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

Dimension
Type of context
Organization
Resources
Curriculum
School as
context
Organization of the school
Buildings, technical aids,
materials
The curriculum of the
school
The local culture
as
context
The local culture generally
Parental participation,
commercial interests
Educational ideals of home
The formal local
context
Board of education, local
school-administration
Economical resources,
continuing education
Municipal curriculum
The national
context
Legislation, disposition of
time
Primary education,
teaching materials
National curriculum,
school subjects
presented earlier in several respects. First, not all of the dimensions pointed out in the figure were included
in the previous model. For example the school as context was identified only on a general level; its different
dimensions were not mentioned. Concerning the national context, again, only the curricular dimension was
previously discussed. It is, however, clear that the resources and national legislation also affect the teachers’
educational practices both directly and indirectly. By resources on the national level we mean both the pre-
service teacher education usually financed by the state and the acceptance of teaching materials used in the
schools. By organization on the national level again we mean both the laws regulating activities in the
schools and the regulation concerning which subjects should be included in the weekly schedule and the time
allocated to the different subjects. A second major difference between the previous model and this typology
is that the local culture is divided into two different types of contexts: (a) there is the local culture in a wide
sense and (b) the formal local context, i.e. the local way of organizing educational activities (school
administration).
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
59

---

However, there is no reason to articulate the differences between the contexts and dimensions in any
detail in the present study. It serves the purpose of this study to identify the contexts and their dimensions at
this general level. It should be mentioned that there are other ways of differentiating the culture surrounding
the institutionalized school. For example, Lundgren (1972, 1980) presented a model for analysing factors of
importance in understanding how decisions are made concerning teaching and teaching content in schools.
He noted the difference between curriculum as a governing goal system, the administrative apparatus as a
constraining frame system and the juridical apparatus as a regulating formal rule system. Arfwedson &
Arfwedson (1991, pp. 41 if.) in turn have distinguished between an outer and an inner frame system; the
outer system refers to contextual factors outside the school as an institution and the inner system to the
school as an institution, including its inner life. There are also obvious similarities between the present way
of structuring the outer context and those presented by Fend (1980). The major difference is that the present
model distinguishes between three dimensions typical of each context, i.e. the organization, resources and
curriculum of each context. Making the above-mentioned distinction between the dimensions in question is
considered valuable in that it offers a refined way of structuring the very important context. The
fundamental difference is, however, that the approaches mentioned above are primarily theories or models
of frame factors (curriculum theory) affecting the teaching process while the present model puts the
pedagogical activity in the centre. In trying to understand teaching, studying and learning in schools, it seems
impossible to neglect these contextual frames.
WHY SCHOOL DIDACTICS?
During the development of the present model, I gave much consideration to the question of how the
conceptual system was to be characterized to fit a suitable label. At first it appeared that many terms could
have been used. After closer consideration this was not the case and I will now try to show why.
General Didactics
The first reflection concerning the present model is its character as a general model for education in
institutionalized schools. The model focuses on the different phases of the pedagogical process, and does not
take the content or the population as its point of departure. In other words, it is not a model of subject
didactics or a model of special education or adult education. However, even though the main structural
elements are valid for all forms of education, the model is still not a model of general didactics. It is
primarily aimed at helping to understand the pedagogical process in the institutionalized school.
The orientation of this study is thus similar to that of many other didacticians like Menck (1975). His
definition is: “I will use ‘didactics’ for every consideration, proposition and theory concerning ‘teaching
in schools’