There is another reason to why we think it is not only valuable but also fruitful to turn to the German-Nordic tradition of general education to find a platform for coherently approaching educational leadership, curriculum and Didaktik. The reason is simply that the present day education dilemmas pointed out in the beginning of this chapter are not entirely new.
The dilemmas we face today have a history, but not any history but a very specific one. It is the history of dealing with the question not only of how to educate in and for a pluralist society, but also to deal with the question of how education can, in principle, prepare the growing generation for a future that is not known by us? This move towards education for a future that is not known is one of the core dilemmas of modern education and schooling.
The modern education theory was, in the end, a response to how to organize education in and for a pluralist society that left both religious frame of reference and a society built on given social classes. These are questions we need answers to also today. Luckily these questions and answers to them are known to us as historical insights in the discipline of education.
As principled dilemmas they point at those questions and answers that were identified in moving from a pre-modern to a modern societal order, i. The American revolution — and the European revolution came to be not only symbolic but historical turning points in this respect.
Mr collinson grade 7
The long history leading up to these occurrences included rethinking education. Our answer is a no. We argue that the modern classics of education theory like Rousseau, Fichte, Herbart, Schleiermacher, and also Dewey later on, formulated educational theory positions offering answers for the new post-revolutionary era. We think these philosophers of modernity and modern education developed conceptual categories and structures by which we still live, but have sometimes forgotten Mollenhauer These early contributions were not limited to teaching, curriculum or leadership alone but presented broader approaches to how education was to be understood.
We argue for that a reconstructive visit to the core ideas in this tradition may revitalize and guide us in defining and specifying questions and answers to be provided. The first two questions a and b above constitute the core challenges in any education theory as we know of since ancient times. These questions were answered differently by the modern or classic education theory, as developed since Rousseau onwards including Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Herbart and Schleiermacher, i.
Our intention is to ask and answer to what extent this modern mode of theorizing education, as developed by these classics, is still relevant? And why should we bother about in asking if these classics make sense for us? There are mainly two reasons for this. The first is connected to the fact that the modern, or today classic, education theory was developed parallel to the establishment of the modern concept of the pluralist, independent and liberal nation-state and a corresponding concept of the subject, not determined by origin, heritage or anything else This modern view of man, in contrast to a pre-modern conception thus recognized the subject as free or indetermined.
The establishment of freedom of speech, religion and thought, as well as abandoning the religious idea of a predetermined cosmological development required a dramatic reform of educational thinking and theory. Previous religious cosmopolitanism as a regulating idea for explaining what it meant to be a human being and develop as such, was stepwise, by and large, replaced by the concept of the autonomous citizen in the independent nation-state. Consequently, the modern society could no longer manage with a pre-modern theory of education.
The task of a pre-modern theory of education was about socialization the subject into a given order and future. Despite the original sin the individual was seen as free to make up her mind regarding the predetermined options available. When religion stepwise was replaced by humanism and later with language as the constitutive dimension for nation-state, new building blocks were established framing education. Now education was supporting the birth of a man expected to make herself. Modern education was to prepare for a society that was in a stage of continuous development. Norms and values could be renegotiated.
Westerners learned to live with the question of good life as an open one. Language was upheaved not only to a functional role but was made a constitutive question of personal and collective identity by e. An education for a pluralist society was created. We see that the challenges regarding unity and plurality have remained but that they have received new shapes. Today societies are more plural than ever, as societies have become increasingly multicultural, while at the same time increasingly interdependent both locally and globally.
Modern education thus corresponded to a moving from an agricultural to an industrial society. In essence modern theory of education originally was an answer to the same principled dilemmas we experience today. Yet, educational theory as well as the discipline of education has in many instances lost the connections to its own roots as a discipline. This is why historical engagement with seminal ideas may be fruitful Uljens Modern, or classic, European theory of education was developed along with the establishment of the ideas for the modern nation-state , abandoning previous forms of teleological views of societal development Benner Through versions of enlightenment, human reason and rationality were elevated as to replace faith Autio Education turned out as a crucial project for the nation-state from the beginning of the nineteenth century.
This project was built upon the idea of establishing a connection between language, culture and state formation. In this concept religion was no longer considered crucial as the moral laws were to be established by man himself. In the beginning of this nation-state era, citizenship as cultural identity and religion was promoted over citizenship as political participation. Today the idea of education is, therefore, connected to a political-democratic citizenship idea, both in terms of that education was to be equally offered to each and everyone, but also that education was to prepare individuals for political participation, economic life and culture.
The recent policy, education for the globalized competition state, is redefining concept of citizenship emphasizing the subject, not as a cultural or political citizen but as an economic one. The seminal ideas developed in modern education theory were a response to an evolving new political, economical and cultural order. But these ideas were also partly utopian in that they presented ideas of how something could be, rather than they described as reality that was present.
In a sense, the ideas regarding the task of education presented by of the classics were visionary as they went beyond their own contemporary societal practices and cultural contexts. In other words, these ideas were developed before any political democracies were established more broadly. Yet contemporary educational theory, curriculum and leadership research has to a large extent lost their connections to the seminal ideas of modern, western education theory.
The loss of these roots make true progression difficult. There is a question of continuity and discontinuity. To what extent are we able to keep to seminal concepts of education developed as a response to the modern nation state? And to what extent are we forced to rethink citizenship as well as educational research, philosophy, policy and practice in the light of globalization?
In order to accomplish this task, we will contribute to a reconstruction of fundamental tensions, issues and features of modern educational thought with a focus on post-Kantian educational thought as developed by Fichte, Schleiermacher and Herbart. We do not make this argument in order to defend any classic philosopher or position in education. But in order to move beyond contemporary positions and develop traditions, an insight in fundamental assumptions is necessary Paraskeva Another reason why we claim it is important to engage in the seminal ideas of modern education theory is that we today experience increasingly new forms of transnational organizational, national, corporeal, etc.
The third of the questions c pointed out above to be answered by a contemporary theory of education is that of cosmopolitanism. As a topic, cosmopolitanism has re-occurred many times in European history but always in new constellations and with new motives e. Papasthephanou For example, both Kant and Herbart proposed cosmopolitanism as an ideal. What is needed today is a renewed and extended discussion on cosmopolitanism and the modern, nation-state centered heritage e.
Brincat ; Moland Whereas already Immanuel Kant replaced cosmopolitanism based on religion with universal principles of ethics, we today experience new, previously unseen practical cosmopolitanism or, rather, as we choose to call it, globopolitanism. In addition, with globalization, i. Many different transnational agreements and organizations today frame intentions and initiatives on the nation state level.
Culturally responsive teaching book
Understanding educational leadership and curriculum today also must include the understanding of how nation states operate in relation to each other and in transnational aggregations. Educational leadership and curriculum theory, therefore, cannot be limited to the above two classical, questions but must be reconsidered in light of the global dimension. We argue this is a direction where curriculum theory, educational leadership and policy research should be moving, and, with this volume, we begin this direction. Globalization involve crucial developments with implications for curriculum work and policy as well as educational leadership and teaching.
Globalization has many faces and is not least connected to technological developments as well as increased economic interdependencies.
At other times globalization presents itself as cosmopolitanism. In an educational context cosmopolitanism can, and is to be seen as a question of educational ideals , contents and methods.
Flipped math common core
But globalization as cosmopolitanism is also visible in the form of new interstate, international and transnational governance practices , policies, and procedures, including curriculum work and educational evaluation. Cosmopolitanism as a discourse on educational ideals reflected in curricula, and cosmopolitanism as interrelated governing and governance practices, are interrelated in complex ways. While the dilemma of cosmopolitanism as an educational ideal connect strongly to curriculum as a policy document, conceptually analyzed by Didaktik and curriculum theory, we see new transnational governance practices appearing as new empirical and conceptual challenges for educational leadership.
We argue that these two forms regarding how education has developed with respect to global dimensions cosmopolitanism as ideals and cosmopolitanism as policy practices are to be treated in connection to, and not disparate, from each other. We perceive of educational governance and leadership as discursive practices at school, regional, nation-state and transnational levels, as well as in interactions between these Uljens ; Uljens and Ylimaki These practices involve the making and practicing of politically agreed curriculum.
The question is, then, how should a theory be constituted as to frame and deconstruct these dimensions? It was previously concluded that the global or transnational level has complicated educational leadership, curriculum and evaluation. In our approach, we identify several levels of educational leadership as it relates to curriculum work with the intention to answer how the dynamics between, within and across these levels may be approached. Consequently, we have seen many languages and approaches developing around how the multi-level, multi-centered, and multi-professional processes should be approached.
We see functionalist translation theory, systems theory and Luhmann inspired theory of policy borrowing Steiner-Khamsi , network theories, Marxist inspired world systems theory Wallerstein and various versions of institutionalism Frontini Few of these approaches have been developed with the core dilemmas of education as the ones to be solved. Most often the approaches advocated would be equally valid for understanding social work or health care. There is nothing wrong with that, except that education as a phenomenon with curriculum, teaching and leadership as key dimensions is treated as something what it may not be and as remaining blind for the complexity involved.
In contrast, we navigate and position ourselves in this landscape by the help of education theory, not as our roadmap but rather as our guiding question aimed at reconstructing dominant positions. From a nation-state perspective these shifts in governance, commodification of education and pluralizing of identities reconstitutes the role of education for building social cohesion and national identity Robertson ; Uljens et al.
The Nordic welfare state has been built on the assumption of mutual positive effects between economic growth, welfare, educational equality as well as cultural and political citizenship. Movements towards entrepreneuralization of the subject have been received differently in the USA with a tradition of education more as a private rather than public good.
More recent developments towards strengthening of nationalism all over the world, not the least in Europe, USA and Russia may be a reaction to economic liberalisation. In light of the complexity of the contemporary situation described above, we propose the need for a new approach to comparative methodology as well. This chapter and the contributions included in this volume are, in different ways, part of a larger project and movement initiated and led by the co-editors with the expressed aim to develop a coherent non-affirmative theoretical framing Benner , , for educational leadership and curriculum theorizing and Didaktik Uljens , ; Uljens and Ylimaki ; Ylimaki et al.
This initiative connects to and expands beyond the transatlantic dialogue on Didaktik and curriculum theory started in the beginning of s Hopmann and Riquarts The present project expands the focus in two ways. Methodologically a meta-theoretical level is made use of with three guiding core questions: a how to specify the task of education in a democratic society; b how do we explain the nature of educational interaction; and c how can or should the above questions be treated at different levels within a nation-state national, district, and school level and beyond a nation state level.
On the first question a a non-hierarchical understanding regarding the relations between education, politics, culture and economy is defended. Such a position is fundamental for democratic education as it avoids the pitfalls of functionalist and strong normative approaches to leadership and curriculum.
The second question b argues for a non-affirmative interpretation of teaching, educational leadership and curriculum work. The third question relates to cosmopolitanism and its necessary counterpart, i. Moving from being an abstract, theoretical idea, cosmopolitanism has developed into an empirical reality; however, educational theory, leadership and curriculum research has only recently and still to a very limited extent developed a reflected position on cosmopolitanism and globalization.
The nation-state perspective has dominated. We conclude that this theoretical framework allows us to more coherently conceptualize and study curriculum as policy and practice, educational leadership and teaching. In addition, a non-hierarchical position offers a foundation for discursive institutionalism valuable for understanding school work from a policy perspective. Consonant with this purpose, this chapter is organized into four main sections. Fourth, our conclusions open the following chapters in the volume. As it is not possible or meaningful within this frame to describe all varieties, we aim to identify core issues and distinctions.
As the aim is to contribute a theoretical framework not only bridging European Didaktik and the Anglo-American curriculum studies but also to find out how these may be related to educational leadership studies in a broad understanding of the concept, we are engaged in a complex comparative dialogue.
It is a dialogue moving across disciplines and fields of research, between epistemological schools and research methodologies, and between traditions in different countries and continents. Needless to say, such an attempt is a challenging undertaking. Within both fields of research considerable variation may be found. In addition, between European countries there is a variation in how education and curriculum is theorized. The same holds true for the US, although writing the US tradition equals writing the history of one European country. Some approach may attain significant interest in a country or two, but are hardly known in neighbouring countries.
Also contemporary developments in one of the continents can pass relatively unnoticed in the other. For example, the remarkable Dewey interest in the s remained for a long time mainly a movement within anglo-saxon discourse, including Scandinavian research, but hardly noticed in continental Europe Oelkers Furthermore, in Didaktik we are talking about a historically seen very long tradition of different ways of structuring teaching, curriculum and education in general.
However, Dolch , p. In the U. Sometimes the differences are larger within Europe than between Europe and the US. Hudson and Meyer has argued that the increasing differentiation of Didaktik in Europe has resulted in a need to seek for common grounds within Didaktik. It is not clear how Didaktik should be understood as the research on teaching and learning has become very differentiated with various influences Terhart In addition, European Didaktik has gained renewed interest in China Bu et al.
Theory of Bildung traditionally then includes reflection on the aims of education and how selected cultural contents may support reaching these aims, while theory of education explicates those educative interactions involved in treating the contents for reaching given aims. Making use of these distinctions a first step must be a delineation structuring of the fields of Didaktik and curriculum studies with respect to the two questions posed as necessary for any theory of education to answer, i.
From a Didaktik perspective, however, questions of aims, contents and methods, or the why, what, and how of teaching are valid for both questions. Historical studies have played an important role in Didaktik. Primarily this research has focused on the curriculum as a policy document and how it has developed e. Sivesind or the history of ideas have dominated Schaller ; Benner , ; Gundem In order to understand the field both perspectives are required. Although the contemporary western theory of education and teaching often relate to both ancient greeks and to rennaisance fourteenth to seventeenth century thinking the literature on Didaktik does not always point out features of these traditions compared with our contemporary, modern thinking.
For this reason it is useful to discern between premodern and modern education theory Benner ; Schaffar and Uljens The difference between these are related to the paradox of learning and teaching. And, on the other hand, if we had knowledge it would obviously no longer be necessary to look for it. How does he construct his case? According to his form of nativism a soul is connected to the individual by birth.
This soul contains all eternal knowledge but the individual is unaware of that. In other words, in this paradox the learner has to reach something she already has. The Christian theological version of the paradox is also pre-modern. The concept of Bildung Ge. Bild meaning picture, image has these roots. According to the Judeo-Christian doctrine, human beings are in need of maturing and becoming worthy of His image, while at the same time it is forbidden to make any image of Him cf.
This dynamics, to strive for something that one cannot picture in advance, and of which one already is an image of is paradoxical Meister Eckhart , and has since been a crucial dilemma of Bildung Schaffar and Uljens For the major seventeenth century developers of Didaktik e. Comenius Christian cosmology was self-evident, a given.
All education had the preparation for eternal life as its ultimate aim. The paradox of learning changes in leaving the above described predetermined, pre-modern cosmology. By moving from a premodern to a modern ateleological view of individual and cosmological change, i. Freedom and autonomy becomes key-concepts around which the modern paradox evolves.
Modern educational thought, from Rousseau and onwards, reformulated the pre-modern pedagogical paradox or paradox of learning. According to Herbart, moral freedom means following the reflected will, not acting conventionally from impulse or emotion.
- Online math textbook.
- Riepl Riepl Architekten: Sites (German and English Edition).
- Culturally responsive teaching book;
- Applications of graph theory;
- See a Problem?.
Educating the will is then about the cultivation of discernment with the help of reason. In modern theories of Didaktik knowledge is not considered to exist within the individual before experience nor that knowledge is transferred to the individual. Rather, education is often viewed as provocation to self-reflection. However, in order for the individual to transcend her present state, to reach autonomy, become self-directed, culturally free and reach competence to reflect, she must, according to this line of reasoning, already be conceived of as being autonomous, free and self-reflecting.
This modern paradox of education is that education thus seem to presuppose the very existence of that which coming to existence education is considered necessary for. Still differently stated, the pedagogical paradox concerns the following dilemma: in order for education to be possible the individual must be free and self-active, and simultaneously, in order for the individual to become free and self-active education is necessary. Again we face the problem of how the individual can become something that she already is.
The modern version of paradox is to consider the learner as already being able to do what she may become able to Benner , p. Using this argument for understanding teaching it is assumed that the learner can reach cultural, productive freedom ability to act , only by being recognized and treated as if she already is free or reflective, capable, trustworthy. Teaching is therefore understood as an invitation, intervention or provocation, a violation, disturbance or expectation concerning the Others relation to herself, world and others.
Teaching is to recognize somebody as if she already is capable of doing what she is supposed to become capable of — and act accordingly Benner When discussing Didaktik, first, in terms of a relation between school and society and, second, as teaching-studying-learning process Uljens b the above mentioned distinctions are interwoven in the following two paragraphs. It is quite obvious that Didaktik is widely considered a field of research and theorizing focusing on primarily educational interaction , especially from the perspective of initial teacher preparation Jank and Meyer This is evident also in the etymology.
This term was also used in the Old and New Testament for a teacher of religion Gundem Historically, much research in both curriculum and Didaktik has focused either on epistemological, ethical, ontological, political, cultural, organisational, institutional and psychological foundations of substantial dimensions aims, contents, methods, media of teaching , or on the process aspect of curriculum as a plan for teaching , i. Before, this distinction between methods and contents was not made.
According to a widely accepted understanding, the German-Nordic Didaktik-tradition of today would connect the mastery of subject matter as a necessary prerequisite for teaching activity, while the Anglo-American tradition Tyler to a larger degree have treated principles of teaching as separate from any specific content. Instead reflection of methods would be grounded in psychological learning theory.
Yet, these different positions have merged the past two decades. This antique tradition of dialectic or dialogue centered reflection on education was focused on engaging the learner or the student in an reflective process. Dialectics rather than rhetorics made up the core of the teaching-studying-learning process Myhre ; Uljens a. Victor in Paris in his Didascalicon from emphasized dialectics instead of rhetorics.
Nordkvelle demonstrates how this dialectic tradition, where teaching was strongly connected to stepwise verbal commentary of the contents of a book in order to reveal its idea and structure for the student lectio, meditatio , transformed into Didaktik. In essence, it was the rising number of universities and students attending classes that led to more structured presentations and monologic dictating of the contents Nordkvelle However, with fifteenth century Italian humanism dialectics, classical rhetorics and dialogue were rediscovered from Antiquity, e.
In this context the dynamic and vivid developments of Didaktik starting from the dialectic and rhetorical traditions of Antiquity, as well as transformations during the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Humanism can, however, not be explored. For extensive studies in history of Didaktik and curriculum research we refer to e. Diederich , Schaller , Nordkvelle , Gundem , and Hamilton Teaching principles transcending the contents have been starting from the familiar and moving to the unfamiliar, moving from the simple to complex, starting from sensory experiences in order to reach understanding through reason and pointing out the relation between principles and examples.
Thus, despite continuous tensions, subject matter Didaktik Ge. Fachdidaktik and general Didaktik describe the same process but from different angles Hultman et al. General Didaktik focuses on general principles. To this end Didaktik aims at being a vehicle or a tool for thinking about or for reflecting education. For Klafki this type of pedagogical analysis Ge.
Didaktische Analyse , occurs before the actual planning of instructional and study activities. For Wolfgang Klafki , then, the idea with selecting content to be worked on had to represent or exemplify something general. However, because the Didaktik tradition as a whole puts the main focus on the teacher-student interaction as a reflective practice around selected cultural contents in essence as something non-predictable, this tradition stands in a radical opposition to contemporary output-centered approaches to learning, instruction and curriculum.
For the most part Didaktik has been developed as a doctrine, i. Didaktik is considered a field of knowledge central to the teaching profession and has a central position in teacher education programs Jank and Meyer Given the practice oriented, methods centered and doctrinal status of the literature in Didaktik it has been a core element in teacher education over the centuries.
Contributions to Didaktik with teacher education in mind e. Wolfgang Klafki typically emphasizes instructional planning with regards to aims, contents and especially the methods of teaching with the learner as well as the cultural context in mind, while contributions do Didaktik as curriculum theory theory of the syllabus looks at aims, contents and methods from a macro perspective focusing on what interests influence the making of a national curriculum so as to support transformation and reproduction of culture.
Despite the strong emphasis on Bildung in European Didaktik it should also be observed that much European empirical research on teaching and learning is not explicitly framed by a Didaktik theory. Rather, learning theory developed from the s to a major frame of reference for research on teaching, especially various version of cognitivism.
However, in Scandinavian curriculum research and Didaktik in the and s, the contents of teaching started to receive a more central position in research on teaching and learning. Curriculum research increasingly emphasized the differences between curriculum as intended, practiced and perceived. Instead of explaining differences in learning outcomes by the help of cognitive strategies applied by the learners studying the same contents, it was no longer taken for granted that learners perceived the content of teaching similarly or in the way the textbooks or teachers did.
As a result, some scholars developed different approaches to studying how the contents was perceived and understood by the learners Marton and teachers Doyle and Carter ; Shulman Qualitative methods in educational research building on principles from hermeneutics and phenomenology Bengtsson , represented a significant shift in empirical research on Didaktik. European-Nordic research on Didaktik combined successfully empirical phenomenological research and the growing focus on teaching contents.
The phenomenographic approach developed by Marton and numerous colleagues Marton has been influential since. Phenomenology and hermeneutics have most often been applied as epistemic positions Claesson et al. This phenomenological-hermeneutic turn in Scandinavian Didaktik significantly contributed to expand the previously dominating interest in curriculum as primarily a governance issue.
In Germany Meyer-Drawe is a good exponent of this turn. However, these approaches were critiqued for disregarding sociocultural and institutional dimensions of education thereby remaining limited for understanding regarding the relation between politics and education pointed out as one of the two core questions to be answered by a theory of education. Also cognitivist learning psychology as a foundation for research on teaching and Didaktik was criticized for disregarding the cultural and institutional context of learning.
Which led to a support for a variety of sociocultural, situated and distributed approaches to learning inspired mainly by Vygotsky e. These studies were mostly carried out in non-institutional learning, thus paying little attention to how organized teaching intervened in the learning Bildung process. Further, this approach combined a content-centered view of learning and teaching by locating this process in a larger social, cultural, historical and institutional activity system.
Didaktik grew into a more systematized field of reflection as a response to the sixteenth to seventeenth century developments in Europe with the embryonal construction of the modern state although teaching of reading was taken care of by the church. Naturally the printing press was a crucial technological invention allowing for a movement from an oral to a written culture Ong that prepared for mass schooling and especially distribution of printed versions of the holy book.
As the cultural institutions like the church and school were so crucial for the needs of the state it is easy to see why Didaktik covers both curriculum as the national or state based policy document Lehrplan, syllabus, curriculum and the practice of pedagogical or curriculum work within schools. With schools questions of teaching as separate from upbringing evolved. The questions has often been answered by describing how different levels decide on, act around and evaluate the selection of aims, content and method, i. In European practice of curriculum policy making the decisive selection, formulations and decisions regarding aims and contents of teaching is typically made on the nation-state level, far above each single school.
Methods, in turn, have regarded primarily a topic to be decided by the teacher on the school or classroom level methods freedom of teachers. A longstanding topic occurring in both curriculum studies and Didaktik is how the macro and micro levels connect Goodlad , Klafki While Didaktik as a field of research traditionally tries to keep together questions of aims, contents and methods of teaching as they occur different levels, in anglo-american research curriculum theory more often is discerned from instructional theory and its base in psychology or teaching contents.
While the curriculum as a public policy document, syllabus, and Lehrplan since the seventeenth century in Europe are seen as vehicles for governing the school as a state-driven public institution Dolch ; Tenorth and for providing schools with the general aims of education and subject matter, such an understanding of a state or federal core curriculum is very recent in the US. In England and Wales national curricula were introduced While most European countries have lived through various stages of decentralisation of curriculum work the past three decades, the opposite movement have been visible in the anglophone world, thus reflecting a harmonisation across traditions.
For the Didaktik tradition, curriculum making involves an authoritative selection of contents from culture or tradition that must become embedded in the forms of teacher thinking Hopmann ; Hopmann et al. This selection of contents is naturally done on a policy level as well as on a school or a teacher level. It is not surprising, then, that for one prominent twentieth century german researcher in Didaktik, Erich Weniger, Didaktik did not primarily refer to teaching methods or planning of teaching but mainly to the study of selection of contents for a curriculum as Lehrplan or syllabus policy document on a societal level Weniger Today some might perceive this as the task of education policy research.
As a consequence, for Weniger, Didaktik in narrower sense referred to the study of curriculum as a policy document while Didaktik in a wider sense also captures methods of teaching. Very often the opposite interpretation is found in the literature. Throughout history, in Didaktik teaching in cognitive contents qualification has, in principle, been considered subordinated to and as a vehicle aiming at cultivation of more general capacities reflected will, moral and rational reasoning, identity or character.
That is, the selection and treatment of contents should serve educative purposes beyond learning the subject matter itself e. When saying that Didaktik also reflects contents in relation to the aims of teaching means that the core of education or Didaktik as an academic discipline is, in the end, about reflecting upon the ethical responsibility of teaching Menck For what ends is education organized?
What should the learner become? This means that a theory of Didaktik is expected to answer how the question of pedagogical responsibility Blankertz The ideal of the autonomous individual in the autonomous state was the regulative ideal that was transformed into a guiding point of reference for teaching. Unterricht, Fi. Erziehung, Fi. Others see education Ge. Erziehung and teaching Ge. Unterricht as two dimensions of one and the same process.
Irrespective of position both notions refer to intentional activity to pedagogically influence the learner or student. It is useful to be aware of the two different ways in which education and teaching may be considered as connected. Theoretically seen we may identify a more or less prescriptive relation between the two teaching and education , i.
Herbart — pointed out that the primary idea or meaning of education was to support Bildung , i. Teaching that did not serve this educative purpose did not deserve to be called teaching but was rather about indoctrination or manipulation, according to Herbart. As we can see Didaktik primarily focus on the why-, what- and how-questions. What wider sense of reality is prefigured in course content?
How does course content relate to the other elements of a school programme? Since s, Didaktik has often been structured according to the research paradigm specific approaches represented. A paradigmatic division was made between an empirical-analytical approach, critical theory and hermeneutics reflecting a theory of science perspective, focusing on general ontological and epistemological positions. The idea was that while the content in terms of categories for understanding opens up the culture for the learner, learning to e.
This research developed later into studying curriculum codes i nspired by Basil Bernstein. Critical theory from the s pointed out that traditional Erudition- or Bildung centered Didaktik was ideologically conservative contributing to preservation of the class society. The empirical turn in educational research in the s in considered Bildung centered Didaktik as too philosophical and distanced from empirical practice of schools. As in critical curriculum and pedagogy in North American literature e.
Freire ; Apple , this critical dimension is value laden in the sense that his critical-constructive Didaktik accepts self-determination, co-determination and solidarity as aims for education. Critical-constructive Didaktik thus is very close to a political program for democratisation of education Jank and Meyer Curriculum theorizing and Didaktik scholars whose work is grounded in a sociocultural reproduction perspective explain curriculum in terms of a control function or paradigm, meaning that curriculum functions to prepare all students with existing important societal knowledge, values, and norms Molnar and Zahorik Here, often drawing on Tyler and his followers, curriculum is a technical, rational system for planning and management.
In directing the activities of the young, society determines its own future in determining that of the young. The cumulative movement of action toward a later result is what is meant by growth. In other words, education has no greater end than to create the capacity for further education in students; a democratic way of life is not a means to some larger end or outcome.
It is in itself the realization of political, social, and educational ends supportive of growth Ylimaki Here the continuity of social life means that many of these meanings are contributed to present activity by past collective experience. Decades later, following in a neo-pragmatist and reconceptualist tradition of curriculum theorizing, Englund , , considered curriculum work as deliberative practice and communication.
This deliberational and sociopolitical take on curricular dialogues in schools acknowledged how meaning was negotiated and constructed around subject matter in institutional settings, preparing the learner for a self-determined participatory and deliberative democratic citizenship. To deliberate, according to Schwab a , b , is to examine within a specific context, the complex interplay of means and ends in order to choose actions wisely and responsibly.
While there are similarities with regard to a focus on environment or context and authority, these curriculum theorists did not explicitly consider organizational ontology, epistemology, or the role of leadership in these contexts. Englund, Schwab notwithstanding, according to Westbury , authority and management were central to anglo curriculum theory in the US with its decentralized system; authoritative agencies for public school systems, including district and school leaders were necessary to direct and institutionalize curriculum work and teaching in documents specifying objectives, experiences, and evaluation processes, such as in the system popularized by Tyler And while the role of district and school leaders is not explicitly considered here, classical anglo american curriculum theory was heavily influenced by behavioral psychology as well as the same rational perspectives and instrumentalism grounded in an underlying sociocultural reproduction perspectives that informed classic educational leadership approaches reviewed earlier.
Values and morals are not an explicit part of curriculum planning as articulated in the Tyler Rationale and subsequent more instrumental models e. Taba and Taba From a classical curriculum theory standpoint, then, the success of rationalistic regulation of individual selves is dependent upon the behaviorist and cognitive measures tools of scientific psychology i.
While U. We can find a number of new practical models for curriculum planning and developed popularized in the wake of externalized evaluation policies connected to state and now more centralized national Common Core curriculum standards with Understanding by Design Wiggins and McTighe probably among the most widely utilized example. Such curriculum planning also follows guidelines often promoted in practical workshops using divisional categories, such as the written curriculum, overt curriculum, recommended curriculum, and learned curriculum among others Porter In our view, these approaches to curriculum development and planning are control oriented in that the subject both content and student require a rational approach to regulation of learning from understanding self to the world.
In other words, curriculum development models from Tyler and Taba and Taba through Wiggins and McTighe are also grounded in various learning theories. We do not go into all of that here but only to recognize that there is an underlying realist ontology and related epistemology at work, in for example, behaviorist theories that suggest knowledge is finite; learning is said to be overt, observable, and measurable, all of which aim for changes in behavior through some form of regulation and implicitly aim toward reproduction of existing society.
We acknowledge that UBD and similar curriculum planning models now popular in the US context are not curriculum theories or theorizing as accepted in the curriculum field. During the same time, in the US and elsewhere, we also see a number of critical education scholars writing about the ideological conditions e. Anyon ; Luke ; Purpel Across this work, we also find more attention to a critique of ideology and sociocultural reproduction than curriculum theorizing toward sociocultural transformation aims.
In contrast to sociocultural reproduction theories, sociocultural transformation oriented theories seek to critique the status quo and explain how radical change occurs in society. Much of the more recent curriculum theorizing in the North American context answers the question of relations among individuals, education and society in terms of societal change.
In the US and elsewhere, this strand of curriculum literature takes its point of departure from either a subjective, radical humanist or psychoanalytic position radical structuralist position. Disputes between the more subjective, existential, even psychoanalytic perspective exemplified by William F. Pinar , and a more objective structural perspective exemplified by Michael Apple , have in many ways defined recent curriculum theorizing in North America and elsewhere. Regardless of epistemological and ontological differences, when applied to education, sociocultural transformation theorists argue that education is superordinate, to society Uljens ; Uljens and Ylimaki ; Ylimaki et al.
Curriculum functions in a superordinate position to society with planning, methods and content functioning to liberate citizens from existing, oppressive social norms and values. The aim of this scholarship is around liberation; however, according to Pinar and his followers, liberation begins with subjectivity Bildung and then moves outward for Apple, liberation is structural and overt from the beginning. Specifically, Pinar et al. Reality is a social construction, meaning that becoming a person is a social act and that social meanings which sustain and organize a collectivity are created by the continuing pattern of interactions of increasingly diverse individuals in society.
Similar models have followed, including funds of knowledge, defined as the historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for households or individual functioning and well-being Moll et al.
- Minimally Invasive Periodontal Therapy: Clinical Techniques and Visualization Technology.
- Rigid Body Dynamics.
- Homelessness and Social Policy.
Other social change oriented curriculum scholars draw more explicit attention to connections among hegemony, ideology, power relations, official knowledge, and economic inequity e. Whitty ; Apple Rather, Apple draws attention to the subtle connections among hegemony, ideological stability as raised by social reproductionist critics e.
Bowles and Gintis ; Bernstein ; Bourdieu , curricular knowledge, and economic inequality. Epistemological differences notwithstanding, pedagogical influences are not, however, explicitly discussed in much of this literature; however, others have applied the tenets of these critical education theories to various versions of critical pedagogy. During s post-structural developments in curriculum theory e. The reception of this movement was received differently in arts, architecture, social and human sciences.
In his reconstruction of historical developments in curriculum research he contrasted post-modern curriculum thinking as a departure from the modernist tradition.
Browse by Subject
For Doll a modernism refers to Cartesianism which equals to realist ontology and representational epistemology as occurred in natural sciences. These are not words found in either the Tyler rationale or in modernist curriculum thought. However, as will later be pointed out, in our reading of the history of education theory what Doll a , b describes as features of postmodern curriculum rather represents the very core ideas in modern education theory as developed from Rousseau and onwards, especially by Herbart and Schleiermacher.
Given that this tradition is invisible it can result in the conclusion that only post-modern education theory brought about something that was initiated almost two centuries before. Drawing on theological, sociological and philosophical sources, Autio identifies the roots of instrumentalist thinking and rationality operating in Anglo-American curriculum theory and Didaktik today and then argues for a reconsideration of these traditions in the midst of contemporary globalization. Autio argues that while this classical curriculum theorizing has been linked to the nation-state, the contemporary situation has also shifted with globalization.
In his view, the traditional educational systems and models that have guided individuals towards the socialization process of becoming citizens of the nation state no longer apply. That is, an individual is no longer only a citizen of a nation but also has other concerns and responsibilities toward global citizenship. For Autio, new conceptualizations of a nation-state force us to re-evaluate the curriculum as a project to build national identity through national ethos, and question the possibility of the curriculum or educational thinking to reflect and reinforce national belonging.
Autio concludes by arguing that the post-national approaches to curriculum theorizing are needed in order to encompass the contemporary situation p. We will later consider the relevance of these core concepts to the contemporary situation. First, we must explicitly articulate what we mean by curriculum, its objects, processes, and underlying perspectives.
Research in the field is sometimes quantitative, often qualitative, sometimes arts-based, sometimes informed by humanities fields, such as philosophy, literary theory, and cultural studies. It is influenced as well by social science fields, such as psychology, political and social theory, and by interdisciplinary fields, such as women's and gender studies and post-colonial studies. The use of the term "research" in the title is intended to emphasize, despite its paradigmatic differences, the field's relative unity in the project of understanding --a term that includes both theoretical and practical interests and initiatives.
The International Handbook of Curriculum Research will serve usefully as the main text in courses devoted exclusively to internationalization and globalization in curriculum studies, and as a supplemental text in general curriculum courses. For prospective and practicing teachers in the United States and elsewhere, it will contextualize national school reform efforts. As a library, personal, and pedagogical resource, this Handbook is an indispensable volume for curriculum studies scholars and students around the world.
Related International Handbook of Curriculum Research (Volume in the Studies in Curriculum Theory Series)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved