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

try
to reach a kind of competence, i.e. 
try
to work through a
problem, they may still be solving 
different
problems. This also calls in question the idea of using the
student’s conscious effort as a criterion for identifying teaching.
FIG. 2.8. Teaching as affecting learning indirectly through the individual’s study activity.
28
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

However, I do require that the teacher understands himself as a teacher, i.e. the teacher’s explicit
intention must be to support (but not to force) another person to reach competence in order that his activity
should qualify as teaching. This means (a) that the teacher (ideally) must try to be aware of what their
intention is, and (b) that the teacher believes that the student intends to learn or that the teacher is aware that
the student may be expected to intend to learn (study). By saying this we also avoid the unpleasant
conclusion that activities forcing individuals to change could be called teaching.
THE SOCIO-CULTURAL SITUATION
An additional way of clarifying this position is to acknowledge the social agreement concerning the TSL
situation. If teaching, as described above, occurs in a social institution like a school, then the activity of
facilitating the learner’s acquisition of competence may clearly be called teaching, even though the learner
has not tried to learn what the teacher honestly tried to teach. If this position is rejected, we run the risk of
applying a kind of reductionism in our argumentation as indicated above; the teacher’s activity would be
made dependent on the student’s intentions.
There is also a risk of making the opposite mistake; it would be wrong to say that the student is engaged
in an active learning process each time a teacher is teaching (in the teacher’s own opinion). The student’s
activity cannot thus be made dependent on the teacher’s intentions, nor can the teacher’s activity be made
dependent on the student’s intentions. The kernel of the problem is thus to what extent both these parties’
intentions must be in existence in order for teaching to occur. I have claimed that the teacher’s intention is
always required and that it is reasonable to require that a teacher should have good reasons at least to expect
that the student intends to learn, in order that we may call an activity teaching.
It is also suggested that the situation or context framing the intentional TSL process must be
acknowledged in order to identify teaching. If both the teacher’s and the student’s understanding of a
situation is that they participate in a common TSL process (with the intention to teach and to learn) then this
is enough to make teaching occur. An activity identified as teaching should not be made dependent on
individual student’s intentions or the result of the process in terms of learning achievements. Making
teaching dependent on student’s intentions would lead, in a classroom, to the conclusion that whether the
teacher is teaching or not depends on from which student’s perspective the classroom reality is described.
Therefore we must remember that the 
social contract
in a school assumes that even the uninterested subject
is an intentional learner; even though the subject is uninterested, the teacher has the right to expect an
interested attitude from the student. In some cases the teacher can refer to the student’s parents, whose
intentions are often regarded as more decisive than the student’s. One might even say, in some cases, that
the student’s intentionality is replaced by the parents’ intentionality. The structure of the school as a social
institution thus gives the teacher the right to assume intentional efforts to learn on the part of the students. If
this were not the case, evaluation of students’ achievements would solely be an evaluation of the teacher’s
ability to teach and not of the individual student’s ability, efforts and achievements.
To acknowledge the social contract agreed upon between the participants in the TSL process helps us to
understand the conditions on which the participants are present in the TSL situation. The social contract is of
importance not only in order to identify something as teaching, but more generally in order to understand
institutionalized education (Bergqvist, 1990; Mercer, 1995).
2. DIDACTICS AND THE TSL PROCESS
29

---

CONCLUSION
As has been stated, one of the aims of this study is to investigate the pedagogical implications of learning
theory. The previous analysis suggests that the instructional implications of learning theory consist of
prescriptive claims concerning how teachers should assist the learner’s intentional study activities in order
for learning to occur.
It is also important to recognize that when the relation between teaching and learning has been discussed
thus far, it has not been done within the theory of didactics. Rather, the previous analysis may be
characterized as an ontological reflection on teaching, studying and learning and the relations between these
phenomena. 
One of the most important results of the previous discussion is that when the theory of didactics is
developed, one must necessarily pay attention to the intentions and the intentional activities of the teacher
and the learner. The intended results of the TSL process cannot be the sole fundamental criterion when
trying to identify the phenomenon of teaching; the intentions of the interacting subjects must be
acknowledged as well.
The remaining question is what role the process of learning as such plays in a theory of didactics. In other
words, as we can meaningfully claim that a teacher has taught even though a learner has not learned, it is
reasonable to question the role of learning in understanding teaching. Only one answer has been given so
far: the learner’s study process is important. But as has been shown above—as studying should not be
confused with learning, and the question remains partly unanswered.
Even if teaching is logically independent of learning, teaching practice always 
intends
to influence
learning. This intentionality has to do with teachers’ reflection on how they could facilitate the study
process in order to affect learning. As a theory of didactics is assumed to be an instrument in teachers’
pedagogical reflection, this theory must be explicit concerning what role learning theory has in the theory of
didactics.
If the instructional implications of learning theory are prescriptive propositions concerning how teachers
should act, then a theory or model of didactics should be clear with respect to what role prescriptive and
normative propositions have in the theory or model in question. We will return to this question in the next
section.
DIDACTICS AS THE SCIENCE OF THE TEACHING-STUDYING-LEARNING
PROCESS
Thus far the expressions educational theory, instructional theory and theory of didactics have been used
when talking about theoretical conceptualization of pedagogical practice. While the present study partly has
primarily Nordic and continental pedagogical theory as its frame of reference, the concept of didactics must
be commented upon especially.
4
Didactics may preliminarily be defined as the science of the teaching-
studying-learning (TSL) process, as long as this process is understood as previously described.
In clarifying the concept of didactics, it should be noted that there is no possibility in the present context
of going into a detailed historical analysis of the concept, its origin and development. Nor will there be any
attempt to present a complete overview of the contemporary usage of the term.
There are several reasons for these decisions. Firstly, an analysis or even a description of the historical
development of the term and a description of its contemporary use would each require extensive studies.
Since there is no reason to describe the tradition of didactics as such in this study, there is no reason to
repeat in a condensed form what has been said in numerous previous publications in the field.
5
Secondly,
since the focus of this study is primarily on how one may deal with learning within the theory of didactics,
30
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

attention is mainly focused on this question. In addition, one section is devoted to relating the presented
model to some influential German schools of thought. Also, the question of normativity is regarded as a
central issue and is dealt with in a section of its own (see 
Chapter 3
).
The motive for clarifying didactics in this context is thus to communicate the nature of the model
proposed in this study. It is easier to understand the didactic model that will be presented later by having a
general understanding of what is meant by didactics. To clarify and understand the features of the model is
important, especially since it will be used as the pedagogical frame of reference for the subsequent analysis
of learning theory.
THE CONCEPT OF DIDACTICS
The etymology of the German and Swedish word