TNTEE Publications - Didaktik/Fachdidaktik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

32 The Deutsche Didaktik and the American Research on Teaching unknown with certain, mainly Danish and Norwegian, exceptions (e.g. Reidar Myhre, Torstein Harbo and Bjorg Gundem). When the educational psychology line and the geisteswissenschaftliche line are in contact with each other there are almost always conflicts to be seen. Yet the focus of both approaches is the instructional process, teaching and the teacher, and the curriculum etc. Why is it so? You can easily note this conflict if some researcher is asked to evaluate the works of the other trend. The representative of the empirical research quite often says that it is not research at all, it is a number of opinions. The hermeneutic says that empirical research is only making notes about something which already exists in practice, but what then. Quite often they speak of technology, meaning thinking without creativity or alternatives. A very good example of this situation is Wolfgang Brezinka who is said to represent critical rationalism along with Karl Popper’s ideas. He divides education into three parts: philosophy of education, education and the practice of education. The first, philosophy of education, is not scientific at all. It is policy making, decision making, opinions etc. Naturally you must have some basis for your opinions but that does not change the essence of it. The practice of education is action and has nothing to do with science or Wissenschaft. You can use facts behind your practice but the action itself is not scientific by nature. Only the description, understanding, and explanation of the educational process are scientific. Consequently, the difference is not in the focus, in the instructional process itself; it is behind the process in its theoretical assumptions. And as it is not possible to combine them, the conflict remains. In the Nordic countries, with the above mentioned exceptions, the instructional process has been investigated along the empirical paradigm. That is why it is very difficult to make a difference between Didaktik and educational psychology. In practice these two subdisciplines have been a combined area with certain emphases partly on one, partly on the other. If someone has claimed the name of Didaktik in his/her writings, it has not been the geisteswissenschaftliche Didaktik. A good example of this has been the Didaktik discussion in Sweden. In general, we note two perspectives in this discussion. The first line of research concentrates on the macro level, on the societal, economic and political prerequisites of education (Dahllöf, Lundgren, Englund). We cannot say that it does not take the very process into consideration, because Dahllöf and Lundgren have done this kind of research, too. Its emphasis and interpretation of the empirical results has, however, been on the macro level, on the frameworks. Curriculum research is a natural part of this line. The other line of research concentrates on the other end of the educational process, on the learning of individual students or on their conceptions of this learning (Marton, Svensson, Lybeck, Kroksmark). There is much research in this group on the instructional process itself but, nevertheless, the focus is on a certain part of it. So one could say that both of them have a very important part of the instructional process as their focus but neither of them can be said to concentrate on the totality of the instructional process. And that is the very essence of the general Didaktik. At the same time this topic is enormously large and that is why most of the research is done in some sub-area. Accordingly, the totality of Didaktik is divided into subdisciplines and naturally research made in these areas is didactcial research, too. It is not exceptional to have various schools of thought within Didaktik. As a matter of fact, it is more a rule to have different approaches to Didaktik. There is, however, a big difference in views of TNTEE Publications Volume 2, Nr 1, October 1999
The Deutsche Didaktik and the American Research on Teaching the bases on which they are considered different. In the German Didaktik it is the decision of the philosophical background which determines the different perspective. In the Nordic countries, I think, the differences are not seen through these kinds of lenses although the philosophical base may be different. The various approaches live inside the empirical tradition although there may be a strong emphasis on e.g. phenomenology. Naturally this leads to the comparison of Geisteswissenschaften and phenomenology which is not an easy task. In any case the starting point has been within the empirical tradition and the various emphases have emerged gradually alongside the research work. A Concluding Remark The erudition-centered Didaktik is a very good example of how education is national in a broader international context. The question, however, remains whether it is possible to compare educational systems in different cultures and to transform new ideas from another culture if there is not enough critical appraisal. Note Of special interest is that Toivo Laurilehto wrote a dissertation in 1980 “Sykliketjut opetuksessa” (Verbal compound cycles in the classroom teaching situation) following the method of Winnefeld. References ACHTENHAGEN, FRANK (1992) The Relevance of Content for Teaching-Learning Processes. In OSER, FRITZ K., ANDREAS, DICK, JEAN-LUC PATRY. 1992. Effective and Responsible Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 315–328. BLANKERTZ, HERWIG (1975) Theorien und Modelle der Didaktik (9., verarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage). München: Juventa. (1 st edn. 1969) CONNELLY, F.M., O. LANTZ (1985) Definition of Curriculum. In HUSÉN, TORSTEN, T. NEVILLE POSTLETHWAITE (eds.) 1985. The International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press: 1160– 1163. DOLCH, JOSEF. (1959). Lehrplan des Abendlandes. Zweieinhalb Jahrtausende seiner Geschichte. Ratingen: Aloys Henn. DOYLE, WALTER. (1993). Curriculum Theory in the Preparation of Teachers. Paper Presented at the Symposium: Didaktik and or Curriculum, Kiel, IPN, 5–8 October 1993. DOYLE, WALTER, IAN WESTBURY. (1992). Die Rückbesinnung auf den Unterrichtsinhalt in der Curriculum- und Bildungsforschung in den USA. Bildung und Erziehung 45, 137–157. DUNKIN, M. (1988). Comparative Studies in Teaching and Teacher Education. In POSTLETHWAITE, T. NEVILLE (ed.) (1988). The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and National Systems of Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 1988, 60–66. DUNKIN, MICHAEL, J. BRUCE, J. BIDDLE. (1974). The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. FREY, KARL. (1971). Theorien des Curriculums. Weinheim: Beltz. GAGE, N.L. (1963). Paradigms for Research on Teaching. In GAGE, N.L. (ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally: 94–141. GAGE, N.L. (1978). The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. GAGE, N.L., DAVID BERLINER. (1984). Educational Psychology. Third Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. GUBA, EGON G. (ed.) (1990). The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park: Sage. GUDMUNDSDOTTIR, SIGRUN, LEE S. SHULMAN. (1987). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Teachers’ Ways of Knowing.In STROMNES, ÅSMUND L., NILS SOVIK. (1987). Teachers’ Thinking. Perspectives and Research. Tapir: 51–83. GUDMUNDSDOTTIR, SIGRUN, ROLF GRANKVIST. (1992). Deutsche Didaktik aus der Sicht neuerer empirischer Unterrichts- und Curriculumforschung in den USA. Bildung und Erziehung 45, 175–187. GUNDEM, BJORG B. (1992). Didaktik in Skandinavien. Bildung und Erziehung 45, 189–200 GUNDEM, BJORG B. (1992). The Place of Didactics in Curriculum in Scandinavia. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, AERA, April 20–24, 1992 San Francisco. TNTEE Publications Volume 2, Nr 1, October 1999 33
Page 1: TNTEE Publications Volume 2, Nr 1,
Page 4 and 5: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The production of
Page 6 and 7: Section II: Specific Subject Didact
Page 8 and 9: 2 broadly conceived as “capabilit
Page 10 and 11: 4 Friedrich Buchberger and Irina Bu
Page 12 and 13: 6 phenomenological perspective is n
Page 14 and 15: 8 Buchberger in this publication. T
Page 16 and 17: 10 Section 3 Interdisciplinary Issu
Page 18 and 19: 12 holistic view of the structure o
Page 20 and 21: 14 “Allgemeine Didaktik” (“Ge
Page 26 and 27: 20 Materials Figure 5 “Allgemeine
Page 28 and 29: 22 The Deutsche Didaktik and the Am
Page 42 and 43: 36 TNTEE Publications Volume 2, Nr
Page 44 and 45: 38 Seeking connections between diff
Page 54 and 55: 48 TNTEE Publications Volume 2, Nr
Page 56 and 57: 50 Existing models of knowledge in
Page 74 and 75: 68 Didaktik/fachdidaktik as integra
Page 88 and 89:
82 Didaktik/fachdidaktik as integra
Page 90 and 91:
84 TNTEE Publications Volume 2, Nr
Page 92 and 93:
86 Didaktik as the professional sci
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
96 Reflection as a bridging concept
Page 104 and 105:
98 Reflection as a bridging concept
Page 106 and 107:
100 Reflection as a bridging concep
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
108 The didactic relation in the te
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
118 On central dimensions of teache
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
128 Epistemologies, beliefs and con
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
148 Mathematik Didaktik (Teaching-L
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
158 Theories and practices of teach
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
162 Preservice and in-service train
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
174 Sources of ‘didaktization’
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
188 Shifts of paradigm It has been
Page 196 and 197:
190 Shifts of paradigm Mentalistic
Page 198 and 199:
192 Shifts of paradigm restructured
Page 200 and 201:
194 Shifts of paradigm Among other
Page 202 and 203:
196 Models and structures in social
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
208 Issues of Didactics in Teacher
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
216 Teaching methodologies in initi
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
228 The role of subject didactics i
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
238 Overcoming the gap between theo
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
250 Irina Buchberger University of
Page 260:
TNTEE Publications are presented by
show all

TNTEE Publications - Didaktik/Fachdidaktik

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?