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

inter-action
as shared activity on a specific content
aiming at reaching a goal commonly agreed upon.
2. The model acknowledges both the planning, the TSL process (defined in 
Chapter 2
) and the evaluative
phase on different levels. This is the thesis of perspectual complementarity of the model, i.e. that all these
forms and levels of activities are accepted but that they are approached from the perspective of the
unique pedagogical meeting in e.g. a classroom.
3. When discussing several subjects’ intentional interaction we can not avoid the ethical dimension of this
interaction. This holds especially true for education. The simple reason is that the ethical problems in
educational matters concern the acting participants’ intentions and the normative system regulating this
activity. The following questions indicate the relevance of the ethical question. Towards what should
we educate people? Who has the right to decide upon questions concerning goals, content and methods
of teaching? On what conditions do different interest groups participate in the construction of goals,
contents and methods of education? The model makes a distinction between normative questions
concerning the goals for education, prescriptive questions concerning methods used and the value-
related knowledge interest concerning in whose interest the theory is developed. Concerning the
normative question of towards what we should educate the present model is descriptive in nature,
although it is value-related in other respects.
4. The idea advocated here is that the role of didactics as a subfield of general education is to point out
what levels are needed, as well as to keep together these levels in a coherent system in order to give a
picture of the pedagogical reality.
The idea is that different levels and perspectives (e.g. philosophical, curricular, sociological,
psychological, subject-matter based, methodical, contextual etc.) should not be reduced to, or explained
on, another level. Nor should they be regarded as equally valid for approaching every possible question
raised. Different perspectives may be more or less appropriate for dealing with different subproblems.
Accordingly, didactics should not be reduced to an application of philosophy, psychology, sociology or
content theory. The role of didactics is to help us to decide to what extent different disciplines are
relevant to understanding the pedagogical process. This is called the thesis of school didactic
autonomity.
5. This model emphasizes that the above-mentioned forms of pedagogical activity are to be understood in
relation to the socio-cultural, economical and historical context within which they are embedded. This
is the contextual thesis of school didactics.
6. In addition it must be acknowledged that institutionalized education following a collective curriculum
is a special form of educational activity requiring a model of its own. This is why the model is called a
school didactic model and not a model of e.g. general didactics. Thus, it should be observed that school
didactics is recognized as a field of research covering the TSL process in institutionalized education
and that the model presented is one model trying to explicate this field of research.
7. The conceptual model visualized in the figure includes both a temporal and a structural dimension. Its
temporal dimension is constituted by the relation between the different types of activities the teacher is
expected to carry out. The structural dimension is constituted of identifying components or aspects of
importance for understanding the pedagogical reality as well as of the logical relations between these.
8. The complementarity thesis concerning the theory of didactics described above is related to the thesis
of interdependence concerning decisions in the practical pedagogical situation, i.e. content, method,
media and goals.
46
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

9. The school didactic model may be used both as a research model and a model for reflection on the
pedagogical process and its frameworks.
PLANNING—A NETWORK OF PEDAGOGICAL INTENTIONS
The left wing of the model consists of two parts, P1 and P2. P1 is planning on the collective level and P2
planning on the teacher’s level. As noted above, the collective level, P1, may be divided into different
levels. The planning activity on these levels may be discussed in terms of different curriculums, which
presupposes that several curriculums exist simultaneously, but each with a different function and status. As
Gundem (1993) points out, there is reason to remember the difference between the ideas behind an official
curriculum and the actual document produced. The original ideas and thoughts represented by those who
participated in the making of the curriculum do not disappear when the document is written. And they do not
always correlate with the final content. In addition, the document is often experienced and interpreted very
differently by different interest groups—politicians, teachers, parents, and school administrators.
3
This is one
reason why the model of school didactics above accepts a differentiation between teachers’ personal
understanding of the curriculm and teachers’ belief in what the official, collective interpretation of it is
(Engelsen, 1995).
4
The teachers’ planning is thus divided into two related fields—planning in relation to
different types of collective curriculums (P2a) and planning in relation to the local school and culture as
contexts (P2b).
We thus see that planning on the collective level (P1) reaches the classroom reality only indirectly
through the teachers’ own planning. In this sense the teachers control how and to what extent the curriculum
is realized at the classroom level. Although it is clear that a teacher in a school financed by the state or
community is expected to follow the curriculum, this is not necessarily always the case; a teacher may very
well deviate from the collective (e.g. national) curriculum or follow it only partly. Because of this the left
wing indicating teachers’ planning (P2) transcends planning on the collective level (P1) in the figure.
The teacher’s planning of activities