Curricular didactics

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The curricular didactics , also known as learning goal-oriented teaching , was developed in Germany in the 1970s by Bernhard and especially Christine Möller . Robert Mager was one of the most important representatives of the goal-oriented approach in the USA .

Möller defines a curriculum (lat. Currere = to run) as a plan for the structure and course of teaching units. For them, the learning objective is the linguistically articulated idea of ​​the observable change in behavior of a learner that can be brought about through lessons (or other courses). It can be derived from completely different starting positions. For this reason Möller gives her approach the additional designation "learning goal-oriented".

In this approach, the goal-setting process is a central part of lesson planning. The planning process needs a manageable set of instruments for the creation of these goals. Precise goals are a fundamental prerequisite for an effective method selection and the success of the learning and teaching process can only be checked on the basis of these goals. The didactic model Moellers based on behaviorist works represent the observable behavior at the center.

The learning goal-oriented approach is prescriptive , so it gives instructions for teaching and planning. The approach also requires descriptive and normative didactics at the same time. Descriptive didactive is based on the results of empirical teaching research. On the other hand, normative didactics deal with the question of which goals are striven for and how these can be achieved. The instructions are given for the entire process of lesson planning , which falls into the sub-processes of learning planning ( curricular curriculum , CULP), learning organization and learning control. As a first step in the planning process, learning objectives are created, optimal learning strategies are then planned and, finally, suitable control methods are selected to check the learning objectives.

Learning planning takes place in four sub-steps:

  1. Collection of learning objectives
  2. Description of learning objectives
  3. Order of learning objectives
  4. Decision for learning goals.

Once the learning planning process has been completed, the product is an orderly set of precisely described and justified learning objectives for further processing.

The learning organization process can now begin. The focus of this process is the selection of teaching methods and media, with the help of which the set learning objectives can be optimally achieved. Once the methods have been established, they must be sorted, e.g. B. on the basis of a goal-method matrix with grading according to cognitive, affective and psychomotor goals.

Once the learning organization process has been completed, the result is clearly described and justified teaching methods and media assigned to the learning objectives and learners. Now the learning control work can be started.

In the process of learning control , control procedures are developed and selected with the help of which it can be checked whether the learner has achieved the set learning goals. These test tasks should represent the learning objectives of the curriculum.

Advantages:

  1. Transparency, the disclosure of which implies a democratizing element
  2. Controllability that also allows the teacher's decisions in the planning and organization process to be assessed
  3. Involvement of those affected, whereby the involvement of all those involved ( parents , teachers and students ) enables codecision and determination
  4. Efficiency through learning goals as the basis of the learning organization, which should create positive reinforcement opportunities (according to Skinner's learning model) for learners and teachers.

Aftermath

Curricular didactics is similar to the more modern concept of constructive alignment that is widespread in higher education .

After a “triumphant advance” in the early 1970s, so many problems arose with curricular didactics that it is hardly represented as a theory today. The deduction of the learning objectives from top to bottom (“Christmas tree”) cannot be as clear as desired, because the teacher-student interactions are too complex, the content and methods must be taken into account alongside the goals, the logic of planning through hermeneutics must be supplemented and the pupils and teachers in their individuality do not come into view. One practice has been preserved above all in vocational training .

literature

  • Christine Möller: The curricular didactics. In: Herbert Gudjons , Rita Teske, Rainer Winkel (eds.): Didactic theories. 8th edition. Bergmann and Helbig, Hamburg 1995 (= PB books. Volume 1), ISBN 3-925836-00-4 , pp. 63-77.
  • Christian Fischer (Hrsg.): Curriculum and didactics of gifted students. Promote talents, individualize learning. Lit-Verlag, Münster 2004 (= gifted research. Volume 1), ISBN 3-8258-7737-X .
  • Hartwig Schröder: Learning and teaching in the classroom. Basics and aspects of general didactics. 5th, newly revised edition. Arndt, Munich 1996 (= Wissenschaft und Schule series. Volume 3)., ISBN 3-923972-03-2 .

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Josef Brecht: Draft of tasks for the application of geographic work techniques in the context of the curricular curricula. In: Josef Brecht, Gerhart Gradenegger (ed.): Friedrich-Koenig-Gymnasium Würzburg. Annual report 1979/80. Edited by the directorate of the Friedrich-Koenig-Gymnasium Würzburg. Würzburg 1980, pp. 127-137, here: pp. 127-131.
  2. ↑ Werner Jank, Hilbert Meyer: Didaktische Modelle . Cornelsen, Frankfurt am Main 1991, p. 84-87, 298-301 .