Didaktik is at the centre of most school teaching and teacher education in Continental Europe, but at the same time almost unknown in the English speaking world. The article gives a brief outline of the history and the common core of Didaktik, of its current situation, and of the basic differences compared to the Anglo-American concept of ‘curriculum and instruction’ and the French ‘transposition didactique’. The common core of Didaktik is characterised as ‘restrained teaching’, based on (a) a commitment to Bildung, (b) the educative difference of matter and meaning, and (c) the autonomy of teaching and learning.
References
1.
AmreinA.L. & BerlinerD.C. (2002) High-Stakes Testing, Uncertainty, and Student Learning, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/ (accessed 10 March 2007).
2.
BerlinerD.C. (2005) Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform, Teachers College Record. http://www.tcrecord.org (ID no. 12106).
3.
BraunH. (2004) Reconsidering the Impact of High-Stakes Testing, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(1). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n1/ (accessed 10 March 2007).
4.
ChevallardY. (2006) Transposition Didactique and Knowledge Transformation. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Geneva (and in this issue).
5.
CruikshankC. (1994) The Rise and Fall of American Herbartianism. Ann Arbor: UMI.
6.
DavisO.L. (2002) The Theoretic Meets the Practical: The practical wins, in GundemB.B. & HopmannS. (Eds) Didaktik and/or Curriculum, pp. 87–106. New York: Peter Lang.
DörpfeldF.W. (1873) Grundlinien einer Theorie des Lehrplans. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.
9.
DoyleW. & WestburyI. (1992) Die Rückbesinnung auf den Unterrichtsinhalt in der Curriculum- und Bildungsforschung in den USA, Bildung und Erziehung, 45(2), pp. 137–157.
10.
DunkelH.B. (1969) Herbart and Education. New York: Random House.
11.
GononP. (1995) The German Concept of Bildung and Schools in the 19th Century, Nordisk Pedagogikk, 15(2), pp. 66–71.
12.
GoodsonI.HopmannS. & RiquartsK. (Eds) (1999) Das Schulfach als Handlungsrahmen. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der Schulfächer. Cologne: Böhlau
13.
GundemB.B. & HopmannS. (Eds) Didaktik and/or Curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
14.
HopmannS. (1988) Lehrplanarbeit als Verwaltungshandeln. Kiel: IPN.
15.
HopmannS. (2000a) Lehrplan des Abendlandes — am Ende seiner Geschichte? Geschichte der Lehrplanarbeit und des Lehrplans seit 1900, in KeckR. & RitziC. (Eds) Lehrplan des Abendlandes — revisited. Göttingen: Hohengrefe.
16.
HopmannS. (2000b) Klafki's Model of Didaktik Analysis and Lesson Planning in Teacher Education, in WestburyI.HopmannS. & RiquartsK. (Eds) Teaching as Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik tradition, pp. 197–206. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
HopmannS. (2006) Im Durchschnitt Pisa oder: Alles bleibt schlechter, in CriblezL.GautschiP.MonicoHirt P. & MessnerH. (Eds) Lehrpläne und Bildungsstandards, pp. 149–172. Bern: Hep
19.
HopmannS. & KünzliR. (1994) Topik der Lehrplanung, Bildungsforschung und Bildungspraxis, 16(2), pp. 161–184.
HörmannB. (2007) Die Unsichtbaren in PISA, TIMSS & Co. Diplomarbeit. Vienna: Institut für Bildungswissenschaft, University of Vienna.
22.
HumboldtW. V. ([1792] 2000) Theory of Bildung, in WestburyI.HopmannS. & RiquartsK. (Eds) Teaching as Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik tradition, pp. 57–62. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23.
KlafkiW. (1959) Das pädagogische Problem des Elementaren und die Theorie der kategorialen Bildung. Weinheim: Beltz.
24.
KlafkiW. (2000a) The Significance of Classical Theory of Bildung for a Contemporary Concept of Allgemeinbildung, in WestburyI.HopmannS. & RiquartsK. (Eds) Teaching as Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik tradition, pp. 85–109. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.
KlafkiW. ([1958] 2000b) Didaktik Analysis as Core of Preparation of Instruction, in WestburyI.HopmannS. & RiquartsK. (Eds) Teaching as Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik tradition, pp. 139–160. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KoretzD. (2003) Limitations in the Use of Achievement Tests as Measures of Educators' Productivity, Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), pp. 752–777. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069616
28.
KoretzD. & BartonK. (2003) Assessing Students with Disabilities: Issues and evidence. CSE Technical Report 587. Los Angeles: CRESST Online. http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports_set.htm (accessed 20 January 2006).
KünzliR. (1980) Didaktik zwischen Lehrplan und Unterricht, in Adl-AminiB. & KünzliR. (Eds) Didaktische Modelle und Unterrichtsplanung, pp. 180–209. Munich: Juventa.
31.
KünzliR. (1986) Topik des Lehrplandenkens. Kiel: Mende.
32.
KünzliR. (1988) Lehrplanung — Der unmögliche Diskurs oder die Sicherung von Permanenz, in HopmanS. (Ed.) Zugänge zur Geschichte staatlicher Lehrplanarbeit, pp. 235–258. Kiel: IPN.
33.
KünzliR. (2002) The Common Frame and the Places of Didaktik, in GundemB.B. & HopmannS. (Eds) Didaktik and/or Curriculum, pp. 29–46. New York: Peter Lang.
34.
LandsheereG. D. (1998) August Hermann Niemeyer, Prospects, 28, pp. 509–524.
LüthC. (2000) On Wilhelm von Humboldt's Concept of Bildung, in WestburyI.HopmannS. & RiquartsK. (Eds) Teaching as Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik tradition, pp. 63–84. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37.
MerkiMaag K. (2003) Überfachliche Kompetenzen. Zürich: Pädagogisches Institut.
38.
MercerN. (2006) Learning/Instruction and Knowledge Transformation. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research Geneva (and in this issue).
39.
MeyerhöferW. (2005) Tests im Test. Das Beispiel PISA. Opladen: Budrich.
40.
MuninH. (2001) Schulautonomie: Diskurse, Masnahmen und Effekte im internationalen Vergleich. Weinheim: Beltz.
41.
NesjeK. & HopmannS. (Eds) (2002) En Lærende Skole: L97 i Skolepraksis. Oslo: J.W. Cappelen.
42.
NohlH. (1935) Die pädagogische Bewegung in Deutschland und ihre Theorie. Frankfurt: Schulte-Bulmke.
43.
OelkersJ. (1995) Break and Continuity: Observations on the modernization effects and traditionalization in international reform pedagogy, Paedagogica Historica, n.s. pp. 31–33.
44.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2001) Knowledge and Skills for Life. First Results from Pisa 2000. Paris: OECD.
45.
PereiraP. (1984) Deliberation and the Arts of Perception, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(4), pp. 347–366.
46.
PinarW.F.ReynoldsW.M.SlatteryP. & TaubmanP.M. (1995) Understanding Curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
47.
PrinceJ.T. (1892) Methods of Instruction and Organization of the Schools of Germany for the Use of American Teachers and Normal Schools. Boston: Lee & Shepard.
48.
ReinW. (1896) Lehrplan, in ReinW.Encyklopädisches Handbuch der Pädagogik, pp. 483–504. Langensalza.
49.
RobinsohnS.B. (1967) Bildungsreform als Revision des Curriculum. Neuwied: Luchterhand.
RothH. ([1952] 2000) The Art of Lesson Preparation, in I. WestburyS. Hopmann & RiquartsK. (Eds) Teaching as Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik tradition, pp. 127–138. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52.
SchwabJ.J. (1969) The Practical: A language for curriculum, in WestburyI. & WilkofN. (Eds) (1978) J.J. Schwab: Science, curriculum and liberal education, pp. 287–321. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53.
SchwabJ.J. & RobyT. (1986) The Practicals 5 and 6: Finding and using commonplaces in literature and psychology. Archived at the Museum of Education, University of South Carolina.
54.
ShulmanL. (1987) Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the new reform, Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), pp. 1–23
55.
StecherB.BarronS.KaganoffT. & GoodwinJ. (1998) The Effects of Standard Based Assessment on Class Room Practices: Results of the 1996–97 Rand Survey of Kentucky Teachers of Mathematics and Writing. CSE Technical Report 482. Los Angeles: Coalition for Essential Schools (CSE).
56.
WatsonS. & SupovitzJ. (2001) Autonomy and Accountability in the Context of Standards-Based Reform, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(32). http://www.epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n32 (accessed 10 March 2007).
57.
WestburyI. (2002) Didaktik and Curriculum Studies, in GundemB.B. & HopmannS. (Eds) Didaktik and/or Curriculum, pp. 47–78. New York: Peter Lang.
58.
WestburyI.HopmannS. & RiquartsK. (Eds) (2000) Teaching as Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik tradition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
59.
WhitfordB.L. & JonesK. (2000) Accountability, Assessment, and Teacher Commitment: Lessons from Kentucky's reform efforts. Albany: SUNY Press.
