TNTEE Publications - Didaktik/Fachdidaktik

of personal and professional development are seen to be inseparable. The importance of language
and communication is stressed, as is a constructivist perspective on student learning. The overall
approach to this development is based on the view that there is “a theoretical body of knowledge
working as a common denominator across” all the subjects involved (science, mathematics and
humanities). Action, whether a part of teaching or any other activity in life, is seen to be either
linked with theory or otherwise “it is blind and purposeless”. Hence a theory of learning may be
seen to function as an analytical tool in order to judge the quality of a particular teaching and
learning event. A major aim of the methodology component is to help students to acquire a perspective
on education based on “the achievement of autonomy, solidarity, ability for problem solving, reflection
in action, democratic attitude, rather than a set of procedures that replicate previous knowledge and
behaviours”. The overall development based on the assumption of “a common body of knowledge
in the field of Didactics” won widespread support from the students in the evaluation of the module.
The evaluation is discussed fully in the concluding comments and it is also noted that the integrated
approach was also an attempt to avoid a reductive understanding in relation to their own subject
area whether in the field of science or language.
In an associated discussion Isabel Alarcão, Nilza Costa and Helena Araújo e Sá discuss the role of
subject didactics in teacher education in chapter 18. They introduce the discussion with a clarification
of the meaning of didactics and identify three interrelated dimensions. Firstly it may refer to research
on teaching and learning which is seen as the research component of didactics. Secondly it may
refer to what teachers do when they teach which is referred to as the professional component.
Thirdly, consideration is given to didactics as a learning course of study in teacher education
programmes and this dimension is called curricular didactics. It is noted that the field of didactics in
Portugal has evolved from a practical, normative field of instruction to an inquiry-based, metadisciplinary
area of teacher learning, professional practice and research. General didactics have
tended to be replaced in teacher education programmes by subject-specific didactics, though a need
for a common core of knowledge is still recognised. The search for the identification of an “innovative
self-defining idea based on an epistemological definition of the discipline contours”, associated
with a careful staff development policy are highlighted as key issues for the development of a
“distinctive change-oriented self, a specific professional culture and an emerging body of knowledge”.
The development of a research unit, integration of research, advanced training, development of
students’ constructive and reflexive learning processes and collaboration with practitioners in schools
all proved to be relevant issues. The search for the answer to the question about the role of subject
didactics in teacher education was central to the success of the development. The epistemology of
subject didactics is seen to have “revealed it as a field of generation of new knowledge that goes
beyond subject disciplines and the so-called sciences of education”. It is seen to subsume the common
dimension of teaching (general didactics) and to interrelate this to the content dimension of teaching.
Its integrative, interdisciplinary nature is seen to have “brought to light the mediating role of the
teacher in the pupils’ approach to content knowledge. The underlying focus on research concerned
with what teachers and pupils actually do and say in their interaction in learning situations has
represented an attempt to relate knowledge and action”. The involvement of teachers in research
projects “is seen to have helped to turn didactics knowledge into professional innovation”.
In the final chapter Eila Jeronen and Esa Pikkarainen discuss the role of subject didactics, general
didactics and the theory of pedagogical action in relation to the problem of overcoming the gap
between theory and practice in subject teacher education. This gap between what is taught in the
university and actual instructional action has been identified through many studies. An associated
problem is seen to be the link between educational studies and studies in sciences. However, school
practice and studies of subject didactics are seen to have been integrated better with the contents of
subjects. The greatest problem in pedagogical studies is seen as enabling students to “construct a
TNTEE Publications Volume 2, Nr 1, October 1999 11