Didaktik is one of the core disciplines for teachers. As a sub-field of education, Didaktik is historically divided into General Didaktik and Subject Didaktik, where both are seen as relevant for understanding teaching, curriculum work and school development. Despite wide international interest in the field, Didaktik has often been characterized as being in a crisis. Does Didaktik still has the capacity to operate as a productive and coherent language for teachers? Maybe the field has differentiated too far, into a myriad of sub-perspectives counterproductive in order to provide the profession a language that transcends teaching in different subjects and different populations? Or perhaps initiatives centering general subject didactics may be an option? in that case, how does such an initiative differ from general didactics? In addition, often research in Didaktik is based more on psychological theory on learning than being based on education theory.
Creating a coherent language for teaching is also complicated by that research on teaching and multilevel curriculum work has developed very differently in different parts of the world. Among strong research traditions we may identify a German-Nordic Didaktik tradition, an Anglophone curriculum tradition, a critical South-American tradition. Within each there exists a large number of more specific theoretical approaches. Given the increased globalized dialogue on education and education policy, there is indeed a need for a renewed bridging language on teaching and curriculum work. However, the existing plurality of theories, doctrines, and epistemological positions makes such a dialogue complicated. This is paradoxical given the fact schools all over the world are governed utilizing similar mechanisms and given that teaching in classrooms so much remind of each other.
Given the above tensions, this project aims at bridging the differences within nation-states, as well as and between them, by applying two general strategies.
First, instead of taking the point of departure in a specific teaching subject, some psychological theory, a philosophical view of the human being or a normative political idea of the society, the school as a pedagogical institution is considered the fundamental unit of analysis. Thus, school didactics may function as a uniting point of departure. Such a perspective sees classroom teaching, school leadership as well as national curriculum reform and evaluation as parts of one and the same whole. Regardless of whether we approach school teaching from the learner, subject, methods, media, context, policy, all other aspects will come into play. A school didactic point of departure values different specializations but sees them as contributing and complementary perspectives to understanding schools pedagogical work.
Second, theoretically, this project is heavily influenced by non-affirmative education theory. This theory is expected to be able to provide a sound basis for understanding teaching across contents, and leadership across levels. Non-affirmative Didactics draws on the core ideas of modern education theory as developed by Fichte, Humboldt, Hegel, Schleiermacher and others. Historically, many countries over the world adopted these modern core ideas of education, since middle of the 19th century, enabling a modernization of schooling and teacher education. Despite the different paths taken since, most school systems reflect, at a distance, similar core of ideas. Non-affirmative theory of education provides a conceptual frame revealing this core. Therefore, non-affirmative and educative didactics for schools may be expected to offer a fruitful analytics for comparative curriculum research.
Educative didactics for schools (EDS) and educative subject didactics (ESD), based on non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung, avoids the pitfalls of educational technologism seeking solutions in new technology and educational performativism/competencism focusing acquisition of content neutral generic & procedural competencies. EDS and ESD is critical of educational factualism representing a conservative back to basics and cultural canon movement, thereby emphasizing route learning of core knowledge, typically grounded in learning psychology. Finally, ESD based on NAT questions traditional forms of educational activism, that makes instrumental use of education to transform society by excluding critical pedagogical treatment of predetermined curricular interests.
Publications from this project include:
Uljens, M. (2024). On educative subject didactics as powerful knowledge for teachers. Paper presented at Transnational and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Subject Didactics. May 14-16th, 2024, University of Trier, Germany.
Uljens, M. (2023). Bildung-Centered Non-Affirmative School Didactics. In: M. Uljens (ed.), Non-affirmative Theory of Education and Bildung. Springer Open Access.
Uljens, M. (2022). Critical comparative curriculum research beyond globalized neoliberal policy. Revista Qurriculum: Teoría, investigación y práctica educativa. December 35, p 35-53.University of La Laguna, Spain.
Nordin, A. & Uljens, M. (red.). (2022). Didaktikens språk – om skolundervisningens mål, innehåll och form. Stockholm: Gleerups.
Uljens, M. & Kullenberg, T. (2021). Non-affirmative School Didactics and Life-world Phenomenology – Conceptualizing Missing Links. In: A. Qvortrup, E. Krogh, & S. T. Graf (Eds.), Didaktik and curriculum in ongoing dialogue, pp. 185-203. London: Routledge.
Uljens, M. & Kullenberg, T. (2019). Livsvärldsfenomenologi i ljuset av icke-affirmativ pedagogisk handlingsteori. I: I. Rinne, I. Berndtsson, & A. Lilja (Red.), Fenomenologiska sammanflätningar (ss. 29-55). Göteborg: Daidalos. ISBN 9789171735621
Mielityinen-Pachmann, M. & Uljens, M. (2019). Schleiermacher og pædagogik – hermeneutik, dannelse og uddannelsesteori. I: A. von Oettingen (red.), Pædagogiska taenkere. Bidrag til empirisk uddannelsesforskning (ss. 51-65). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.