Didactics In Transition – Towards Laboratories For Comparative General And Disciplinary Didactics
Author(s):
Ane Qvortrup (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2015
Network:
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Format:
Paper

Session Information

27 SES 06 B, Didactics and Curriculum : A Theoritical Perspective

Paper Session

Time:
2015-09-09
15:30-17:00
Room:
202.Oktatóterem [C]
Chair:
Helmut Johannes Vollmer

Contribution

In Denmark, as well as in northwest Europe generally, the concept of didactic has historically been linked to teacher education and elementary school research (Qvortrup & Krogh 2015). Today the disciplines are not confined to teacher education and elementary school research (Smedegaard & Qvortrup 2013). Through the past decade, the concept of didactics has spread throughout the education field, from kindergarten (Broström 2012, 2010; Broström & Vejleskov 2009) over upper secondary school (Christensen 2012; Damberg et al. 2013; Krogh 2009, 2013) to higher education (Christiansen & Fristrup 2006; Feldt & Dohn 2011, Rienecker et al. 2013). Didatics have not alone spread across the various stages of the education system, but has also differentiated itself into specializations such as supervision didactics (Plant et al 2011), media didactics (Gissel 2011, Iversen, Asmussen, Carlsen & Nelso 2012) and ICT didactics (Bundsgaard 2007). With the support of Ongstad (2006), one can further argue that didactic reflection, or didactization, provides us with analytical concepts and explanatory power for phenomena that go far beyond the world of education, since subjects, knowledge and expertise today must identify themselves and constantly justify its usefulness at a knowledge economy market (Qvortrup & Krogh 2015).

Another transformation of didatics relates to the distinction between general didactics and disciplinary didactics. Through the 70s and 80s, disciplinary didactics established itself as an independent field of knowledge (Nielsen 2012), and since then it has been customary to distinguish between between general and disciplinary didactics. According to Gundem (1998) the distinction and division of labor between the disciplines originates from German didactics. Here, general didactics delt with general education and training issues while the task of disciplinary didactics was to deal with the question of the individual subject, its contents and the teaching of it, but over the years, the relationship and the weighting between these two disciplines has been subject of – at times heated –  discussion and debate (Qvortrup & Krogh 2015).

The paper discusses how general didactics and disciplinary didactics have been construed as disciplines in teacher education in a Danish educational context. It argues that the current social developments within the fields of knowledge and education actualises the importance of a renewed dialogue between general and disciplinary analysis and positions

Method

The theoretical frame for the construction of didactics (both disciplinary and general didactics) as meta reflective positions of observation or double reflection sciences is found in second-order systems theory as described by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann. Luhmann describes the modern society as functionally differentiated (Luhmann, 1990, 1995, 2012). The underlying assumption is that over time society responds to enhanced complexity by functional differentiation that is, differentiation into societal sub-systems such as economics, law, science and education that handle a specific aspect of the total societal communication. The function of a sub-system is expressed in the coding of the system’s communication, i.e. a system specific code that conditions operations of the functional system. For instance, the communication of the economic system is organized around the code gain/loss; the communication of law around the code legal/un-legal, and with special interest for the paper, the communication of the scientific system is organized around the code true new knowledge/false new knowledge and the communication of the education system around the code better knowledge/worse knowledge (Luhmann, 2012). In his analysis of the society’s education system, Luhmann uses the distinction between the scientific and the educational code to develop the concept of reflection theories. Didactics serves as reflection theory for teaching and upbringing in the sense that it identifies itself with the objectives and institutions of the education system (Luhmann, 2002, p. 201).

Expected Outcomes

The paper argues that current social developments within the fields of knowledge and education necessitate rising above the disciplinary perspective in order to construe the two fields, general and disciplinary didactics, as meta reflective positions of observation. The paper documents that the fields have been described according to hierarchical disciplinary structures and claims that general didactics and disciplinary didactics should instead be viewed as independent and complementary fields of meaning (Qvortrup & Krogh 2015). It further shows that both theoretical fields have developed meta reflective positions, tied to conceptions of didactics as contingency management. Thus, the paper proposes viewing didactics and disciplinary didactics as double reflection sciences. It demonstrates that in Denmark ‘laboratories of comparative (disciplinary) didactics’ have developed, framing double reflective investigations of knowledge, subjects, teaching, learning, and education (Qvortrup 2014; Qvortrup & Krogh 2015). An important point in the paper is that double reflection should be viewed as a contemporary condition for both teachers and researchers, necessitating a (disciplinary) didactic ethos, i.e. a position from which engagement in action is always accompanied by reflection on the possibility of different positions and perspectives.

References

Broström, S. (2010). Didaktiske modeller i dagtilbud. I H. Månsson, L. Basse & I. Vylander (red.) Håndbog for sprogvejledere: teori og praksis. København: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag Broström, S. (2012). Børnehavens didaktik, nu og i fremtiden. Nordic Studies. Broström, S. & H. Vejleskov (2009). Didaktik i børnehaven: Planer, principper og praksis. Frederikshavn: Dafolo Bundsgaard, J. (2007). Danskfagets it-didaktik. København: Gyldendal Christiansen, I. & T. Fristrup (red.) (2006): Universitetspædagogiske refleksioner. Om forholdet mellem læring og undervisning. København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsforlag Christensen, T.S. (2012). Samfundsfag – en uddifferentiering i og en udfordring til historiefaget. Cursiv 9, 95-112 Damberg, E., Dolin, J., Ingerslev, G.I. & Kaspersen, P. (red.) (2013). Gymnasiepædagogik. En grundbog. København: Reitzels Forlag Feldt, J. E. & N. B. Dohn (red.) (2011): Universitetsundervisning i det 21. århundrede. Læring, dannelse, marked. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag Gissel, S. T. (2011). Mediedidaktik i teori og praksis. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag Iversen, G. B., J. Asmussen, B. B. Carlsen & C. Nelso (2012). Mediedidaktik. Frederiksberg: Dansklærerforeningens Forlag Krogh, E. (2009). Fagdidaktisk forskning, udvikling og praksis i de gymnasiale uddannelser. I T.S. Christensen, H. Haue & E. Krogh (red.) Fag og didaktik – med fagsamspil som udfordring. Gymnasiepædagogik 72 (s. 11-30). Odense: Syddansk Universitet. Krogh, E. (2013). Dansk fagdidaktik mellem didaktik- og curriculumtraditionen. I E. Damberg, J. Dolin, G.H. Ingerslev & P. Kaspersen (Red.). Gymnasiepædagogik. En grundbog. 2. udgave (s. 246-254). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Luhmann, N. (1990). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Standford: Standford University Press. Luhmann, N. (2002). Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Luhmann, N. (2012). Theory of Society (Vol. 1). Standford: Standford University Press. Ongstad, S. (2006). Fag i endring. Om didaktisering av kunnskap. I S. Ongstad (red.) Fag og didaktikk i lærerutdanning. Kunnskap i grenseland, (s. 19-57). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Plant, P.; Nielsen, G. F. & Hansen, F. T. (red.) (2011). Vejledningsdidaktik. Albertslund: Schultz Qvortrup, A. (2014). Genbeskrivelse som didaktisk disciplin. Cursiv 13, (s. 37-55). Qvortrup, A. & Krogh, E. (2015). Mod laboratorier for sammenlignende (fag)didaktik. I Nordisk Tidskrift för Allmän Didaktik 1 (accepted) Rienecker, L.; Jørgensen, P. S.; Ingerslev, G. H. & Dolin, J. (red.) (2013). Universitetspædagogik. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur Smedegaard, S. & Qvortrup, A. (2013). Didaktiske teorier og didaktikkens nerve. I A. Qvortrup & M. Wiberg (red.) Læringsteori & didaktik. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag

Author Information

Ane Qvortrup (presenting / submitting)
University of Southern Denmark, Denmark

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.