Didactics, Learning and Leadership in Higher Education

Understanding Strategy Development

Anna Herbert

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781138239906
• eBook ISBN:
  9781315294759
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Didactics, Learning and Leadership in Higher Education presents a new model for understanding development strategies for learning and leadership. It describes a shift in perspectives on teaching practices and develops concepts which facilitate a new discourse, placing learning and teaching strategies on the agenda and ensuring the development of good leadership practices inherent to teaching.

By applying Lacanian discourses to Klafki's triangle in relation to learning strategies, this innovative new text aids discussion of the diff erences between terms such as 'performance' and 'performativity', 'acting' and 'actorship' to enable teaching staff to utilise practical applications and teach most eff ectively. It examines key points such as the likely outcomes of specifi c leadership strategies and how they can be adapted, thus creating an essential dialogue between students and teachers.

Combining research in the fi elds of philosophy, psychology, economics, geography and sociology describing a change in relation to use of time, space and management of matter, Didactics, Learning and Leadership in Higher Education is a key text for all those involved in teaching within higher education.

---

Chapter 1
Didactics, Klafki and Lacan

---

To address concerns raised in regards to the ‘student smart’ class described at the outset of this book it was proposed that a combination of Klafki’s didactical model and Lacan’s didactical discourses could provide an analytic tool to understand teaching and learning strategies. Both models having survived the test of time, the merits of a combination will therefore be considered in this chapter. The Greek root of didactics, deik refers to showing or uncovering. But what is being uncovered and for whom? In investigating these questions the origins of didacts and Socrates’ maieutics will be considered along with several seminal texts written by Plato. It will emerge from the investigation carried out here that answers to the questions posed above are surprisingly elusive. Let us first consider the term didactics before moving on to discuss Klafki’s theories and the historical context in which they emerged.

Didactics can be seen as the science of teaching and learning, the science or theory of teaching, the theory of the contents of formation, the theory of the steering and learning process and finally the application of psychological teaching and learning theories (Gundem 2000, 2011). In referring to etymology and more precisely the root deik (to show), didactics is also the science of instruction and the art of instruction. Two perspectives are often pitched against each other in the tradition of didactics: the science and theory of instruction and general didactics usually focusing on formation. The tension implicitly lies between the demands of state education effectuated by the teacher who ‘instructs’ in accordance with the curriculum, and the ethical stance of Bildung where education is a means of becoming a self-governing, independent and capable individual no longer ‘easily’ led by state governments. Didactics thereby spells out the conflict of the teacher who serves the state government by forming individuals capable of toppling it in a classroom where reciprocal relations are developed to effectuate a ‘greenhouse’ for democratic participation (civil servant meets leader). Klafki’s theories offer a view of the teacher as doing both, and he has arguably produced some of the most well-established models of didactics today.

Klafki

Hopmann (1997) claims that when experts in the field in Germany were asked to suggest a seminal text in the 1980s, almost all put forward Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung (Klafki 2000a). Klafki’s theories have been central to the development of didactics in Northern Europe (Scandinavian countries included) for the past five decades and one of the reasons for this is Klafki’s original triadic model (see Figure 1.1) which has stood the test of time.

Most important to the discussion here is the interaction between the teacher and the student as well as the interaction with the third point in the triangle, the content (Hudson 2007). Brian Hudson has been one of the main proponents of didactics in the Anglo-Saxon world and more specifically the UK (Hudson 2007). Hudson describes the didactical triangle as interrelational. Klafki’s theories enable a consideration of the interaction between teacher and student (they are mutually influential even if teachers have more power and can determine the relationship to a greater extent). Furthermore, the teacher must consider the complexity of the different relations within the triangle:

the didaktik relation is a relation to another relation, and concentration on this set of relationships is the core of a teacher’s professionalism. In view of the complexity of this set of relations as it manifests itself in any situation, it is difficult to think that the didaktik relation could be organised universally, or according to technical rules. Consequently teachers’ own practical theories and pedagogical thinking are seen to be of vital importance.

(Hudson 2007, p. 180)

Klafki’s model describes three sides according to Stefan Hopmann (1997) describing catechetics, rhetorics and experience. Catechetics originates in education involving religious texts. Luther’s teaching methods, for instance, describe an interplay of questions posed by the teacher and answers given by the student. It became essential that students did not only ‘repeat’ something memorised but also applied what they had remembered so as to show an understanding of the content (Osmer 1996). Eventually two approaches to catechetic teaching evolved: one was based on the directive of the teacher and another founded a dialogue between two ‘thinking subjects’ (Hopmann 1997). The latter was promoted by Nicolai Severin Grundtvig in Scandinavia through the folk high schools and was known as the method of ‘live interaction’. Rhetoric emphasises the teacher’s treatment of the subject of study, and the third side, experience (methods) refers to Bildung or formation (learning on the side of the student). Klafki’s discussions regarding Bildung will be considered in the following section of this chapter, whilst catechetics (both forms) will be traced back to its ‘Greek’ roots and rhetorics will be considered in relation to authentic speech. Klafki’s theories also enable a consideration of the complexity of interrelations, with materials used in learning, the places in which students learn (just like Comenius many years before him), the organisation, the society and the culture all playing into the relationship in the classroom. Further, Klafki (2001) argues that students do not only learn inside a classroom; there are many other didactical fields and many other places of learning that play into what is learnt in the classroom. He also invites teachers to consider the effects of technology on society (sociotechnologies).

Figure 1.1 Klafki’s triadic model (Hudson 2007)

Whilst there is no equivalent to didactics in terms of a clearly delimited field of praxis or research in the Anglo-Saxon world, the subject (as it is defined in the countries that have been mentioned) is integrated into everyday activities within education as well as into research practices, Gundem argues. Curriculum studies is the most closely related research field. There are significant differences, however, between curriculum studies and didactics. They cannot as of yet be used interchangeably (Hudson 2007; Gundem 2000), but a great deal of work has been carried out to bridge the two fields (see Kansanen 1995; Gundem and Hopmann 1998). Didactics refers to a tradition of studying, teaching and learning processes which is virtually unknown in the English-speaking world (Kansanen 1995, 1999; Hopmann and Riquarts 2000; Westbury 2000; Hudson 2007), but Germany, Scandinavia and particularly Sweden have a long tradition of promoting the importance of didactics.

Didactics and history

The science of instruction was initially introduced through the works of Wolfgang Ratke’s (1571–1635) Methodus Didactica and a more general approach to didactics represented by Amos Comenius’ (1571–1670), Didactica Magna, whose initial definition of didactics involved ‘teaching all things to all people’ (a definition which was subsequently revised). Work of the former resulted in an interest in binding sets of rules governing instruction whilst the latter resulted in a more general theory of what it is to teach and be taught (Bengtsson 1997). Comenius attempted to describe not only how teaching proceeds but also learning, thereby supplying a theory based on natural stages of development. For these purposes he developed didactical textbooks complete with images, as well as recommendations as to how the learning environment should be adapted to best suit the students. Instructive pictures should hang on the classroom walls, the school yard should have gardens where the children could observe how plants develop and grow, etc. (Herbert 2010). The central aim of Comenius’s educational project is to enable the student to avoid being led by others (bad leaders in particular). Comenius had survived the 30-year war and lost his family to the conflict. Herbart (1776–1814) presented a science of ‘instruction’ enabling didactics to be seen as a subject separate from pedagogy and developed a methodology in relation to classroom teaching. His pedagogical theories are proto-cognitive in so far as he discusses schemata and their effect on perception and learning (conditions for preconception, etc.) and so he may also be seen as an early proponent of the more ‘natural science oriented’ perspectives (Bengtsson 1997; Gundem 2000). He argued that psychology was the most important subject for proponents of formation and education to know (Herbart 1806, p. 33). The challenge to Herbart’s method is described as coming from Bildungstheoretische Didaktik inspired by Wilhelm Dilthey’s (1833–1911) theories (Reich 1977; Gundem 2000). Through Dilthey and his followers, didactics came to include the primacy of praxis (understanding life by living it) where concept formation and theory is seen to grow out of praxis. Every subject (arithmetic for instance) was considered to have its own nature, and teaching should adapt to this nature. Taken together with Schleiemacher, this approach involved a form of ‘holistic’ perspective (Schleiemacher’s hermeneutic circle involved considering the parts of a text in terms of the whole as we shall see later in this chapter) where the cultural–political context was also to be considered (Hegel’s influence amongst others on humanistic perspectives within Bildung).

Many versions of ‘didactics’ have emerged and coexist (Westbury 1998; Englund 2007; Gundem 2000; Wahlström 2016). Gundem emphasises that the didactic tradition became ‘human science’ didactics (or Geisteswissenschaftliche Didaktik) and thereby Bildung as ‘process and product of personal development, guided by reason’. Bildung emerged during the European Enlightenment and emphasises learning which takes place on the side of the student. The student must learn to govern himself so as to not be led by others. Klafki is put forward as the main inheritor of this tradition. Gundem refers to his development of Bildungstheory in the context Kategoriale Bildung. Klafki is also claimed to be the inheritor of Erich Weniger’s work, presented as the first to develop a ‘specific curriculum theory’ of hermeneutic didactics during the 1930s (Reich 1977; Gundem 2000). Kategoriale Bildung did not emphasise the importance of methods (of instruction), which is precisely what caused it to come under fire during the 1960s from the behavioural sciences and social science. The former pushed for a focus on how to do it and the latter emphasised the questions of why instead of how and what, normal in traditional didactical analysis. Klafki adapted to the critique coming out of the social sciences and merged the two branches or perspectives (social sciences and humanities). He did so through what he termed ‘critical–constructive didactics’:

The development of critical–constructive didactic is linked to a general influence on human science education and didactics, and consequently on the concept of Bildung from critical theory and especially from the approaches of people like Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Jurgen Habermas, Herwig Blankertz and Dietrich Benner. In this context ‘critical’ is to be understood in the sense of ‘social criticism’ … The term ‘constructive’ indicates an emphasis on … schooling, teaching and learning in keeping with the principles of self-determination, participation in decision making and solidarity.

(Gundem 2000, p. 244)

Gundem considers Klafki’s triangle from Kunzli’s perspective where the maieutic dimension is discussed along with the ethical dimension and doctrinaire (referring to the teacher’s knowledge of his/her subject). Gunden claims that Klafki thereby ‘answers’ the criticism coming out of the behavioural sciences.

Research

In discussing different levels within didactical research and practice, Klafki sees no significant difference between general didactics and pedagogy, according to Gundem. Different levels of school didactics, field didactics and subject didactics have emerged with time and Klafki’s theories have been referred to by researchers and practitioners at all of these levels. With regard to research, Klafki proposed the following three method groups/methodologies (1998): hermeneutic methods, empirical methods and methods of social analysis and ideology critique. In discussing the contents of these three methodologies, Hudson states, ‘the use of historical-hermeneutic methods … act as tools in the interpretation of … documents such as textbooks or ‘pedagogically relevant’ architectural products, e.g. school buildings and classrooms’ (Hudson 2007, p. 181).

Cultural artifacts are of importance, then, along with the material ‘world’ of education. Hudson goes on to point to the importance of ‘historical analysis’ in the historical hermeneutic methods: ‘Didaktik [is] seen to be set within the context of educational history’. He also points to the role which philosophy plays at a more general level and from the perspective of ethics, claiming that didactical meanings are also seen to involve both ethical and philosophical preconditions ‘underpinning the relationship between the individual and society and the significance of childhood and adolescence … This involves the analysis of the hidden historical conditions, the concepts of future and the philosophical implications’ (ibid. p. 181).

With regard to empirical methods, these are also by necessity considered to be ‘interlocked’ with the historico-hermeneutic methods. Hudson points to the importance of a match between research procedures and methods with ‘the character’ of the objects of research, which are, he claims citing Klafki (1998), ‘meaningful expressions of human beings within systems of didactical significance’ (ibid. p. 182).

The third methodology involving social analysis and ideological critique investigates social power and hierarchical orders between groups in society which lead to certain forms of meaning creation: ‘methods of social analysis and ideology critique … forms of social consciousness that seemingly legitimate existing social power structures and dependencies’ (Klafki 1998). ‘Examples include pictures in textbooks of families based on the conventions of particular social groups; the depiction of stereotypical roles based on gender difference’ (Hudson 2007, p. 183).

These three methods are often reflected in the way didactical articles are written. Papers tend to include an account of the history of didactics (from different historical starting points), etymological analysis of the word ‘didactics’, theoretical models emerging from different didactical schools of thought, and/or discussions of different levels of didactical praxis and research such as general didactics, fact didactics, field didactics, school didactics, etc. (see Gundem 2000 for a good review). It is mainly within the traditions of didactical schools developed in German-speaking countries, Nordic countries and French-speaking countries which Gundem develops her text.

Klafki’s theories involve the promotion of self-determination, co-determination and solidarity, as Brian Hudson describes in detail. These all evolve out of classical Bildungstheory and more specifically general Bildungstheory according to Klafki. The three sides of the triangle will now be discussed, starting with Bildung or formation.

Bildung or formation

When Klafki discusses Bildung in the chapter ‘The significance of classical theories of Bildung for a contemporary concept of Allgemeinbildung’ (2000b), he problematises the concept as well as putting forward evidence for why a definition which might potentially cover different kinds of Bildung is elusive. Like Gundem he l...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Didactics, Klafki and Lacan
• 2 Strategy – ETAP
• 3 The Politician’s/Aristotelian discourse
• 4 The Master discourse
• 5 The Hysteric’s discourse
• 6 The University discourse
• 7 The Analyst discourse
• 8 The Scale Invariant Theory
• 9 Summary – time, space and matter
• Conclusion
• References
• Index