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

(das didaktische
Dreieck)
constituted of the three
relations between the content, the teacher and the student is the most frequently used model (see e.g.
Diederich, 1988, pp. 256–257). Without mentioning here the positive sides of the didactic triangle, its
fundamental problem is that it actualizes the context of teaching in a very limited sense. The present model
is to some extent a reaction against the didactic triangle models because of the contextual limitation they
suffer from.
Second, the intentional dimensions of teaching are also extremely crucial in the presented model, but this
aspect is also invisible as a constitutive factor in the didactic triangle. Of course, if it is argued in some
didactic triangle models that intentions determine the relation between the content and the teacher, then
intentions are accounted for.
Returning to the question of the teacher’s relation to context, one might think that the teacher’s
preparatory planning (P2) always occurs within the limits of the planning on the collective level (P1). This,
however, is not always the case since the teacher may move beyond or even oppose the national (collective)
curriculum. This is the reason for extending the field of P2 beyond the field of P1 in the school didactic
model presented. Because of this the effects of planning on the collective level are dependent on the
teacher’s sanctioning of this planning. Yet my impression is that the curriculum is not so effective in
general. The teacher’s understanding of the more immediate cultural context is a context that probably
influences the teacher’s activities much more directly.
The local culture is also brought into the schools by the students. In the figure presented earlier, the local
culture is indicated by the outer circle surrounding the process. Acknowledging this dimension allows us to
handle that aspect of a school’s curriculum which regulates who is granted admission to the school.
It is also important to pay attention to the existing educational interests expressed e.g. in mass media and
by other pressure groups surrounding the school. This should be more central in pedagogical reflection
since students not only bring this context into the school but partly constitute this very context. 
We may thus identify both a cultural and a curricular context for teachers’ pedagogical activity. The
curricular context may be divided into different levels as has been noted (i.e. a national, a local, and a
school level). The cultural and curricular contexts motivate a corresponding division of teachers’ planning.
Fig. 3.2
on p. 65, this is indicated by the fact that the field P2 is divided into two subfields. Let us call them
P2(a) and P2(b), where P2(a) refers to teachers’ planning in relation to the curriculum on all collective
levels (both to national and local curriculums) and P2(b) refers to teachers’ planning in relation to other than
curricular interests. This means that the national level is represented by the national curriculum, whereas the
local level is represented both in the form of a local curriculum (part of P1) and the local community
(informal context). Thus the local community has both a formal (curricular) and an informal impact on the
teachers’ work.
58
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

In assessing the impact of the curriculum on classroom activities we should remember that the collective,
formal and institutionalized regulating activities are not limited to this form of mediated regulation through
the curriculum. Decisions concerning, for example, the economic resources the teacher has access to are
also made on the collective level. Nor is it up to the teacher (or the students) to decide what subjects should
be taught or studied or how much time should be devoted to the different subjects. And it is not the teachers
who decide about the content of the final examination in the upper secondary school (gymnasium in
Finland). In this sense the collective levels interfere quite directly with the level of pedagogical action. In
other words, when discussing how the formal collective level regulates educational reality, it may turn out
to be more through these kinds of pattern than through the curriculum. The curriculum should perhaps
rather be viewed as a political document conveying general signals to the field.
Finally, there is the school as context. The conditions for the pedagogical activities taking place within an
institutionalized school are special because of the organizational structure of this type of educational
setting. Also the material resources of the school, as well as the relations a school has both to the formal
local context (the local board of education on the municipal level) and the informal context (the local
culture) define the school as the context for teachers’ pedagogical work (Arfwedson, 1986).
It is possible to identify specific dimensions of each 
type
of context, i.e. the school as context, the local
society as context, the formal local context, and the national context. Three dimensions of each context are
identified; a curriculum dimension, an organizational dimension and a resource dimension. Relating the
contexts to these dimensions result in the following typology (see 
Fig. 3.3
). 
Figure 3.3
completes the model 
FIG. 3.3. Four contexts and their dimensions framing the teaching-studying-learning process in classrooms in the
institutionalized school.