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

(Fachdidaktik)
. First, it goes beyond teaching in
schools; in principle it deals with teaching different subjects anywhere. Second, it is connected with school
pedagogics through school didactics. Further, it may be noted that subject matter didactics does not reach
beyond general didactics; as such they are both valid for any type of pedagogical setting.
The model does not say much about how curriculum theory should be placed.
14
What has been said is
that curriculum theory goes beyond school didactics. A further motive for placing curriculum theory outside
Schulpädagogik
as well is that 
Schulpädagogik
may be seen as a field of research and not as a general
theory. However, curriculum theory may also be placed within 
Schulpädagogik
since curriculums are almost
exclusively constructed for institutionalized schools. But it would probably also be possible to find arguments
for letting general didactics include curriculum theory.
The second conscious limitation of the model is that it leaves out didactics for special groups (adult
education, special education), i.e. models using the population as the criterion. It would however be easy to
include such a field in the model above; didactics for special groups would (a) fall within general education
and (b) cover all fields apart from subject didactics.
The position presented here is supported by Scholz and Bielefeldt’s (1978) delimitation. Also Klafki
(1984) has used the term 
Schuldidaktik
in relation to 
Freizeitdidaktik
. It should be noted that the notion of
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
63

---

Schuldidaktik
is not in frequent use in the contemporary literature, for example Schröder’s (1992) dictionary
of educational terminology does not contain 
Schuldidaktik,
only 
Schulpädagogik
. In Finland Bruhn (1935, p.
190) has used the concept, but not in a systematic way.
Yet many researchers in general didactics regard themselves as primarily concerned with didactics for the
comprehensive school. In Finland this is true for both Soininen (1901, 1906), Koskenniemi (1946), Bruhn
(1953), Koskenniemi and Hälinen (1970) and for Lahdes (1986). It is true also for German didactics (e.g.
Heimann, Klafki).
As the difference between school pedagogics and school didactics is justified, it is suggested that school
didactics should be conceived of as a specific field of research within general education. Observe however
that the expression 
field of research
is not an argument for introducing a new subdiscipline under general
education. Thus we avoid a further unhealthy differentiation of education as a discipline (Macke, 1990;
Sjöberg, 1994).
With this explanation the first problem posed in this study may be regarded as solved, at least tentatively.
A field of research within general education called school didactics has been presented. Second, a
descriptive-analytical conceptual model (also called 
The School Didactic Fly
referring to the visual shape of
the model) within the frames of this field has been explicated.
However, thus far the conceptual structure developed has been called a model, not a theory. What then is
the difference between a model and a theory? This is the question to be answered in the following section,
then the presented model will be related to some influential German schools of didactics. Finally the
problem of normativity is reflected upon, and the position of the present model in this respect is explicated.
FIG. 3.4. A model visualizing logical relations between school didactics and related concepts. Explanations:
General education=