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

lerntheoretische
approach represented by Paul Heimann. These two were
considered to represent acknowledged schools of thought and were both considered relevant because of the
similarities between them and the present model.
ERUDITION-CENTRED THEORY OF DIDACTICS
One of the most influential schools of thought in German didactics is the so called 
bildungstheoretische
tradition or the 
geisteswissenschaftliche
Bildungstheorie
(here called the human-science theory of education).
It must be said from the start that there is no well established English term for German 
Bildung
(Swedish
bildning
). Hopmann (1992, p. 7) suggests that 
bildungstheoretischer Didaktik
should be translated erudition-
centred didactics. He justifies his choice as follows: 
I prefer the ancient term 
erudition
to translate the German concept of 
Bildung,
because it seems to
have some of the ancient flavour of the self-development and scholarship affiliated with this central
piece of German pedagogy, developed by Herder, Goethe, Schiller, Humboldt, and others in late 18th
and early 19th century. The modern use of the term Bildung came into being by the translation and
modernization of the latin concept of 
eruditio
(as used by Comenius, for instance). Other common
translations like 
formation
or, worst of all, 
education
tend to provoke misleading connotations.
Erziehung—the direct translation of education—is in fact a corollary to 
Bildung,
normally meaning the
external side of the personal development called 
Bildung
. In German the process of (a) becoming
erudite
by (b) help of others (i.e. education) is termed in the combination of both as 
Bildung and
Erziehung
. Finally, 
Bildung
means both, the process (erudition) and the product (eruditeness)…”
When education is used in this study it refers both to the process of 
Bildung,
becoming erudite, and to
Erziehung
(Swedish 
fostran
) as the intentional process of education (cf. Benner, 1991, pp. 47–106). Human-
science may be conceived as an acceptable translation of German 
Geistes-wissenschaft
geisteswissenschaftliche Bildungstheorie
but could also be translated human-science theory of education.
However, in order to avoid many parallel interpretations, Hopmann’s (1992) suggestion is adopted in this
study; erudition-centred theory of didactics refers to German 
bildungstheoretischer Didaktik
.
In its modern version the erudition-centred theory of didactics was founded by Erich Weniger (1930,
1952, 1963) and Nohl (1949) and was later developed by Wolfgang Klafki (1964, 1994). Klafki writes that
in his early works he “drew on and developed the theory of education 
(Bildungstheorie)
from the human-
66
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

science pedagogy 
(Geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik),
especially didactics, the theory of content and
curriculum 
(Theorie der Bildungsinhalte and des Lehrplans)
” (Klafki, 1995).
Some of the fundamental and generally accepted features of the 
bildungstheoretischer Didaktik,
i.e.
erudition-centred theory of didactics are discussed here. The point of departure methodologically is the
pedagogical reality, i.e. the factual educational reality. Secondly, any conceptual system of didactics should
be developed in relation to practice. In other words, it should do justice to the practitioners’ way of
understanding pedagogical reality. Thirdly, a historical perspective is adopted in understanding educational
reality, i.e. a pedagogical situation is historically given and must be conceived of as such. Finally, the
complexity of pedagogical reality is accepted. This means that no solutions of pedagogical problems may be
deduced from any set of general norms or principles (see e.g. Blankertz, 1987, pp. 35, 122). 
On this general level it is not problematic to accept these positions from the perspective of the previously
presented model. Firstly, the complexity of the pedagogical reality has been accepted as a point of departure.
Not only were the parallel questions many, but the relations between them have been shown to be complex.
Secondly, the point of departure taken in educational reality as such was accepted in saying that precisely
this reality and nothing else should be the object of didactics. For example, when the relations between
educational reality, teacher education and didactics as scientific theory were discussed, it was claimed that
the relation between theory and pedagogical reality is the primary one. The secondary relation is the one
between teacher education and didactics as theory; having such a theory makes it easier for us to educate
teachers. When educational theory (didactics) is made the content of teacher education, we may in fact talk
about the didactics of educational theory or