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

(Erfahrungen)
is thus one form of self-
reflection—theory is thus used as a conceptual tool in developing one’s understanding and activity. This
kind of self-reflection naturally includes the teacher’s evaluation of some specific model or theory.
Even though teachers do not necessarily 
act
in accordance with didactic models but rather in accordance
with their experiences of the pedagogical process, traditions, implicit norms and values in a certain practice
etc. these didactic models may still be valuable in reflecting on and discussing situated activity. This way of
understanding didactic theory is different from seeing the model as a model 
of
something, i.e. as a picture of
reality (Rorty, 1979). According to the view adopted in this study, didactic theories are not models in this
respect. Instead the constructive nature of didactic theory is emphasized: making use of a didactic model in
reflection may help the teacher to construct an understanding of pedagogical reality. This constructing
activity primarily refers to organizing one’s experiences.
174
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

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 is in itself a positive value. It also leads to more conscious decisions on the
teacher’s part. In Koskenniemi’s terms the teacher becomes a didactically reflecting professional
(Koskenniemi, 1968, pp. 223–224; 1978, p. 197). Reflecting systematically on one’s work may also be
conceived of as a modified version of investigating one’s own work.
When a model is used as an instrument for reflection, it is often called a thought model (German
Denkschema, Denkmodelle
). However, in reflecting on one’s pedagogical experiences using a didactic
model, it is not necessarily the model that develops but rather the individual’s own way of thinking. This
may be especially true in a practitioner’s perspective; a teacher has the opportunity to develop a personal
theory in confronting scientific models. In fact one may ask if didactic theory can have any other function
for the practitioner than this (see Jank & Meyer, 1991, p. 42).
When a conceptual model is made use of in reflecting on one’s experiences, the attention may be turned
either to the original experience (as it is remembered) or to the reflected experience 
(Erfahrung)
. The aim may
also vary in using a conceptual model as an instrument of reflection—it can be oriented both to future
practice or to organizing one’s own experiences. In any case a theory of didactics is made use of. This view
also suggests that in making use of a conceptual model, teachers may be seen as researchers evaluating
didactic theory (Girmes-Stein, 1981; Weniger, 1990).
Epistemic Reflection—Circle C.
Sometimes, however, a conceptual structure (e.g. theory) is also changed
as the result of an individual’s reflection upon it—the person using a model as an instrument may come to
the conclusion that the instrument in question is not suitable or useful for handling the individual’s
experiences. When a teacher comes to the point where he criticizes some theory for being useless for
understanding or guiding his practice he has taken a problematizing attitude on the third level, which is here
called epistemic reflection. This is a critical point in the professional’s reflection, as the teacher may take
steps towards developing the theory as such. However this is often very difficult, even for researchers in the
field, and requires insights in the epistemology of didactic theory. Questions such as the following must be
answered: What is required in order for something to be a scientific theory? Should a theory say something
about the goals of teaching, i.e. should it be normative and prescriptive? Yet it is not an impossible task,
especially if the teachers are educated at universities and are familiar with didactic theory.
The presented model, containing the three reflective dimensions, is not questioned by the fact that
teachers in their practice and researchers developing didactic theory partly make use of different language
and represent two different societal practices. In fact in part this problem falls back on the researchers—if
the theories developed are not useful for teachers, although they are expected to be useful, this may tell us
more about the theories than about the teachers. But we also know that the education of teachers differ very
much internationally and therefore teachers in different cultures may also be differently prepared to make
use of didactic theory in developing their practice.
A specific feature of the model presented is that epistemic reflection (Circle C) is also directly connected
to the circle describing situated reflection on action (Circle A). In the figure above they are not visually
connected in this respect—the reader must make use of her imagination here! This means that the teacher
may very well start by asking about the nature of one’s own beliefs and subjective experiences without first
moving to scientific theory as such. To question one’s understanding in this respect is what Mezirov (1991)
means by his concept of critical reflection i.e. to reflect on the premises for one’s beliefs of central concepts
constituting one’s professional competence.
The epistemic reflection partly keeps together didactic reflection on practice (Circle A) and reflection
using didactic theory (Circle B). The point is that by clarifying the nature of one’s didactic knowledge-in-
8. CLOSING THOUGHTS AND PERSPECTIVES
175

---

practice and the nature of so called theoretical knowledge of didactics one may better see how one’s own
understanding of the practice might be developed or how the theory in question could be developed. This
type of reflection also helps the teacher to critically evaluate different types of theories available.
Understood in this way, epistemic reflection offers the tools for reflecting and investigating the relation
between practical and theoretical knowledge—it is a bridge between these two worlds. The development of
reflection on practice and development of didactic theory really belongs to two different cultural worlds, as
they form different societal practices with their own history and culture. Without accepting this difference
we are never able to unite them, even by epistemic reflection.
CONCLUSION
If we conceive of education as a science of enlightened reflection and discussion, then teachers who are
used to formulating their experiences in a shared language could participate in the scientific discourse more
authentically. They would also be better equipped to evaluate critically pedagogical research aimed to be
useful in their practice. Through such a process teachers can better support students in realizing the
opportunities they have to develop with regard to their own intentions (Nohl, 1949, p. 152).
Conscious, enlightened reflection and discussion in educational sciences is a continuous process and a
major goal in itself. Giroux’s (1988) view of the teacher as an intellectual is thus supported. The descriptive
nature of the model presented in this study sits well with the view of the teacher as an ethically and
intellectually reflecting actor.
The position represented here is coherent with the research-oriented paradigm of teaching and teacher
education (Zeichner, 1983) according to which the teacher is seen as reflecting on the content of their work
in relation to the cultural-historical context within which it is embedded, as well as problematizing the
curricular contents, goals and methods of instruction. 
The descriptive character of the school didactic model does not take a stand on what goals education
should aim at. Rather it is claimed that it is reasonable to limit the interest to an identification of central
dimensions, in order to understand the pedagogical process. This is however not to say that a theory of
didactics could be value neutral; it has been shown how the model is value-related. Yet a descriptive
position does not mean that an information-theoretical model (cybernetics) would be accepted. There is a
position midway between cybernetic and emancipatory positions in didactics and that position implies
offering the teacher a critical, reflective role by not explicating in the didactic model what values the
teacher should choose.
The problem with accepting a normative perspective is that such a didactic approach may be considered
an ideological programme which may compete with the ideas expressed in the national curriculum. What
function would an ideological theory of didactics have if its goals were realized, e.g. accepted as the norm
for a national curriculum? Would a normative theory, one may ask, have 
any
function in such a situation,
i.e. any function that goes beyond a scientific support of an ideological programme? Obviously the critical
power of a normative theory would be eliminated in a community in which the values of normative
didactics were accepted. Finally, observe that even if the present model is open with respect to educational
goals, the model is not value-neutral. There are specific knowledge interests connected with the model. It is
thus important to make a distinction between these two ways in which didactic theory can be value-related. 
176
SCHOOL DIDACTICS AND LEARNING

---

References
Adl-Amini, B. (1993). Systematik der Unterrichtsmethode. In B.Adl-Amini, T.Schulze, & E.Terhart (Hrsg.),