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

Methodik
) we have
many possibilities. However, the concept of method cannot be defined without reference to one individual’s
activity to support another individual’s efforts to reach competence through the process of learning.
Perhaps it would suffice here to say that as the aim of didactics is to understand and structure the overall
educational situation with intentionality as one of the fundamental notions, the object of instructional
method 
(Methodik)
is reflection on what activities are required in order to support an individual’s learning.
To support learning does not necessarily mean to think of methods as techniques. If we understand Dewey’s
ideas as proposals for new teaching methods, we see that methods can cover decisions concerning the goals
as well as the contents of education.
It is, however, interesting to notice a continuous concern with the problem of what a method is (see e.g.
Adl-Amini, 1993; Kansanen, 1992; Meyer, 1987; Schulze, 1978, 1993; Schulze & Terhart, 1993; Terhart,
1983, 1989). Yet the question of teaching method has received relatively little attention from a theoretical
standpoint compared with questions of goal, media and contents (Adl-Amini, 1993, p. 83).
5
Terhart
(1989) belongs to the didacticians who have dealt extensively with the question of method. Among the
many issues relating to methods, he distinguishes four of special importance. These are (a) the question of
reaching goals by applying methods, (b) the relation between content and methods, (c) the relation between
methods and theory, and (d) the institutional dimension of methods.
The first of these relations, between methods and goals, as well as that dealing with the relation between
contents and methods, have been briefly commented on previously. In part two of this study the third will
be discussed by investigating methodical implications of cognitivist learning theory. The final aspect
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
49

---

pointed out by Terhart (1989), concerning methods in an institutional perspective, is also conceived of as an
especially important issue. From the perspective of the present school didactic model it is easy to argue that
methods are partially to be understood as being embedded in a socio-historical and institutional tradition. It
is almost impossible to understand teachers’ instructional practice and choice of methods without
acknowledging this fact. Many structural features determine to some extent what methods teachers choose.
As was previously noted, there is a reciprocal relation between many factors in an instructional situation.
This is also the case with instructional principles and students’ working methods in relation to other
important features of the instructional setting. For example, there is a reciprocal relation between working
methods and content; the content regulates how it should be dealt with in a pedagogical setting.
This means that the method as such is not conceived of as something principally subordinated to the
what- and why-questions of teaching. This position disagrees with the view expressed by Weniger (1952, p.
18) when he writes that: “In reality methodical arrangements can never be made, rules can never be
proposed, until the didactic questions have been decided. Thus method is always something secondary”
6
(see also Koskenniemi, 1968, p. 11).
It is true that (1) the teacher’s personal competence determines the choice of instructional method and that
the 
goals
of the pedagogical situation affect this choice as well. But (2) the teacher’s familiarity with certain
methods of teaching affects both what content is chosen and what goals are set up. Further (3) the working
methods as such may also be viewed as a goal; if the goal is to train students to cooperate, then group work
is a relevant way of trying to reach that goal regardless of what a group is working on (also Adl-Amini,
1993, pp. 95 ff.).
It should also be noticed that if the notion of method is given an independent position in relation to
didactics, then didactics is limited to curriculum theory