TNTEE Publications - Didaktik/Fachdidaktik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 broadly conceived as “capability to act in an efficient and responsible way in social terms”. Seel argues that “those processes of learning, which in their entirety represent the process of Bildung, receive their impetus by dealing with people and experiences with objects”. The promotion of learning processes relevant to the acquisition of “Bildung” is seen to relate to two components, which are firstly “the selection of cultural components as goals and content of learning” and secondly “support for learning processes as regards their efficacy and success”. The overall aim can be defined as “Gebildite/r” or “educated personality” which (i) comprises a sense of egalitarianism; (ii) relates to “central problems of living”; (iii) is concerned with “key problems” in society and (iv) relates to all human capabilities. The second chapter by Pertti Kansanen also offers much to frame subsequent discussions in this publication. This chapter presents an historical overview of the development of the “Deutsche Didaktik” and compares it with the American tradition of research on teaching. Essentially this chapter presents a personal account of an enquiry in relation to the question “What is Didaktik?” This tradition is traced back to Johan Amos Comenius in the 16 th century “as a practical and normative doctrine” and various trends within the 20 th century are identified. These include “die Reformpädagogik” (Petersen et al.), “geisteswissenschaftliche Didaktik” (Klafki et al.), empiricalanalytic Didaktik (Schulz et al.) and critical-communicative Didaktik (Habermas). The tradition of Didaktik is seen to be characterised by philosophical thinking, theorising and the construction of theoretical models. It is noted that Didaktik is a term that is used in Central Europe and Scandinavian countries and that it much less well known in English and French speaking countries. In emphasising the normative aspects of Didaktik, Kansanen suggests the translation as “the art of teaching”. However an essential aspect to his analysis is the second order term which is described as “a model or methodology of how to envisage the teaching-learning process”. The meaning of the term “curriculum” is also considered and it is noted how this is strongly culture bound and fraught with a variety of difficulties when being compared across linguistic boundaries. The absence of almost any discussion of Didaktik in British and American literature is highlighted. In relation to this phenomenon, a particularly significant section focuses on how the traditions (Deutsche Didaktik/ Anglo-American curriculum theory) separated in response to political and ideological circumstances. It is noted that reform pedagogy and “new conceptualisations of Didaktik” arose from critiques of the “mechanical application of Herbartianism” in the early part of the 20 th century but that these developments did not reach American education, leading to “amazing disparities”. Kansanen observes that a key characteristic of the different traditions was how the model for teaching in the United States came to be based on a business model. Under such a model teachers are perceived as a “labour force” which is to be motivated and managed through narrowly conceived systems of control and accountability. It is further noted how such an atmosphere was not encouraging to independent and autonomous action. In addressing the aspect of Fachdidaktik, Kansanen argues that only erudition-centred Didaktik/Geisteswissenschaften “has a clear position on this question”. In essence the main task in this tradition is seen as a theory of educational content (Theorie der Bildungshalte) according to its value in the curriculum and in the instructional process. Finally some observations are offered on the “Nordic alternative” and the conflict between the different traditions of educational psychology/empirical research and geisteswissenschaftliche Didaktik/hermeneutics is highlighted. In chapter 3, Brian Hudson begins by addressing the relationship between educational psychology and didactics and the role of didactics in teacher education. In relation to Didaktik, the role of Fachdidaktik is explored with specific reference to mathematics education from a UK (England) perspective. The emphasis on the social and cultural aspects of education that is apparent in Didaktik mirrors current debates in mathematics education that are discussed. Close parallels are seen to exist between Didaktik and Vygotskian cultural psychology and the related fields of activity theory and social practice theory. Two related issues that are raised by this discussion are firstly, the tension TNTEE Publications Volume 2, Nr 1, October 1999
etween individualistic and social perspectives and secondly that between fragmentation and integration. The sources of these tensions can be traced back to differing perspectives on teachinglearning e.g. specialised training in specific skills (in the behaviourist tradition) in contrast with teaching-learning that is intended to “activate large areas of consciousness” (higher mental functions in the Vygotskian tradition). In considering developments in England and Wales over recent years, this is seen as a time of increasing fragmentation in terms of the curriculum in both schools and also more recently in teacher education. The style and approach of the Chief Inspector is seen to be an obstacle to constructive engagement with and the future development of the teaching profession and the, at times, adversarial approach of the Teacher Training Agency is seen to have been problematic. A further problem at the time of first writing this chapter was seen to be the lack of a “clear and explicit rationale” for the curriculum that was in sharp contrast with the concept of Bildung that is central to Didaktik. It was encouraging to see this problem being addressed recently, through a proposed statement of values and aims. However this is now seen quite widely as a rather timid response on some aspects such as multicultural issues. With regard to pedagogy, the relatively recent debate in the UK is welcomed although the atheoretical nature of this contribution to the debate from the Teacher Training Agency is noted and an alternative broader conception is proposed. The tradition of Didaktik is seen to offer real potential for informing future development in educational policy. In particular this tradition is seen as one which would enable a shift in thinking from a false dichotomy between teaching and learning and also a shift in emphasis in thinking about the educational process as being concerned with the development of “higher mental functions” rather than narrowly conceived technical competences. Birgit Pepin explores existing models of knowledge in teaching in three different environments: the Anglo/American; the French; and the German scene in chapter 4. Particular attention is given to models of mathematics teaching. In each scene it is attempted to develop an understanding of the different aspects of the models, to comprehend their underlying concepts, how they are constructed, and in some cases how they developed historically. By doing this, similarities and differences could be identified. It is concluded, firstly, that what is common to all models in all countries considered is that knowledge in teaching is not seen as static, but as a process of development and change and that experience in the classroom contributes to its growth and change. Secondly, there are differences in terms of origins of concepts related to their background in terms of educational traditions. Thus, it is argued that models of knowledge in teaching have to be understood in terms of the countries’ educational and cultural traditions in which they developed. It is proposed that this might usefully guide researchers to the development of a common understanding of what is generally called ‘the science of teaching’ or ‘didactics’, as well as to the identification of research and development projects in the areas of teachers’ knowledge. In order to make the task manageable distinctive models were chosen for the Anglo/American scene, in particular that of Shulman in terms of teachers’ knowledge in general, and that of Ernest in terms of mathematics teaching. For the French scene particular concepts were selected that originate in the French research on didactics and mathematics didactics, and these were linked with corresponding didactical theories. For the German scene the research drew almost exclusively on literature that presented and compared the German concept of Didaktik with the Anglo/American concept of research into teaching and curriculum. Therefore, the reader is asked to imagine a grid with three lines (Anglo/American; French; and German) and two rows (general didactics; mathematics didactics) which need to be filled with theories and concepts. The main emphasis of the paper is on the Anglo/American aspect, simply because in England the main literature is available in English and it is on the Anglo/American representation of teacher knowledge. It is argued that there is too little literature available in English on French and German theories, in order to appreciate the full volume of concepts and ideas of didactics in the French speaking or the German educational environment. TNTEE Publications Volume 2, Nr 1, October 1999 3
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 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 58 and 59:
52 Existing models of knowledge in
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
68 Didaktik/fachdidaktik as integra
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?