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

(Formenanalyse)
.
28
The structural similarity between Heimann’s two levels and the
school didactic model is that both accept a distinction between the analysis of the pedagogical situation and
a value-related level concerning decisions on different fields.
According to the school didactic model the normative decisions made by the teacher thus go beyond
didactics as theory. These decisions are made on a normative basis (values, political orientation, world view,
etc).
76
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

However, in the school didactic model a pure positivistic position is avoided by explicitly admitting that
certain values lie behind it. For example, one motive for developing this model was to increase the teacher’s
possibilities of paying attention to the individual student’s needs and interests. Such an increase of
awareness was thought to be supported by offering the teacher tools in terms of a theory of didactics. The
analytical model offered is thus developed for certain purposes but is still not committed to specific values
to be realized. The teacher may thus reflect conceptually in analysing and planning a pedagogical situation,
but becomes a political subject in making the decisions as to what will be taught, towards what goals to
strive with the students and how this should be done.
Like every human purposeful activity the development of the school didactic model is also bound to certain
values and interests. But still, the model may be called a descriptive model in that it does not suggest what
values the teacher or school-system should realize.
As with Heimann, a critical attitude towards norms and values is supported, but the present model
naturally does not offer any instruments to evaluate which norms should be followed and which not. Nor
does the model as such offer criteria for what methods should be chosen by the teacher in a specific
situation.
Instead, a critical attitude towards ideologies means (in the school didactic model), analysing the contents
of ideological propositions conceptually and paying attention to what the ideological layer of descriptive
propositions looks like. The representatives of an ideology are then identified as those groups in society
which have the power to affect the choice of content and the setting of goals in schools (Blankertz, 1987, p.
110, see also Bourdieu, 1991, pp. 289–293).
The reason behind this position is that the school didactic model aims at being valid for the TSL process
in the institutionalized school, which follows a politically and collectively agreed-upon system of goals.
Because of this, the socio-cultural context surrounding the school is acknowledged as very important. This
dimension thus binds the pedagogical situation to a certain culture. The school didactic model is therefore
not understood as a universal theory of education valid for any contemporary culture. It is a culturally and
historically regional theory of the TSL process, primarily thought of as being valid for countries following
collective curriculums.
A clear difference between the models is that while it appears that Heimann has been oriented towards
the education of teachers in developing the conceptual system, this has not been the case in developing the
school didactic model.
29
This may be the reason for the difference in how the actual TSL process is
emphasized; in the present model the difference between a teacher’s planning before a pedagogical situation
and during an ongoing process is identified as central. The same argument is valid for evaluation; it is
important to emphasize the difference between continuous situated evaluation and evaluation taking place
after a finished sequence. The distinction presented also makes it obvious that the teacher reflects during the
teaching process itself and that this is something very different from reflection before and after a teaching
sequence. 
The context of the teaching situation is also more prominent in the present model since it is important to
understand under what circumstances a teacher works; the socio-cultural sphere is more developed in the
present model compared with Heimann’s position.
A DESCRIPTIVE MODEL A NORMATIVE MODEL, OR BOTH?
It was previously claimed that descriptive theory here refers to the analytic function of a didactic model.
Such a conceptual system may be used in order to actualize varying fundamental features of the
pedagogical process in order to understand it better and act within it. In fact we may say that it is this
3. A MODEL OF SCHOOL DIDACTICS
77

---

analytical function that makes it possible to discuss didactics in terms of theory, not only in terms of
ideology or in terms of doctrines guiding pedagogical practice. In other words, a descriptive theory of
didactics does not say how teachers should act but it helps teachers to recognize dimensions demanding
explicit reflection, decision-making and position-taking. Yet, the actual model itself is not valueneutral even
though it is descriptive in nature. The sense in which the model is value-laden is explained in this section.
Firstly, the model is developed for certain purposes; the knowledge interest is to develop a language of
didactics that teachers may use as an instrument in order to reflect on their own pedagogical practice
(emancipatory knowledge interest, Habermas).
The use of the model is not however limited only to teachers. A researcher may also use the model as a
conceptual frame of reference in carrying out empirical research. This means that one and the same model
may be used both by practitioners and researchers in education. In this respect the model is a research
model, though not a typical one since it is not based on empirical research findings. However, it may be
changed on the basis of such findings.
Secondly, the model is value-laden in that it emphasizes the individual student’s right to have their needs
and interests accepted and satisfied in the school. The idea behind this position is the following. The extent
to which teachers may act in line with the student’s interests and needs is proportional to the autonomy the
teachers have in relation to the collective—if the teacher is considered only as an instrument in the
realization of the collective aims, there are less opportunities for the teacher to pay attention to the
individual student’s interests. In order to make it possible to act as the student’s lawyer, the teacher must be
seen as relatively autonomous when it comes to goals, contents, methods and evaluation of instruction. In
line with this, the student’s interests are emphasized as a normative frame for the teacher. 
The extent to which the teacher is given the right to decide how the collective goals should be fulfilled
partly regulates teachers’ possibilities of attending to the students’ interests and needs. Increasing freedom
for teachers in this respect leads to increasing ability to take the individual’s needs into account in the
pedagogical process.
In the above-mentioned sense the presented model is value-bound but not necessarily normative; it does
not require the teacher to use his freedom in the sense described above. Instead it requires the teacher to
reflect on his personal values in relation to the collective curriculum.
It is in fact reasonable to ask whether there would be any merit in developing an explicitly normative
model in order to understand the pedagogical process in a school following the national curriculum, as a
normative model would only compete with the national curriculum (Kansanen, 1989, p. 122).
TWO WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING VALUE-RELATEDNESS IN DIDACTICS
Open and Closed Normative Models
In contrast to closed normative systems, i.e. educative systems or programmes starting from fundamental
coherent value systems or a given view of man, open systems are characterized by leaving possibilities open
to the teacher, for instance concerning goals (Kansanen, 1989, p. 98).
The question then is how “open” is the present model? A totally open system excludes normative
decisions from didactics as a science. For example, in cybernetic models normative decisions do not belong
to didactics as a science (Blankertz, 1987, p. 62).
The problem is then whether a model of didactics can be considered as a scientific model if normative
decisions are made within the framework of that model. In other words, can a normative model be
scientific? A positive answer to this question must naturally accept normativity as a part of scientific
78
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

reasoning. A negative answer again would imply that normative decisions do not belong to didactics as a
science but e.g. to the philosophy of education (Brezinka, 1978). Yet this does not necessarily mean that
philosophy is not science. As long as education is understood as the science of enlightened discussion, the
philosophy of education is naturally a science. However, if by philosophy of education we only refer to
normative propositions concerning ideals towards which we should strive in education, then it is
questionable if it is a science.
But we may also admit a third possibility—normative problems may be accepted within didactics as a
science in terms of problems to be solved. Indeed, identifying a problem as normative by nature may very well
be done within an analytic model. This does not mean that one must also solve a normative problem within
the framework of didactics as science, i.e. that the model identifying the problem would also have to contain
the right answers. This is precisely the position of this study; didactics as scientific theory cannot decide on
values that some educational system or individual should try to realize. Yet didactics as a science may contain
instruments for analysing normative and prescriptive problems within education but not necessarily the
standards for deciding whether norms should be accepted or not. In the second part of this study for
example, pedagogical implications of human learning will be investigated. This is an example of how
prescriptive problems may be dealt with within a descriptive model.
That a descriptive model is pedagogically non-prescriptive does not mean that it is completely value-
neutral in every other respect. For example the present model is not neutral when it comes to the teacher’s
role in relation to the educated individual and the collective.
This position supports the idea that an explicit and reflective process preceding normative decisions is
more valuable than a non-reflective and uncritical acceptance of norms. Such a process increases the
subject’s self-awareness, which in itself is a positive value. It also leads to more conscious decisions on the
teacher’s part. In Koskenniemi’s (1968, pp. 223–224; 1978, p. 197) terms the teacher becomes a didactically
thinking professional. To reflect systematically on one’s work may also be conceived of as one version of
investigating one’s own work (Kansanen, 1993c). As the present model is not purely descriptive or
normative, it may be called