Traffic didactics

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Traffic didactics , also didactics of traffic education , is the science of teaching and learning how to drive appropriately. It is a sub-discipline of traffic education . As the “science of learning mediation” or “scientifically founded teaching theory”, it serves practical traffic education as the basis of its educational activities.

The interdisciplinary traffic didactics deals specifically with the learning requirements , learning objectives , learning content , teaching methods , organizational forms , evaluation techniques and their justifications in the field of human traffic.

Concept and tasks

The technical term traffic didactics is made up of German traffic = cooperation deal and Greek didaktikè téchne = art or science of teaching and learning . The word didactics was introduced into education as early as 1657 by Johann Amos Comenius with the publication of his Didactica magna . As "general didactics" it has since stood for the "teaching of teaching" and the "science of educational mediation". The various subject didactics as well as the interdisciplinary area didactics such as traffic didactics emerged from him .

In a broad understanding of the term, didactics and traffic didactics include not only the content and objectives, but also the teaching techniques and organizational forms of teaching that the target program should implement in practice. Traffic didactics is a scientific discipline that conducts basic and applied research at the same time. Her field of activity also includes the recording and influencing of learning behavior in the work area and the provision of scientifically sound knowledge for the creation of curricula and curricula as well as the development of suitable teaching methods and attractive learning materials .

In addition to specialist knowledge, knowledge of traffic didactics is part of the basic qualification of a traffic educator. They are imparted within the framework of a university education and through advanced training or advanced training courses.

Historical development

Goals and content

Traffic didactics arose at the beginning of the 20th century with the simple aim of teaching school children how to cross roads safely in view of the increasing volume of traffic. A Prussian decree of 1906 prescribed this everyday technical task for schools. With a further decree from 1930, the "traffic studies", which had meanwhile become more demanding in its objectives, then advanced to so-called traffic instruction with a technical character and thus an integral part of Prussian education. Nevertheless, until the end of the 1960s, educational efforts were largely limited to hazard warnings in road traffic and technical instructions on how to avoid accidents. On the outside of the school, there was resistance to the “pedagogy” of the new subject, the tasks of which, as an introduction to everyday techniques, were to be performed fully by non-educators. On the other hand, schools and pupils initially showed little interest in the unpopular "accident prevention subject" that was imposed on them by the ministry, which didactically could not compete with the other subjects and which essentially consisted of warnings about the dangers of accidents and was supposed to teach rules in an authoritarian way, which had to be strictly followed. The new “subject” also came into competition with the established school subjects in terms of time and effort and, due to the lack of a location in universities and teacher training, was sidelined. This instruction, still called “traffic instruction”, was primarily carried out by non-school organizations such as the traffic police or the German traffic watch. For a long time, cycling training received preferred attention.

It was not until the KMK recommendation of July 7, 1972 , which was followed by two revisions in 1994 and 2012, that schools and universities were intensively obliged to develop didactics that were equivalent to the other subjects and that would make the subject, now known as traffic education, more attractive and more successful. This brought movement into the development of a separate “didactics of traffic education”. Appropriate personnel and material equipment helped with the implementation. Nonetheless, a persistent debate between representatives of the "old didactics" like Dieter Hohenadel, who proceeded from pure accident prevention thinking and only wanted to give pedagogy a supplementary marginal function, blocked a persistent debate for decades and convinced traffic educators like H. Holstein, who strived for integration into pedagogy , decisive reform progress. The dominance of the security aspect in thinking hindered wider acceptance of reforms. At the traffic congress in 1988 in Schwäbisch Gmünd, the experts took stock of the didactic progress and analyzed the prospects for further development. As recently as the early 1990s, however, there were individual voices who wanted to deny that traffic didactics would be housed under the umbrella of general pedagogy . The pedagogue Dieter Mutschler argued in 1992 that pedagogy could not be a "repair authority" for "socially produced problems" and that their "taking into service" in the form of "handyman services" in the sense of "preservation pedagogy" corresponded to the security ideas of politics moreover could not be fair. Although the criticized "preservation pedagogy" in traffic didactics had long been supplemented by a "proven pedagogy", Hartmut Binder also questioned the "functionalization of traffic education" in the sense of a substantial contribution to the safety of children in the risk society. On the other hand, among others, the didactician Siegbert A. Warwitz demanded: Traffic education must do more than prevent accidents. She has to make a contribution to the humanization and personalization of traffic and pleaded for the development of an interdisciplinary didactics on a scientific basis. It should guide the children in a holistic conception of upbringing in a complex field of tasks in as much independent activity as possible to responsible road users. Such an "overall concept", which ranged from the "guidelines" of a contemporary and future-oriented traffic education to the specific " learning objectives " to effective " learning controls ", he himself presented for the first time in 1993. It has been updated over and over again in six revisions:

The new - which have become more complex - objectives aimed at the responsible, independent and cooperative road user as an educational goal in the network of subjects. The idea prevailed that traffic actually means “dealing with one another” and accordingly has to start educationally much earlier and more broadly than at the first encounter with traffic in order to be successful. The minimum target of “safety education” to ensure that children are as accident-free as possible had not become obsolete, but new areas of responsibility were added. Warwitz's didactic model formulated the main goal of traffic education : The child should discover traffic as a living and creative space. This requires the development of appropriate personal skills, social skills, technical skills and action skills . Under this guideline, elements of personality education, health education, social education, environmental education, mobility education and safety education were to be included. As learning objectives, Warwitz names the gradual development of " traffic awareness ", " traffic awareness ", " traffic intelligence " and "traffic behavior" in the form of "theoretical knowledge", "practical skills" and "mental attitude", which he further concretizes and operationalizes , so that they can be checked for their results in evaluative learning controls.

The new generation of traffic educators recognized that road safety and traffic maturity had to be more broadly based than the fear of accidents and that they required a positive, also scientific orientation that did justice to the advances in education, the findings of learning and developmental psychology as well as the social sciences To find acceptance. The new didactics understood traffic education in the original sense of the word as education for a communication-friendly, cooperative way of dealing with one another, in which basic human virtues such as partnership, consideration, tolerance, patience and assistance are decisive. Accordingly, she started her educational efforts both in front of and outside of road traffic, because this behavior of people has an impact on traffic. Self- responsibility and taking responsibility for others should replace the socially widespread striving for external responsibility as a hallmark of responsible road users .

Methods and forms of organization

The methodology developed in line with the objectives: From the pragmatically oriented "accident prevention subject", which relied primarily on deductive procedures on rule acquisition and compliance and made do with simple handouts, a teaching method gradually emerged based on the findings of learning research. According to this, less receptive learning than the activity and creativity of the students should be challenged and become the benchmark.

The chastising old traffic jasper (1831)

With the introduction of the Verkehrskasper , committed traffic police officers had already found a form of communication in the 1950s that appealed to children to a high degree. However, the puppet still used a wooden spoon, rolling pin, frying pan and grape pouch to teach traffic offenders unwilling to learn , especially the always seductive devil , under the malicious laughter of the children, the "correct" traffic behavior. When there was danger, magicians and fairies had to intervene. The Kasper appeared as the main actor. Like a detective, he chased the traffic light offenders, stopped the street balls, caught the bicycle thief. With the reform of traffic education in the 1970s and 1980s, the terrifying figures of devils and witches, but also the entertaining, but unrealistic magicians and fairies gave way to personal responsibility. Instead of the police officers, children and young people now acted themselves behind the stage and in front of the stage. Using the dolls, they discussed current problems with each other, such as the school rush hour , damaging bicycles, bumping into the schoolyard or lifting railway barriers. The puppet theater changed from a teaching theater to a discussion forum, where the stage designers and the audience communicated with each other, looked for the best forms of intercourse and also established school yard rules. New figures such as the clever floppy-ear dog or the black and white zebra could be consulted in problem cases. The Kasper went from being a kind but strict disciplinarian to a good-humored moderator of the learning process, to a questioner and initiator who encouraged initiative, creativity and a willingness to take responsibility.

In accordance with the interdisciplinary structure of traffic didactics, the methods and organizational forms with which the new traffic education could work were multiplied and differentiated. Discovery and multi-dimensional learning determined the educational processes. The early picture-book-like materials approached realistic representations. The educator couple Strecker / Strecker released the traffic education from the tight safety and rule orientation and offered ideas for a playful growing into the traffic. Vehicles of all kinds suitable for children were transformed from play equipment into means of transport in the preschool sector, play partners became traffic partners, rules of the game became traffic rules, game fines became traffic fines. The once abstract teachings turned into action-intensive personal experimentation. Incentives led to self-determined, playful learning. The idea of ​​a game on the way to school offered the opportunity to turn your own way to school into an attractive board game after exploring the reality of traffic using appropriate event cards. The pedestrian diploma appealed with the prospect of exciting experiences while driving together with older students and a final certificate of achievement as a "certified pedestrian". In addition to impressive crash demonstrations, the police traffic educators gave the youngsters the opportunity to show off their own stunts with their two-wheeled vehicles, demonstrate their driving skills on a skill course and prove the technical reliability of their means of transport. Traffic knowledge came to light in quiz competitions.

Didactic principles

A modern, sustainable traffic education follows certain requirements and basic rules that characterize the educational process. According to Warwitz, the following didactic principles apply to traffic education:

Didactic approaches

Three safety concepts can be identified, which led to three different didactic starting points, but which complement each other in reality today:

  • Traffic education as an integration into the given traffic systems

This oldest concept gives top priority to smooth, fast and accident-free traffic. This seems achievable if every road user is unconditionally and reliably obliged to comply with the requirements of the codified set of rules , such as the road traffic regulations . Unadapted road users are considered traffic offenders who are to be sanctioned. Traditional traffic instruction has an important function here to this day: According to § 48 StVO, it is the task of the road traffic authorities to order traffic instruction for young and adult traffic violators under certain circumstances and to train them accordingly in the interests of general safety.

  • Traffic safety by creating separate traffic areas

This concept is based on a spatial separation of the various road users and traffic flows. Pedestrians, cyclists and drivers use different railways. The demarcation of the world of children and adults should take into account the different traffic speeds, traffic interests and traffic abilities as well as the special protection needs. However, this inevitably results in the formation of islands, inevitable overlaps and a banishment of children in designated "reserves" of traffic with the consequences of a safe-space education.

  • Traffic education from the child

This concept gives high priority to the needs and right of the child to self-determined, equal participation in traffic and to his or her ability to drive. Children experience and understand traffic differently than adults. For them, getting around is less an economic change of location than the opportunity to meet, play and discover. Under the given traffic conditions, however, they are sometimes overwhelmed and particularly endangered. This didactic model tries to help the children to gradually adapt to the general traffic situation from their typical child experience horizon, more creatively than receptively.

See also

literature

  • Hartmut Binder: Unloved and inevitable - Can traffic education be education? In: Karlsruhe educational contributions. 28, 1992, pp. 26-41.
  • Wolfgang Böcher u. a .: Traffic education - alibi or educational opportunity? 2nd Edition. Bonn 1981.
  • Deutsche Verkehrswacht (Ed.): Step by step more security . Braunschweig undated
  • Deutsche Verkehrswacht (Ed.): The bicycle training as an integrated part of the traffic education in the school . Bonn 1989.
  • Roland Gorges: Traffic education begins in kindergarten . Braunschweig undated (1984).
  • Bruno Heilig: Perspectives in traffic education. Congress report 11. – 13. May 1988 Schwäbisch Gmünd.
  • Dieter Hohenadel: Education and traffic reality. 2nd Edition. Braunschweig 1986.
  • Hermann Holstein: Studies on traffic education . Braunschweig 1986.
  • L. Kreft: Traffic education in elementary school. Action-oriented teaching materials for the 3rd and 4th school year. Publishing house Auer, Donauwörth 2003.
  • Maria Limbourg: Children in traffic. Munster 1994.
  • Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs NRW (ed.): Everything where it belongs. Düsseldorf 1997.
  • KMK recommendation on traffic education in schools of July 28, 1994. In: Ministry for Culture and Sport BaWü (Hrsg.): Kultus und Studium. 15, 1994.
  • Dieter Mutschler: Child and Car - or How motorization changed childhood. In: Karlsruhe educational contributions. 28, 1992, pp. 42-58.
  • B. and D. Strecker: Child-friendly traffic education in pre-school and the entry level of elementary and special schools. 2nd Edition. Braunschweig 1982.
  • K. Wagner: Traffic education then and now. 50 years of Verkehrskasper . Scientific state examination work (GHS) Karlsruhe 2002.
  • Siegbert A. Warwitz: Traffic education on the sidelines. In: Karlsruhe educational contributions. 28, 1992, pp. 12-25.
  • Siegbert A. Warwitz: Traffic education from the child. Perceive-play-think-act. 6th edition. Verlag Schneider, Baltmannsweiler 2009, ISBN 978-3-8340-0563-2 .
  • Traffic education at all levels of education . (= Working and Research Association for Road Traffic and Traffic Safety. Volume 24). Published by the University of Cologne, Cologne 1974.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Johann Amos Comenius: Great Didactics: The complete art of teaching all people everything. 10th edition. Edited by Andreas Flitner. Klett-Cotta, 2008. (Original 1657)
  2. ↑ Dieter Hohenadel: Education and traffic reality. 2nd Edition. Braunschweig 1986.
  3. ^ Siegbert A. Warwitz: Traffic education in the offside. In: Karlsruhe educational contributions. 28, 1992, pp. 12-25.
  4. ↑ Deutsche Verkehrswacht (Ed.): The cycling training as an integrated part of the traffic education in the school . Bonn 1989.
  5. ↑ KMK recommendation on traffic education in schools from July 28, 1994. In: Ministry for Culture and Sport BaWü (Ed.): Kultus und Studium. 15, 1994.
  6. ↑ Dieter Hohenadel: Education and traffic reality. 2nd Edition. Braunschweig 1986.
  7. ↑ H. Holstein: Studies on traffic education . Braunschweig 1986.
  8. ↑ B. Heilig: Perspectives of traffic education. Congress report 11. – 13. May 1988 Schwäbisch Gmünd.
  9. ↑ Dieter Mutschler: Child and Car - or How motorization changed childhood. In: Karlsruhe educational contributions. 28, 1992, p. 42.
  10. ↑ Hartmut Binder: Unloved and inevitable - Can traffic education be education? In: Karlsruhe educational contributions. 28, 1992, pp. 26-41.
  11. ^ Siegbert A. Warwitz: Traffic education from the child. Perceive-play-think-act. 1st edition. Baltmannsweiler, 1993, p. 32.
  12. ^ Siegbert A. Warwitz: Traffic education from the child. Perceive-play-think-act. 6th edition. Baltmannsweiler. 2009, pp. 4-75.
  13. ↑ Traffic education from the child. Perceive-play-think-act. 6th edition. Baltmannsweiler 2009, pp. 22-24.
  14. ^ Siegbert A. Warwitz: The systematic structure of traffic education. In: Ders .: Traffic education from the child. Perceive-play-think-act. 6th edition. Baltmannsweiler 2009, pp. 72-75.
  15. ↑ Roland Gorges: Traffic education begins in kindergarten . Braunschweig undated (1984)
  16. ^ Deutsche Verkehrswacht (Ed.): Step by step more security . Braunschweig undated
  17. ^ K. Wagner: Traffic education then and now. 50 years of Verkehrskasper . Scientific state examination work (GHS) Karlsruhe 2002.
  18. ↑ B. and D. Strecker: Child-friendly traffic education in pre-school and the entry level of elementary and special schools. 2nd Edition. Braunschweig 1982.
  19. ↑ L. Kreft: Traffic Education in Elementary School. Action-oriented teaching materials for the 3rd and 4th school year. Donauwörth 2003.
  20. ^ Siegbert A. Warwitz: Future-oriented traffic education. Lecture series at the University of Vechta May 14, 2012.
  21. ^ Siegbert A. Warwitz: Didactic principles. In: Ders .: Traffic education from the child. Perceive-play-think-act. 6th edition. Baltmannsweiler 2009, pp. 69-72.
  22. ↑ VwV-StVO to § 48 StVO
  23. ^ W. Böcher among others: Traffic Education - Alibi or Educational Opportunity? 2nd Edition. Bonn 1981.
  24. ^ Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs NRW (ed.): Everything where it belongs. Düsseldorf 1997.
  25. ^ Maria Limbourg: Children in traffic. Munster 1994.
  26. ^ Siegbert A. Warwitz: Traffic education from the child. Perceive-play-think-act. 6th edition. Baltmannsweiler 2009.