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

a reflective theory of didactics
.
Two Value-dimensions of Didactics
In an analysis of several German schools of didactics, Kansanen (1989, p. 134) suggests how these theories
could be related to each other. Two axes are suggested; one referring to whether the approaches are
normative concerning the goals of education and a second referring to whether they are prescriptive with
regards to the methods to be used in practice. This leads to four fields; a theory can be (a) both normative
and prescriptive (e.g. normative didactics, human-science pedagogy (Klafki, the Hamburg model), (b)
normative but not prescriptive (curriculum development), (c) not normative but prescriptive (cybernetic
models, goal-oriented didactics) and finally (d) neither normative nor prescriptive (descriptive didactics).
Using Kansanen’s (1989) analysis, the present model belongs to the last group, descriptive didactics. This
school didactic model does not contain norms indicating what teachers should teach. Nor is the model 
TABLE 3.1. The school didactic model in relation to (a) values behind the model, and (b) how the descriptive and
normative aspects of the model are understood in relation to research and to pedagogical practice.
1
Values and motives behind the development of the model
(a)
To develop a conceptual model of didactics valid for the complexity of intentional,
interactional, institutionalized, instructional activity as,
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
79

---

(b)
such a model is considered as a useful instrument for teachers by increasing their
possibilities of reflecting on:
• how their pedagogical practice should be organized and carried out, as well as on
• what values this practice should be based on in relation to the collectively accepted
norms
(c)
This (b) in turn helps teachers to take better account of the interests and needs of the
individual student.
2
The model
The School Didactic Model
3
Research
Practice
Descriptive aspect
Conceptual and empirical
research within the framework
provided by the model.
Analysis of practical
pedagogical work. Identifying
problems requiring normative
and prescriptive decisions.
Normative aspect
Development of teaching advice
on the basis of content theory,
psychology, philosophy and
cultural-historical insights.
Applied research in didactics.
Practical pedagogical activity
carried out in relation to
instructional planning and
decisions made concerning
content, goals, methods,
students, context, etc.
prescriptive concerning methods to be used. However, it is not value-neutral. The views represented are
summarized in 
Table 3.1
. The structure of the table is as follows.
Section one describes how behind the presented descriptive school didactic model a value-dimension is to
be found. At this level my personal understanding of what the model is developed for is explicated. Firstly,
in the present case the motive for developing the model was to develop a conceptual language that
acknowledges the complexity of the pedagogical process in institutionalized education. Secondly, the point
is to support teachers in their development of their own professional activity by making use of the model in
question. Thirdly, this in turn is something that could increase teachers’ autonomy in relation to the
collective level of decision-making which, finally, would increase the teacher’s possibility of paying
attention to the individual student’s needs and interests.
Another possibility offered by the model is that teachers’ and researchers’ reflection may be compared to
some extent. However, many models of professional development and reflective practice have been
developed without paying enough attention to what role a theory of education could play in that process. In
order to answer that question one must first have an acceptable model of the instructional process.
Hopefully the present model can meet the demands made on such a model.
Observe that these values have not been explicitly built into the model even though they have functioned
as the driving force in the development of the model. The reason is that an individual researcher cannot be
given the right to 
decide
what values should regulate education in the society, although the researcher may
well participate in such a discussion. The risk involved in the present position is that the model may be used
for purposes other than those for which it was developed. The advantage again is that an ideologically
locked position is avoided; if the model had certain values built into it and if these values were realized, the
consequence would be that there could be no more room for criticism among teachers. Or rather, criticism
would have no function as the model’s ideology and the content of a collective curriculum coincide.
80
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

Thus the structure of this model is valid even though the values of a given community change over time.
The tension between the collective level of e.g. the curriculum and the individual teacher can in principle not
be neutralized because of the model. Naturally there can exist a perfect harmony between the values or
norms represented by an individual teacher and the collective level, but this then results either from the
teacher’s acceptance of the collective norms or from a change on the collective level which better suits an
individual teacher. The school didactic model does not lose its function in either of these cases.
On the second level then the model itself is explicated. This has been done previously and will not be
repeated here.
Finally on the third level I have described how both the researcher and the teacher are related to the model
with respect to normativity and descriptivity. For both groups a descriptive and normative aspect can be
identified. For a teacher the analytic aspect of the model means that they can reflect rationally and
systematically on their practical pedagogical activity. The normative and prescriptive aspect refers to the
value-laden decisions a teacher makes concerning goals, contents and working methods in relation to e.g.
the subjects’ needs, the curriculum, resources, personal competence, local context etc. It also includes the
practice of teaching and evaluation of both achievements and process.
From the researcher’s point of view again, the analytic or the descriptive aspect refers to conceptual and
empirical research within the framework of the model and, additionally, to ontological reflection on
whether the model does justice to the pedagogical activity in the institutionalized school or not. In fact, in a
sense the very construction of this model itself may be categorized as belonging to this field.
The normative aspect of the model from the researcher’s perspective concerns applied didactic research
aimed at developing e.g. teaching materials or instructional methods. The second part of this study may be
seen as applied didactic research; the aim being to analyse pedagogical implications of learning theories.
The Role of Didactic Theory in Teachers’ Pedagogical Reflection
The fundamental reason why teachers and researchers may be compared in the sense described above is that
there is a similarity with respect to how these groups are related to practice and theory. The point is that
individual reflection and learning may, to a certain degree, be compared to the process of scientific research
and its way of creating knowledge. This point may be clarified by using David Kolb’s (1984) model of
experiential learning (see also Jarvis, 1987).
According to Kolb (1984), the individual learning process may be described by a four-step model or
circle starting from (a) ordinary everyday experience. The subject is then (b) reflecting on these experiences.
The third step (c) is a kind of abstract generalization while the final step (d) consists of new experiences on
the basis of the conceptual structure developed.
The important thing here is the third step, abstract generalization. The individual reflects on the sense in
which experiences and insights are valid in new situations. However, what is not obvious in Kolb’s (1984)
model is the relation between the individual subject’s structured experience resulting from reflection, and
the previously produced body of knowledge within a culture. Among others, Bereiter (1994, p. 8) has
emphasized the importance of this; the subjectively reflected experience must be related to previously
existing collective knowledge in a certain field if this common body of understanding is to be developed.
And it is only in relation to this common body of knowledge that individual knowledge gets its profile and
meaning. 
The individual may turn to previous collective conceptual abstractions (knowledge) in reflecting on
private experiences and organize her experiences with the help of this previous knowledge of the field.
Using didactic theory in this way, teachers may on the one hand organize their pedagogical experiences, on
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
81

---

the other evaluate to what extent the model or other models are useful in structuring their experiences of
teaching (see also 
Chapter 8
). If one considers acting as a teacher on the basis of structured reflection, one
can say that the teacher uses the actual model as a lens through which new impressions are interpreted.
To my understanding the scientific research process is structurally close to the one described. It is not
difficult to point out differences, but the similarities are considered more fundamental. Also, the scientist
makes observations, both structured and unstructured. We talk about confirmatory and exploratory research.
In other words, the scientist usually interprets observations explicitly in relation to theory, or against
previous abstract conceptualizations, and organizes them accordingly. Like the researcher, the teacher may
also evaluate in what respect and to what extent the model is useful in handling empirical experience or
observations and what consequences different choices have (Koskenniemi, 1978, p. 225).
The idea of the similarity between the teacher’s and the researcher’s way of working with respect to the
normative and descriptive aspects gets support when comparing Kolb’s (1984) model with Lahdes’ (1988)
model of didactics and its dimensions. Erkki Lahdes makes a distinction between the dimensions of (a) a
descriptive-normative aspect of education and (b) a theory-practice aspect. Lahdes’ (1988) model is
presented in 
Fig. 3.6
. While Kolb’s (1984) and Jarvis’ (1987) models are models of an individual’s
experiences, reflection and conceptualization, Lahdes’ (1988) model describes a collective, cultural process
of creating knowledge of the educational field. Lahdes (1988) explains that the model may be applied both
to the research cycle and also in order to describe the development of the individual teacher. It is not
difficult to see the structural similarity between Lahdes’ and Kolb’s (1984) models. One could say that
Lahdes’ model may be seen as a development of the general thoughts presented by Kolb for the area of
education on a collective level.
Lahdes’ (1988) model is more a model of the relations between theory of teaching, practical pedagogical
work and research, than it is a theory of the teaching process itself. The model is thus a general model of
how educational theory and practice may be related to each other.
It must also be obvious to the reader that the model presented in this study differs fundamentally from the
one presented by Lahdes (1988). The model of school didactics in this study is one example of a theory of
teaching in Lahdes’ model. When Lahdes suggests that teaching advice may be reached by logical thinking
with theory as the point of departure, the position of the present study is that empirical research could be
included here also—educational research may deal with the development of instructional strategies. This
kind of research is called applied didactic research. It is prescriptive by nature; it aims at prescriptions
concerning how a teacher should teach.
The second part of this study explicitly attempts to investigate the pedagogical implications of learning
theory within the frames of the descriptive model of didactics presented.
NOTES
1. It is useful to keep in mind the difference between