Pertti Kansanen & Matti Meri GABRIEL DIAZ MAGGIOLI, 2011 Costas

Gabrielatos (2002)

Pertti Kansanen & Matti Meri

Didactic relation in the teaching-studying-learning process
1. General didactics and subject didactics
Research on didactics in its broadest definition refer to all kinds of research on teaching
or, more precisely, on the teaching-studying-learning process (Kansanen, 1999). It must
be added that didactics also means pedagogy in this area. The descriptive side of
didactics is characteristic of a research approach and the normative side represents the
practical viewpoint with its arguments and justifications behind the educational
decisions. In addition, didactics always is connected with some context in the society,
with some institution, and it is here that a curriculum comes into the picture. A
curriculum restricts the degree of freedom to act in this context. It is pedagogy as a
totality that guides the instructional process according to the aims and goals stated in the
curriculum.

Beside general didactics (didactica generalis) special didactics (didactica specialis)

concentrates on some aspect that is distinguished from the instructional process for
examination. It may usually be some period of life (Stufendidaktik), some content
(Fachdidaktik), some broader content area of education (Bereichsdidaktik), or leisure
didactics (Freizeitdidaktik).

The development of curriculum making has come a long way to the so called school
subjects we are almost universally referring to in our curricula. There is also some
special usage with the terms depending on how we define subject didactics. In the other
end of the dimension subject didactics refers to some specific school subject, e. g.
mathematics, English, or history. In the other end of the dimension it sometimes means
a combination of some related subjects. If the content is more general or refers to some
area of personality development we usually move to the side of general didactics.

The position of subject didactics in the field of education is not solely independent by
nature. It depends how the curriculum is written and what kind of decisions are made in
that context. As in curriculum making in general the position of subject didactics is
political by nature and dependent of the educational policy in the society. That means
that some subject didactics may come to an end or change its character with the societal
development if that content is not taught any more in the schools. Subject didactics may
also be latent in that sense that we do not know the content that may be produced in the
future and furthermore taught in the schools.

Klafki (1994) has made a summary of the relation between general didactics and subject
didactics with five theses:
-The relation of general didactics and subject didactics is not hierarchical by nature.
Their relation is rather reciprocal. It means that it is not possible to deduce subject
didactics from general didactics. They deal both with same problems, naturally a certain
subject brings its typical characteristics to the discussion but their difference is
predominantly in the possibility to generalise their solutions and decisions. Reduction of
the subject didactics to general didactics is not possible and general didactics has no
immediate consequences in subject didactics.
-The relation of general didactics and subject didactics is based on equality and
constructive co-operation. The way of thinking may in spite of that be divergent.
-General didactics and subject didactics are necessary to each other.
-The role of subject didactics between the discipline and education is not only a
mediatory one, it must be seen as more independent with its own contributions to the
common area of education and the subject.
-General didactics aim at as comprehensive model as possible but it does not mean that
those models could include the instructional process in its entire totality. The models in
subject didactics may, however, be done in more detail.

GABRIEL DIAZ MAGGIOLI, 2011

2 – Didactics: General or Specific?

The concept of General Didactics, a unified body of knowledge about teaching

and learning which can be applied in all the different disciplines, ceases to make
sense. What is needed, then is a Specific Didactics, which allows teachers of a
certain discipline or subject to help their learners learn it with rigor and efficacy.

3 – Didactic interactions
Didactics is the science of education concerned with the processes of teaching and
learning. These are two separate although interrelated processes: one dealing with the
transformation of knowledge into teachable objects (teaching), and the other dealing with
the construction of knowledge via interaction with knowledge but also with teachers and
peers (learners). Teaching is concerned with how the teacher adapts his or her knowledge
of the subject matter in order to transform it into an object of learning. Teachers generally
know much more than their students and their knowledge is both complex and diverse.

(Grossman, 1990) To this author, teacher’s knowledge evolves out of the interaction of
four interrelated and mutually inclusive areas:
a. Subject matter knowledge: which includes the various paradigms within a filed which
affect both how the field is organized and the questions that guide further inquiry together
with an understanding of the cannons of evidence and proof within a discipline which help
members of the discipline evaluate the knowledge claims made. If a teacher only
possesses this kind of knowledge, we cannot claim that person is a teacher, but a subject
expert.
b. Pedagogical knowledge: to include knowledge about learners and learning, classroom
management, curriculum and instruction. Again, this kind of knowledge is not sufficient to
make a teacher. Those who possess strong pedagogical knowledge but lack the necessary
content knowledge cannot be called teachers but a pedagogues or activity designers.
c. Knowledge of context: encompassing students’ backgrounds and identity
configurations, knowledge of the educational institution and the community within which
it develops its social role and last, but not least, knowledge of the requirements of the
school system and the purposes of education in society. If teachers only possess this kind
of knowledge then they cannot be called teachers either, but social workers.
What sort of knowledge makes a teacher, then? To Grossman (op. cit), besides a strong
grounding on all the previously mentioned kinds of knowledge, teachers need to possess a
fourth kind of knowledge unique to the profession
d. Pedagogical Content Knowledge: the kind of knowledge that distinguishes between
the subject matter expert, the activity designer, the social worker and the experienced
teacher. It includes a multitude of facets and is, in itself, an integral part of a teacher’s
professional landscape. Pedagogical Content Knowledge encompasses: knowledge and
beliefs about the purposes for teaching a subject at different grade levels; knowledge of
students’ understanding, conceptions and misconceptions of particular topics in the
subject matter; knowledge of curriculum materials available for teaching the subject
matter; knowledge of both horizontal and vertical curriculum alignments for the subject
and, knowledge of instructional strategies and representations for teaching particular
topics, etc.

This brings us to the issue of students and the learning process. If we conceptualize the
learning process as one in which learners interact with knowledge, their peers, teachers
and other school personnel in order to construct new understandings, then we have to pay
special attention to what is brought to bear in learning. For a start, learning originates in
what the learner already knows.

Human beings are not tabula rasa, they are members of social groups and participants in
social activities which are meaningful to them. In participating in these activities, learners
accrue a baggage of knowledge, which constitutes what we can call background
knowledge. This comprises everything that a human being learns inside and outside the
classroom, formally or informally, because of observation or as a consequence of
interaction with other human beings. This knowledge is not systematic or organized.
Hence, background knowledge is prone to contain both mistakes and correct information.
These are brought to bear when students begin to learn something new. If their
background knowledge has a positive correlation to what we want to teach them, then we
call this knowledge a pre‐requisite. Otherwise, if it does not correlate to what we want to
teach, we call it a preconceptions.

Pertti Kansanen & Matti Meri

2. Didactic triangle as a means to understand subject didactics

The purpose, aims and goals are defined in the curriculum. The
relation of the participants, the teacher and the students, is fairly often described with
the didactic triangle

Authoritarian atmosphere stresses the teacher’s personality, student-centred

methods emphasise the student’s role, competence over the content means expert
knowledge of some subject, and understanding of the student’s personality refers to
psychological interaction, etc.

TEACHER pedagogical relation STUDENT

3. Didactic relation – the core of subject didactics

The most important determinant in the teaching-studying-learning process is the
student and his/her achieving the aims and goals of the curriculum. The teacher’s task is
to try to guide this relation (Figure 2). First, there is a relation between the student and
the content. This is manifest as studying and latent as learning and other changes.
Secondly, the teacher has a relation to the relation between the student and the content.
In other words, the teacher has a relation to studying and at the same time this relation is
also to the learning and other changes. That very relation may be called didactic
relation. It is important to notice that the didactic relation means a relation to another
relation.

CONTENT didactic relation STUDENT

To emphasise the importance of the didactic relation it may be brought out that
concentrating on the content makes the teacher an expert and concentrating on a student
makes the teacher a caretaker of the pedagogical relation. To concentrate on the relation
between the student and the content or on studying is, however, the core of a teacher’s
profession.

4. Teacher’s didactics
It is difficult to think that the didactic relation could be organised universally or
following some technical rules. Every teacher is supposed to think and decide
him/herself how to cope with it. That means also that every teacher has a didactics of
his/her own. This comes quite near the concept of teacher’s practical theories (Elbaz,
1983) or teacher’s pedagogical thinking (Kansanen, 1999). Didactic models or
textbooks may be of help but they do not remove the teacher’s personal responsibility in
making educational decisions.
A second point of view is the context of didactic triangle. Adolf Diesterweg
suggested a fourth factor that he named as outer conditions where the students are
living.

Costas Gabrielatos

The shape of the language teacher

'person-who-teacheslanguage'

Key aspects of each element: