One similarity between Klafki’s (1963) position and the present school didactic model is that both
emphasize the individual teacher’s continuous alternation between didactic and
methodical analysis, i.e.
between analysis of the subject matter and reflection on how education should be carried out in concrete
terms (instructional planning). In the 1958 article (
Didaktische Analyse,
here referred to as Klafki, 1995)
Klafki clearly proposes a two-step analysis; first didactic analysis, then methodical planning. Later he
emphasized the reciprocal relation between didactic analysis and methodical planning.
Conceptually, the present model is not limited to what was previously understood as
Didaktik im engeren
Sinne
(didactics in the narrower sense). Rather this model accepts the idea of interdependent relations
between intentions, content, method (and media) within a curricular and cultural context. It may thus be
understood as part of
Didaktik im weiteren Sinne Sinne
and is functionally seen as closer to Klafki’s (1985,
1994a) position.
The present model thus has a double function. Firstly, it may be understood as a result of an
ontological
analysis of the nature and conditions of the intentional TSL process in institutionalized schools. Secondly,
by using the model as a conceptual instrument, the teacher is expected to be able not only to analyse the
pedagogical reality but is also reminded of what questions require normative as well as prescriptive
decisions in the phase of planning teaching. In this sense the model may be used for two purposes—as a
research model and as a model for pedagogical reflection.
The present model acknowledges the process as well as the evaluative phase of the pedagogical process.
The advantages of acknowledging these parts of the process are several:
• We are able to discuss the intentional and interactive relationship between the teacher and the student;
• The result of the TSL process in terms of learning results can be discussed and related to the teacher’s,
the student’s and the collective’s intentions and expectations and finally;
• We better understand how the teacher’s pedagogical work is embedded in a cultural context in which the
curriculum and the local culture are of fundamental importance.
From the perspective of the present model it is easy to empathize with Wolfgang Klafki’s (1976, 1985,
1994) present-day critical-constructive position. The main difference from Klafki’s previously held position
is that he now tries to unite ideas from the traditional erudition-centred theory of didactics
with the critical
theory developed by the Frankfurter school. The critical dimension of his position thus relates to the goals
of pedagogical activity; this activity cannot be limited to the transfer of selected cultural contents to the next
generation. Education must retain the possibility of changing society. By critical Klafki (1993a, p. 5) means
that the theory of didactics should as far as possible contribute to eliminating barriers to the attainment of
values embodied in his model:
This didaktik aims at enabling children and adolescents to orient themselves towards more self-
determination, more co-determination and more solidarity. At the same time it takes the fact that the
reality of society and educational institutions does not correspond to this goal seriously… Therefore,
didaktik must…investigate barriers and the reasons for them that face teachers trying to bring about
the above.
By constructive he refers to “the continual reference to practice, the
interest in acting, structuring and
changing” (ibid, p. 5) the educational reality.
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
71
In his move towards critical-constructive didactics, Klafki (1976, 1994) emphasizes the role of contents
less. Instead the intentional character of teaching is placed to the fore. In this respect the present model is
closer to Klafki’s (present-day) position compared with the earlier approach.
A difference between Klafki’s critical-constructive approach and the present school didactic model is that
the aims of education are explicit in the tradition represented by Klafki. The model presented in this study
does not take a stand in a similar way with regard to what goals education should aim at. According to this
way
of reasoning, a descriptive or analytic theory does not necessarily have to formulate what education
should aim at. Rather it is claimed that it is reasonable to limit interest to an identification of central
dimensions, in order to understand the pedagogical process. This, however, is not to say that a theory of
didactics could be value-neutral. But it does not mean that an information-theoretical model (cybernetics) is
accepted. There is a position between pure cybernetic and emancipatoric positions.
The problem with accepting a normative perspective is that a didactic approach may be considered an
ideological programme which may compete with the ideas expressed in the national curriculum. The
scientist thus competes with the political process in society in putting up goals for education. Should a scientist
do this? We may, in fact, ask whether such a position would not rule out the democratic process of decision-
making? This may be to push the
interpretation too far, since a researcher cannot possibly decide that the
goals of the research should be realized. But the question must be asked as a matter of principle. Even
though we accept that the researcher does not possess the power to decide that their values really should be
realized, there is reason to pose an additional question: “What function would an ideological theory of
didactics have if its goals were realized, e.g. accepted as the norm for a national curriculum?” Would a
normative theory, one can ask, have
any
function
in such a situation, i.e. any function that goes beyond a
scientific support of an ideological programme? Obviously the critical power of the theory would be
eliminated if the values of normative didactics were accepted.
However, Klafki (1985)
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
