practice in terms of stating how an individual should act in order to teach successfully.
14
However, if we were to accept that not only prescriptive principles, but also didactical theory could be
developed from psychology, it would mean an absurdly limited view of instructional knowledge. This is not
to say that such principles should not be developed. It is only made clear that descriptive didactic theory
should not be equated with prescriptive principles guiding teaching.
It may be relevant to note that when instructional principles are developed in relation to a specific
psychological school of thought, this developmental work cannot consist of a logical deduction of
instructional principles from psychological theory (Hollo, 1927; James, 1958). The role of psychological
theory in this developmental work is instead that it defines the 
type
of knowledge that a student may be
aiming at in a pedagogical situation as well as how this knowledge should be reached.
15
Further, even
though psychological theory may have quite clear general pedagogical implications, these implications
must always be developed in relation to a presumptive pedagogical context.
If we were to accept the idea that educational theory may be developed with learning theory as a point of
departure, it would mean reducing educational theory to an application of psychological knowledge, which
is a very narrow, though quite widespread, conception of the role of didactics (cf. Rein 1912, p. 102).
It may also be noted that even though William James (1958) was right in his conclusion that it is not
possible to develop teaching methods solely on the basis of psychology, his opinion was that teaching was
an art and that it is not possible to use scientific knowledge as the basis for something that is an art. The
position represented by this study is that James’ argument was right, but his motive was not. The reason
why psychology cannot be used as the foundation for developing teaching methods is not that teaching is an
art, but that psychology offers far too narrow an approach in trying to understand what teaching is about.
However, it is clear that no didactic theory can ever offer solutions for every situation in the teaching
process; reality is too complex for this. 
In other words—questions of human learning are naturally central in didactics, but the question
concerning human learning should be actualized