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

(Lehrplantheorie)
. Such an understanding of
didactics would primarily refer to Weniger’s (1963) position. Didactics in a narrower sense was for
Weniger a theory of the content of education and curriculum 
(Theorie der Bildungsinhalte und des
Lehrplans)
while didactics in a wider sense included the problem of method in teaching 
(Methodik
des
Unterrichts und der Schularbeit)
.
Sometimes when methods have been considered almost identical with didactics, this confusion may be
seen as a result of terminological problems as Schulze (1993, p. 145) has noted.
In this study, theory of instructional methods is seen as a part of the theory of didactics. However, this is
not to say that instructional decisions may be made apart from the goals, content and context of the
educational situation. The notion of method should not be emphasized too much, because of the risk of
making it a technological concept which may lead to an oversimplification of educational activity (see
Schulze, 1993, p. 141). And didactics should not be mixed up with 
allgemeine
Methodik
(Aebli, Herbart,
Pestalozzi, Rein).
By approaching the pedagogical process from the perspective of method, Terhart (1989) succeeds in
showing that the relation between methods and the instructional context has been a neglected issue. In
addition he argues that teachers may play a more central part with respect to the research process if the
concept of method is used as a key concept. In other words, to use methods as a central concept in trying to
understand the TSL process correlates clearly with teachers’ knowledge interest. In this respect Terhart’s
(1989) position is supported although the concept of method has not been given a central position in the
present study as it has in Terhart’s (1989) model.
50
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

Form of Representation
One aspect of the reciprocal relation between content and method consists in the choice of a relevant form of
representation in representing the chosen subject matter. The question then is how knowledge is represented
within the schools and classrooms. In addition it should be noted that in classrooms the real reality is seldom
present. Most often what is being studied is a constructed representation (Menck, 1987). The most
traditional method has been to use the written language, especially after the technical revolutions in the 17th
century that made this possible, but different types of symbolic or pictorial presentation are also usual. Thus
the subject matter determined is constituted in the classroom by how it is physically presented and how it is
psychologically represented by teachers and students.
An important factor determining how knowledge is represented is the teacher’s personal competence.
Especially from a teacher-education perspective, it is necessary to reflect on and decide about the
competence the teachers must represent personally.
Generally speaking, the question of representation is a vital problem in all pedagogical contexts. The
choice of a relevant form of representation is to be made in relation to both the learners and the content and
often to the resources available.
7
It is doubtful whether or not the question of representation should be regarded as a problem apart. On
good grounds we may ask if it should not be counted as belonging to instructional methods. The reason why
the question of representation is considered central in this present study is that the model developed is
considered relevant to institutionalized education. The point is that a major part of the work done in these
institutions is concerned with the study of a