Berlin model (didactics)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following important information is missing from this article or section:
Criticism and reception are missing. The thesis that the choice of medium is related to goal, content and method has been questioned many times, for example by the representatives of instruction design . In the USA, for example, there is no media didactics at all today. Are there any countries outside the German-speaking area in which the Berlin model has received attention?
Help Wikipedia by researching and pasting it .

The Berlin model (including the Berlin School of Didactics or “teaching-learning-theoretical didactics ” ) was developed by Paul Heimann (1901–1967) to distinguish it from the educational theory didactics of Wolfgang Klafki . Under the charge that Klafki showed “stratospheric thinking” in his didactics, which was influenced by the humanities, he designed a practicable decision-making model. It should enable the teacher to theoretically analyze his own teaching on a purely empirical, initially value-free basis, and to make the didactic decisions made transparent. It should also teachers in lesson planning help, as many of the lessons to get influencing factors to consider and sometimes at all "in the view". This is intended to enable targeted and planned teaching and learning.

The model

Berlin model

The Berlin model aims to help make meaningful decisions about the “why”, “where”, “what” and “how” in a group, taking into account the different conditions and situations. There is help for the analysis and planning of individual steps and for retrospective reflection and evaluation of work units or group lessons.

Through systematic lesson analyzes on an empirical basis, Heimann determined so-called “formal constants” (also categories) of the lesson, which occur in every lesson regardless of time. The teaching factors determined in this way could serve as a guideline when planning lessons. Heimann determined six such constants in two fields:

  • two condition factors (condition fields)
    • anthropogenic conditions and
    • socio-cultural requirements for everyone involved
  • four decision factors (decision areas)
    • Intentions / goals
    • Content / objects
    • Methods / ways
    • Medium / media

Condition factors

The anthropogenic requirements of the participants

  • What is the learning background of the individual students?
  • What is the individual stage of development?
  • What attitude / motivation, receptiveness?
  • In which habitat do they live and what results from this (attitudes, skills, learning styles )?
  • Prior experience of everyone involved?
  • What is the composition of the group, who leads, has influence? What is the climate like ?
  • What is the behavior and relationship of the participants and teachers with one another (i.e. that of the members and that of the teacher)?
  • What are your interests?

The socio-cultural requirements of everyone involved

  • Where does the meeting take place?
  • What are the spatial conditions?
  • How much time is available?
  • What else is still given unchanged?
  • Who has what influence and control rights from the outside? (e.g. electricity is switched off)
  • How old are they, at what stage of development, men and / or women (boys / girls)?
  • What do the institution / school, parents, society expect?
  • Which concept is the institution / school based on?

Decision factors

  • The intentions and goals to be pursued:
    • What do I (do we) want to achieve? Why is?
    • Where do these goals come from, how are they justified?
    • How do these goals “fit” into the framework of conditions, the requirements of all of us?
    • Are these goals conceivable, or do they have to be changed in terms of conditions and prerequisites?
  • The content / items in question:
    • What content is it about?
    • How exactly does the content have to be filled (limited / expanded) so that it does not miss the requirements of the participants?
    • Are there any contradictions to the conditional framework?
  • The methods are the way in which the content can be approached and the goals achieved.
    • "If I consider the prerequisites of those involved and the framework of conditions and visualize the desired goals and content, what ideas do I have on how I could achieve this?"
    • What steps do I find?
    • What could I do, say, offer? How to set up, structure or present the content?
    • Maybe I have to change my ambitions because I can't find a way to achieve them; or do I change my content choices or the conditional framework or my prerequisites? (e.g. by getting more information about one thing)
  • The means , the media that I need if I want to go this way:
    • Do I have these resources / the material, or do I have to change my path because they are not available to me? (E.g. I am missing a projector and I wanted to show pictures.)
    • Does the media match the requirements of the participants, the goals, the content, etc.?

Central findings

The main findings of this model are:

  • All six factors are related to each other. There is a strict interdependence among them . Each factor must be viewed in relation to the other (assumption of interdependence). (In the pictorial representation this is expressed by arrows.)
  • This model regards planning (of a meeting / group lesson) as a system of interrelated decisions: Each element is also included in an element, or the decision in one field has consequences for the decision in the other fields. "When I have made a decision in one field, I have to think through all the other decisions to see whether they are compatible" (see above).
  • The conditional framework must also be taken into account when making decisions or, depending on the goal, “I have to try to change the conditional framework”.
  • The condition and decision factors are shown here in a specific order. When planning, however, you do not necessarily have to proceed in this order because all factors influence one another. You can basically start in any field and refer to the decision of the others.
  • If a planned meeting has taken place, then there are consequences or results for all those involved. The goals were achieved or not achieved, something has changed or nothing has happened. This determination of the result flows into the consideration of the requirements for the next meeting.

Advancement

The model was further developed into the Hamburg model by Wolfgang Schulz , a former Heimann employee, in the 1980s . Heimann's planning model becomes an action model for “emancipatory-relevant, professional-pedagogical teaching ”. Schulz turns away from the purely descriptive lesson analysis and develops a normative model of critical teaching, which should enable the students to free themselves from superfluous domination and to act with the greatest possible self-determination.

Hans Furrer's “ Berner Modell ”, which he published in 2009, is also based on the Berlin model . Furrer puts the focus on adult education and demands a strongly competence-oriented didactics for it. He integrates various specific other models into his own to analyze the individual conditions and for the professional design of the decision-making fields. Including Wolfgang Klafki's didactic reduction.

literature

  • Paul Heimann, Gunter Otto, Wolfgang Schulz: Lessons: Analysis and planning . 10th, unchanged edition. Schroedel, Hannover 1979, ISBN 3-507-36310-0 .
  • Hans Furrer : The Bern model; An instrument for competence-oriented didactics . hep, Bern 2009, ISBN 978-3-03905-552-4 .
PflegeWiki.de Note : This article is based on a GFDL -licensed text that was taken from the PflegeWiki . A list of the original authors can be found on the version page of the relevant article .