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

Students’
Interests
and the School Based Curriculum.
Finally, the usefulness of the school didactic model
will be indicated by relating it to more recent trends in curriculum development. A general trend in western
countries since the end of the 70s has been a decentralization of the responsibility of planning education on
the local level. Accordingly so-called local curriculums on community level were introduced into Finland a
decade ago, the last step being the school based curriculums (1994). This has been called the second wave of
decentralization of curriculum planning (Kansanen & Uljens, 1995a, 1995b, 1996). 
One of the major differences between a local (community specific) and a school based curriculum for the
compulsory school is that teachers and parents are more directly involved in the process of producing
school based curriculums, i.e. the curriculum makers are closer to the school itself (Clandinin & Connelly,
1992). The parents whose children visit the schools thus also control, in principle, the activities in the
170
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

schools. Compared with a situation with a national, wide curriculum which only vaguely limits the teacher’s
responsibility, the teacher’s degree of freedom to educate may decrease considerably in following school
based curriculums. This may appear as a paradoxical statement, but acknowledging that evaluation
procedures are simultaneously being centralized it is evident that teachers will probably increasingly be
conceived of as civil servants.
The positive result of decentralization of curriculum planning is the possibility that the teacher has of
participating in the construction of the curriculum more directly than previously (see e.g. Gundem, 1995).
This again increases the teacher’s possibilities of acting as an educator. Under these circumstances we may
ask to what extent the students’ interests may be considered as a kind of curriculum as was suggested
above. Considering the school based curriculum we may thus observe that the teachers take part in the
construction process, i.e. they agree together with parents on a plan or, say, about a contract to be followed
in the schools. Having done this, it is probably more difficult than it used to be for the teacher to follow the
students’ interests in a specific pedagogical situation if these interests go beyond the curriculum agreed
upon, as a deviation from the contract could violate the parents’ interests. The difference with respect to a
national curriculum is obviously that in the local and school-based version of curriculum making, the
teacher has moral obligations towards specific individuals (or clients)—the parents of the pupils visiting
schools. 
Against this background it is reasonable to argue that the vagueness of a national curriculum includes
more freedom for the teachers—because of its vagueness many interpretations are possible. Under such
circumstances it is easier for teachers to pay attention to the students’ interests as a very detailed control of
how the teacher follows the curriculum is not possible. As the local curriculums are more specific and as
centralized evaluation procedures appear to increase in order to measure the quality of teaching, the
teachers’ personal freedom of choice decreases, which also means that their possibilities of directly paying
attention to the students’ interests may decrease.
REFLECTIVE PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICE AND THEORY OF DIDACTICS
The school didactic model presented should not be limited to being used as a research model in
investigating the TSL process in schools. It may also be used by teachers as an instrument for reflecting on
pedagogical reality in order to increase the self-understanding of their pedagogical activity and the
conditions under which they are working.
FIG. 8.1. Teachers’ teleological purposiveness as a result of a deontological incorporation of students’ interests and
values explicated in the curriculum.
8. CLOSING THOUGHTS AND PERSPECTIVES
171

---

In this respect the model may be used both in analysing the pedagogical reality in schools, i.e. as a
research model, and by teachers as a thought-model in their reflection on instruction in the institutionalized
school.
To claim that the present model offers a language for analyzing the TSL process in the institutionalized
school is naturally also a limit to what the model is supposed to be useful for. It has, for example, not been
claimed that teachers’ professional competence in general should be equated with what is covered by school
didactics. The model is too narrow and limited for a discussion of all aspects of what is counted as
belonging to teachers’ professional competence. Of course this depends on how professional competence is
limited (Terhart, 1991, 1994).
It should also be clearly observed that the aim of this study has not been to explicitly address the question
of student teachers’ or teachers’ professional development (see Bennett, Carré & Dunne, 1993; Calderhead,
1989; Carter, 1990; Doyle, 1990; Eraut, 1994; Gilbert, 1994; Järvinen, 1989; Kagan, 1992; Myrskog, 1993;
Sundqvist, 1995). This is a most interesting and important issue, and it may very well be developed in the
future in relation to the model presented here. Most models of teachers’ professional development almost
completely neglect what role educational or didactic theory might play in this development: therefore the
next section touches upon the role didactic theory may play in teachers’ pedagogical reflection.
The School Didactic Model as a Thought Model
The position advocated is that the descriptive model of school didactics presented may be used as an
instrument dealing with problems which require normative reflection and decisions. This is the main
function of a descriptive theory of didactics in relation to teaching. According to the model, the teacher
reflects in a normative fashion both in the pedagogical situation and in the planning and evaluation of a
pedagogical sequence (Schön, 1983). But in order to understand what one is doing one needs to get a
perspective, a long view of this activity. Descriptive theory of school didactics offers such a perspective.
Thus the model presented here supports the view that a teacher may reflect on his practice on different
levels and in different phases. The model is proposed as a conceptual instrument in this reflective process.
Thus the presented model can be used both by a single teacher as a thought model and by a researcher
investigating the pedagogical process (Giesecke, 1992, pp. 161 ff.).
The teacher is thus seen both as a reflecting and a position-taking subject. In fact, pedagogical practice is
characterized by these very aspects—a continuous shifting between reflection and decision-making,
planning and action, evaluation and action, distance and closeness. But one may reflect in different ways.
Consequently, to use the present model means that the teacher reflects on activities theoretically or
scientifically.
A part of teachers’ professional competence thus consists both in ability to reflect on the constituents of
pedagogical reality (analytic self-reflection) and also in readiness to make the decisions required and
identified in the model (normative reflection) as well as to act in accordance with these decisions. The teacher
is thus an analytically reflecting practitioner, as well as an ethically reflecting and culturally acting
practitioner, among students within an institutionalized school (Uljens, 1994a).
The teacher is conceived of as an actor with moral responsibilities towards the individual student and the
collective. The teacher is able to reflect rationally (analytically) and critically on this culturally embedded
practice by using a descriptive theory of didactics. Through this analytical reflective process distance is created
to practice. This distance may be identified as a space which enables the teacher to decide e.g. on what
norms and values should be followed. This space gives a teacher the opportunity to decide autonomously
and in a responsible manner on the values to be realized. 
172
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

A MODEL OF TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGICAL REFLECTION AND DIDACTIC
THEORY
The relation of individual teacher’s didactic or pedagogical reflection related to didactic theory is suggested
in 
Fig. 8.2
. The figure consists of three circles, each of which refers to different types of reflection.