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

[Unterricht]
”.
6
Schröder (1992, p. 61) then
mentions the following contemporary German approaches to didactics (see also Gudjons, Teske, & Winkel,
1980):
• Erudition-centred didactics within the framework of critical-constructive science of education (Klafki);
• Instructional-theoretical didactics (Schulz);
• Cybernetic information-theoretical didactics (v. Cube);
• Curricular didactics (Möller);
• Critical-communicative didactics (Winkel)
7
.
Of the approaches mentioned above the first two will be discussed in 
Chapter 3
in relation to the model put
forth in this study.
When using the term didactics in an English text like the present one, we must try to relate it to existing
English terminology. There is, however, no possibility in this context of going into a detailed discussion of
how the concept of didactics should be translated into English. I will only point out some important features
that may be helpful in comparing the Anglo-American and the continental traditions.
The Continental v. the Anglo-American Approach to Research on Teaching
We will now turn our attention to the relation between the continental use of the term and what it could be
taken to mean in the Anglo-American research community.
First of all there is reason to notice the recent and growing interest in instituting a discussion between
representatives of the Anglo-American, Nordic and the continental tradition concerning research on
teaching, curriculum and didactics. The recent interest has been called the Didaktik-Renaissance and has
manifested itself in both meetings and numerous publications (see e.g. Doyle & Westbury, 1992;
Gudmundsdottir & Granqvist, 1992; Gundem 1980, 1992a; Hopmann, Klafki, Krapp, & Riquarts, 1995;
Hopmann & Künzli, 1992; Hopmann & Riquarts, 1992, 1995; Kansanen, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993b,
1993d, 1995a; Kansanen & Uljens, 1995c, 1996; Kroksmark, 1989; Marton, 1986a; Stormbom, 1986;
Uljens, 1993b, 1994c, 1995a, 1995b, 1995d, 1995e, 1996, in press; Westbury, Hopmann, Künzli, &
Riquarts, 1995).
8
Parallel to this interest, a new subfield of didactics seems to be emerging: comparative
didactics (Hopmann, 1994).
The Nordic discussion on didactics has also been very lively during the last decade. In Finland the debate
was revitalized in the late 60s and at the beginning of the 70s especially in relation to the school reform and
the radical development of teacher education in the country (Koskenniemi, 1968; Koskenniemi & Hälinen,
1970; Lahdes, 1986). Faculties of education were established and many new professorships in general
education and associate professorships in didactics were created (see Kansanen & Uljens, 1990, 1995a, b).
In Sweden a debate on didactics started at the beginning of the 1980s. Discussion was also connected
with reforms in teacher education and developed largely in the form of an exchange of opinions between the
phenomenographic group in Göteborg around Professor Ference Marton emphasizing the individual
student’s understanding of the subject matter (Kroksmark & Marton, 1988; Marton, 1986a) and the
32
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

curriculum theory group in Stockholm around Professor Ulf P. Lundgren (Arfwedson, 1994a; Englund,
1984; Lundgren, 1986, 1987; Wallin, 1988a, 1988b).
For the development in Norway see Engelsen (1990) and Gundem (1991, 1992a, 1992b).
1
See also
Biørndal & Lieberg (1979). Nordenbo (1993) has presented an analysis of the development and current
situation of didactics in Denmark. Curriculum history from the perspective of specific school subjects has
simultaneously been an object of growing interest in the Nordic countries (see, for example, Andersson,
1979; Englund, 1986, 1990; Gundem, 1989).
Pertti Kansanen (1989, 1995a, b, c) has presented a useful and clarifying overview of the differences
between the Anglo-American and the continental approaches to research on teaching (didactics). Among
other things he has pointed out that English textbooks in educational psychology often contain two different
but complementary parts: educational psychology as such and a normative part aiming to guide educational
practice. This latter part of British and American educational psychology is very close to what is recognized
as normative didactics. Kansanen (1995c) summarizes the position well in the following words and is
therefore cited at length:
In the American literature of research on teaching, the problems of teaching and learning are usually
held together without any theoretical model building. Attention is paid to the methodological
problems, and there the various background principles can be seen. In German educational literature,
didactic problems define an independent subdiscipline of education which really is quite the same as
general education, however, with its own point of view. The area of Didaktik is mainly larger than
educational psychology and it includes much philosophical and theoretical thinking. In German
literature Didaktik and educational psychology are clearly separate fields with different
representatives. The situation in Great Britain and the US is quite the contrary; the same people are
working in this common area.
It is also usual to understand didactics as covering both problems in relation to the process of teaching and
to the selection of content (Klafki, 1991). If traditional educational psychology covers the normative or
prescriptive dimension of didactics dealing with the process of teaching (i.e. how one should teach), then
one might say that the term curriculum or curriculum theory refers to the process of selecting contents for
schools on a collective level.
A great deal of empirical research has, however, been carried out concerning both the teaching process as
such and teachers’ selection of content within the Anglo-American tradition. This is normally identified as
research on teaching.
9
But what is less developed is the 
theory
of teaching as such; empirical research is not
always analyzed in order to develop, or contribute to, some conceptual system in the field. When this is the
case, i.e. when efforts to build up models of teaching are made (e.g. Shulman, 1987), then research on
teaching comes closer to the German descriptive version of didactics.
However, in the continental tradition, empirical research alone is not often the basis for constructing
theories of didactics. Instead, researchers refer to a cultural heritage of practical pedagogical experience. One
should, however, be careful not to generalize too much in this context since many continental models
represent different combinations of normative and analytic aspects. In addition it is possible to identify
different levels of didactical theory; there are both the ordinary level of theory in which the aim is to
conceptualize and explain something and also the meta-theoretical levels (Knecht-von Martial, 1986).
The relation between German Didaktik and curriculum theory is more complicated and cannot be
discussed in detail within the framework of the present study (see Blankertz, 1987; Hameyer, Frey, & Haft,
1983; Hopmann, 1992; Kansanen, 1995a).
2. DIDACTICS AND THE TSL PROCESS
33

---

If we wanted to continue the discussion, i.e. to clarify how the different schools of didactics arose in
Europe and how they developed especially during and after the 19th century on the basis of the thoughts of
Pestalozzi (1746–1827), Fichte (1762–1814), Herbart
10
(1776– 1841), Schleiermacher
11
(1768–1834), and
Dilthey
12
(1833–1911), a second study would be required. Therefore, in order to avoid an inadequate history
of the use of the term didactics and its content I will now instead take up some problems that I consider
important from the point of view of the model I will present later. Having presented the model for school
didactics, I will return to two different ways in which German didactics have been understood. Such a
comparison makes it easier to understand the present model in relation to the current approaches to
didactics.
DIDACTICS AS THEORY AND DOCTRINE
A first necessary clarification before we explain the model that will be presented concerns the nature of
didactic propositions.
Two different ways of approaching the pedagogical process involve asking the following two questions:
(a) how should a teacher act in order to be a good teacher? and (b) how should we act in order to understand
or explain pedagogical activity? Every answer to the first question will be normative or prescriptive. The
answer depends on what standards should be met for it to be accepted and why.
In answering the second question, i.e. what is required in order to understand or explain a pedagogical
process, we do not have to find a normative solution, but we must have some idea of what the fundamental
characteristics of teaching are. We must also say for whom and for what reasons we develop our theory. In
doing so we are making value-based decisions. However, saying how teaching in schools is constituted and
how it should be analysed is not to say 
what
this teaching should aim at. Nor is it to say how this teaching
should be carried out. Therefore answers to the second question can be regarded as descriptive or analytic.
The distinction between the answers to these two questions may also be kept up by talking about didactics
as doctrine and didactics as theory, respectively.
Didactics as doctrine is equal to normative didactics, covering pedagogical schools of thought stating how
teaching 
should
be carried out. These norms and prescriptions emanate from everyday experience,
psychology, sociology, philosophy and subject knowledge or theory. The norms developed on the basis of
some view of man, society and nature are primarily connected with values while prescriptions guiding
practice usually emanate from learning theory. The difference between prescriptive and normative
propositions is, however, not always easy to maintain.
From history we know that complete pedagogical programmes have been developed solely on the basis
of normative arguments derived from philosophy (Steiner, Makarenko). Prescriptive perspectives on
learning, motivation and development have also resulted in many instructional programmes (e.g. Aebli,
1983).
Didactics as a theory is equal to descriptive didactics, which agrees with the analytic function an
educational theory may have. Through this function educational theory offers us an instrument by which we
may actualize varying dimensions of pedagogical practice in order to understand that practice better. As far
as I understand, descriptive didactics does not contain direct norms for action. It mainly poses relevant
questions requiring answers in order that we may understand the TSL process. Descriptive theory helps us
to handle normative and prescriptive principles created on the basis of subject knowledge, psychology or
philosophy within an educational frame of reference.
34
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

DIDACTICS, INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION
Having defined didactics as theory and doctrine, the next step in our analysis will be to relate these two
aspects of didactics to instruction and education. This may be seen as one preparatory step towards solving
the problem of in what sense a descriptive theory is value-related.
In analysing how didactics should be related to instruction and education, the following typology was
developed (see 
Fig. 2.9
). 
FIG. 2.9. Didactics as doctrine and theory in relation to instruction and education.