Didaktik as the professional science of teachers - tntee

86
Didaktik as the professional science of teachers
modified from being an executor of official orders to being the responsible organizer/designer of a
client-centred pedagogical service within the framework of school.
These two contradictory positions – differing in individual countries – see themselves as justified
by the specific self-image of school administrations and their legal basis as well as by culturespecific
developments of scientific disciplines relevant and important for school and teaching.
With regard to the intensity of the obligation put on teachers by syllabi and curricula, Stephan
Hopmann (1998) suggested the following categorization: the philanthropic model, the licence model,
the examen artium model and the assessment model. School systems that use the licence model
(framework syllabi with space for independent and self-determined teacher activity), are able to
adapt more easily to new expectations of schools.
Also the tradition of scientific disciplines that are responsible for the theory of school and teaching,
creates different conditions for the transition to the ‘new school’ and its theoretical basis outlined
above. In the German-speaking countries the concept of a ‘bildungstheoretische Didaktik’ was
developed in the 1920s and 1930s (Weniger). Its basis was the ‘geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik’
(Dilthey, Nohl) which, by regarding educational goals dependent on epoch and society, tried to
overcome the normative character of pedagogy. Herbart and his contemporaries and successors
viewed the aim of education as determined by ethics. In the so-called ‘pädagogischen Verhältnis’
(pedagogical relationship), the core of all educational events, the educator is assigned the critical
evaluation of educational aims and procedures expected by society with regard to the presence and
future of the student. Criteria for evaluation and decision are developed through the scientific analysis
of the ‘pädagogischen Verhältnis’ (pedagogical relationship).
This fact demanded a relative pedagogical autonomy for school and teachers. The state was expected
to decree a framework syllabus to balance the interests between representatives of society and
representatives of political power, which leaves the selection and emphasis of specific teaching
content to the teacher and makes him/her responsible for independently selecting appropriate teaching
methods.
In the 1960s and 1970s this pedagogical and didactical tradition of ‘geisteswissenschaftliche
Pädagogik’ became less influential in the German-speaking area and the Anglo-American concept
of a teaching theory was imported. Its characteristics are the definition of teaching targets as
competencies and qualifications of the student by legitimized authorities (state, regional authorities,
school boards) and the optimizing of learning processes by using theories of learning. The theory of
teaching is part of educational psychology (cf. Gage and Berliner 1997). Didaktik as the scientific
basis and action theory of teaching does not exist; the word didactics refers to the ability of effectively
executing the regulations for teaching with regard to contents and procedures (for the situation and
development in the USA, cf. Doyle and Westbury 1992).
According to Shulman, this position of a lesson-related instruction theory is too limited for a scientific
basis for the professional practice of teachers. He criticizes the exclusively psychologically oriented
research that neglects important components of teaching (‘such as the subject matter being taught,
the classroom context, the physical and psychological characteristics of the students, or the
accomplishments of purposes not readily assessed on standardized tests’, Shulman 1987, p.6).
If you look at his categories of the fundamentals of knowledge for a successful teacher (Shulman
1987, p.8: content knowledge – general pedagogical knowledge – curriculum knowledge –
pedagogical content knowledge – knowledge of learners – knowledge of educational contexts –
TNTEE Publications Volume 2, Nr 1, October 1999