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

III
DISCUSSION

---

8
Closing Thoughts and Perspectives
INTRODUCTION
The following discussion primarily intends to deal with issues which have not been previously touched
upon but which are closely related to the conclusions arrived at. The motives for such a structure are that
there is not much point in repeating what has been said thus far, and that the reflective and analytic nature
of the study makes it less meaningful to discuss the results in a traditional sense.
Another way of characterizing the following discussion is to say that in the first part of the discussion the
didactic model is treated in terms of its role as a research model. The descriptive model was assumed to
frame the empirical analysis of the pedagogical implications of learning theory.
In the second and more extensive part of this chapter the model is viewed from the practitioner’s
perspective. In other words, its role as a thought model for the individual teacher is discussed.
THE SCHOOL DIDACTIC MODEL AND THE PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
ARRIVED AT
A general aim of this study was to develop a model of didactics valid for the intentional, interactional,
institutionalized pedagogical processes and then ask how learning could be approached within the frames of
such a model. 
The problem was approached through an analysis in two stages. In the first part a descriptive model of
didactics was outlined. The model was designed to be valid for institutionalized education framed by a
politically accepted curriculum. Because of this, the model presented was called a school didactic model.
In the second part of the study cognitivist learning theory was investigated in order to discuss
pedagogical implications emanating from it. The position adopted was that it is reasonable to develop and
investigate prescriptive implications of learning theory as long as this is done within the framework of
didactic theory. Didactic theories accepting the complexity of pedagogical reality were expected to be able
to show what role learning theory, among numerous other important factors, has in the pedagogical process.
By such a procedure we avoid the reductionist view that educational theory is based on psychology.
According to the school didactic model developed the fundamental features of an institutionalized
pedagogical process consist in the intentional, interactional, TSL process that is culturally and historically
developed and situated. As the present model was an analytical model, it did not explicitly formulate goals
nor the means of educational practice. Rather, the model emphasized the teacher and student as reflective
and intentional subjects where the teacher is acting as the representative of the collective, but also as the

---

learners’ advocate. Thus the normative and prescriptive decisions necessary to carry out a successful
pedagogical practice had to be made by the teacher.
Some of these normative-prescriptive decisions are made on the basis of the teacher’s understanding of what
human learning is. It was thought that a teacher’s understanding of human learning functions prescriptively
in directing the teacher’s decisions concerning a wide variety of questions.
Since the theory of learning is subordinated to the theory of didactics in the sense described above
(although human learning as a phenomenon is always prior to a theory of didactics), it became interesting to
investigate what kind of practical pedagogical implications different approaches to human learning may
have.
The second part of the study attempted to investigate pedagogical implications of cognitivist theories of
learning. In order to carry out such an analysis it was considered important to find a suitable level of
analysis—such a level was found in the philosophy of mind. Two questions were regarded as fruitful. The
first was how the relation between the human mind and the external world is defined, i.e. the
epistemological mind-world problem. The second was the ontological mind-brain problem, i.e. how one
should describe the content of the human mind and changes in it.
The Cognitivist View of Learning
Concerning the epistemological problem, the analysis revealed that cognitivist learning theory is
characterized by a causal theory of perception, implying that the sensory system systematically receives
information which exists in the external world independently of a perceiver.
However, concerning the relation between perception and cognition, a dualist position seems to be
accepted in cognitivism. This was called representational epistemology. The dualism between presentations
and representations means that individuals use presentations as the building blocks in actively constructing
conceptual structures. These structures do not correspond as such to any external reality. As in empiricism,
it is assumed that the individual’s structure is about the empirical reality precisely because the causal theory
of perception is accepted. When it is claimed that the individual’s mental structure directs perception, this
seems to mean both (a) that the cognitive structure regulates what sense impressions the individual registers
and (b) that the cognitive structure may determine what information the individual’s sensory system
receives in the first place.
Concerning the ontological mind-brain problem, cognitivist theory emphasizes that human knowledge
should be discussed on a representational level. More specifically, a property dualist position was accepted,
assuming that the mental processes have a brain-physiological basis and that some of these processes
possess mental properties. Functionalist cognitivism again accepts a mind-physical instantiation dualism
according to which physical systems other than brains can also possess mental properties. The common
feature of both is that the human mind is conceived as constituted of cognition, i.e. thinking, implying that
every mental act is a process by which individuals manipulate perceived information. It is also thought that
these processes may be described as such, disembodied from any content.
The learning process is often discussed in terms of radical restructuring or accommodation, implying that
an individual’s cognitive structure undergoes a radical change. As a consequence, the strategies by which
individuals treat or manipulate information were stressed.
It may also be observed that even though the cognitivist theory of learning was investigated in this study
it does not mean that it is supported without reservations. In fact, cultural historical theory of learning (e.g.
Engeström, 1987) could also have been the object of analysis in this study. 
166
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

TEACHING AS INTENTIONAL ACTIVITY AND TEACHING AS SUCCESS
The school didactic model may be seen as a special case of a rather general model involving human action
which follows the formula: intention—action—reflection on results. One feature of the model was that the
evaluative phase of the pedagogical process was acknowledged. One way of showing how it is possible to
include the evaluative phase in a model aiming at understanding the process as such and accepting teaching
as intentional is to make use of the classical distinction between viewing teaching as success and teaching
as intentional activity (e.g. Smith, 1987).