Didactic triangle

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The didactic triangle illustrates the three teaching components " teacher - student - learning object ", the mutual dependencies in the underlying relationship structure, as well as the position in the overall structure of the respective society. The lesson is illustrated in this triangle. It is particularly important in teacher training to describe different didactic forms of teaching and learning as well as their effects on practical teaching processes.

history

The didactic triangle has been revised, expanded and restructured many times in its long history. The classic triadic scheme with its reciprocal assignment of the teaching components pupil, teacher and material has its roots in so-called Herbartianism , a pedagogical direction established by the philosopher and educator Johann Friedrich Herbart (1776–1841) , which scientifically rethought and systematized practical teaching . Herbart already put the “Educandus” (pupil) at the forefront of educational efforts, wanted him to “find himself” and assigned the educator the role of a supporter, a “encourager for self-employment”, not that of a rule provider . Nevertheless, for almost two hundred years, teacher-centered teaching dominated the design of lessons, with the teacher at the tip of the triangle.

The learning theorist Wolfgang Klafki already saw with his “categorical education” and the term “double-sided development” a close interdependence between the subject of learning and the learner who turned to it. When the so-called Berlin School of Paul Heimann (1901–1967) and his students Gunter Otto and Wolfgang Schulz dealt with Wolfgang Klafki's "educational theory didactics" from the 1940s, the didactic model was given a concrete form and increased attention in the educational field Discussion. The basic structure of the didactic conceptual image was then modified in many ways and expanded in a practice-oriented manner in the newly revived didactic discussion of the 1970s. The Heimann student Wolfgang Schulz embedded the triangle in a comprehensive circle that represented the socio-cultural environment and the social order in which every lesson takes place and to which it is related. The Karlsruhe didacticians Siegbert Warwitz and Anita Rudolf brought their more differentiated structural model into a variable form in 1977, with which different teaching concepts such as teacher-centered teaching , student-centered teaching or socially integrative teaching could be illustrated and explained. They also encompassed each of the three cornerstones pupils, teachers and material with a further circle that allowed the interaction structures to be represented even in more complicated forms of teaching such as project teaching .

With its further developments of the classic basic structure, the "Didactic Triangle" still plays a central role in the understanding of teaching processes, in teacher behavior training, in the scientific and practical examination of teaching objectives and methods in the first and second phases of teacher training .

The didactic thought picture

Scientists and school pedagogues such as R. Winkel, D. von Scheunpflug, Hilbert Meyer or Manfred Bönsch developed different forms and uses of the didactic triangle, which should graphically illustrate their respective teaching theories. On the basis of the work of Klafki and the Berlin School of Heimann / Otto / Schulz, the didacticians Siegbert Warwitz and Anita Rudolf published the following, flexible structural model in 1977, which also took into account complex forms of teaching such as project teaching and more complex learning methods such as multi-dimensional learning . It sees itself as a content-free formal thinking model with which all types of organized teaching and learning can be illustrated in their relationships:

The basic structure of the didactic triangle consists of an equilateral triangle , the corner points of which are determined by the three essential components of every systematic lesson, i.e. by pupil, teacher and material. These basic components are related to one another in the form of an interdependence , i.e. H. a diverse interdependence. The triangle with its three components is surrounded by a circle that represents the outside world, the socio-cultural environment, the society in which the teaching process takes place, from which it receives its educational assignments, which are educated towards and to which each of the three poles is assigned is. The references are indicated by arrows pointing in both directions. In addition, each of the three corner points is not found in isolation. Rather, an encircling inner circle indicates that the individual student is integrated into a learning group and addressed with several of his learning potentials, which is in turn indicated by reciprocal arrows. The circle around the learning object symbolizes the various factual aspects and learning perspectives that need to be taken into account. The teacher is in an exchange with cooperating colleagues of different technical and professional competence.

This didactic thought symbolizes the manifold references in complex learning styles and forms of teaching such as multi-dimensional learning or project teaching . It can be simplified accordingly for less complicated structured learning methods and forms of teaching such as discovery learning or a lecture . It does not matter which of the three corner points occupies the point of the triangle: If it is a teacher-centered form of communication such as a lecture or a presentation, the teacher occupies the upper point of the triangle. When it comes to student-centered teaching, the student will come first. In programmed lessons , the material component takes on this position. In discovery learning , the triangle rotates and the basic axis forms the upper position, while the tip with the teacher who only gives impulses and advises is at the bottom. The focus of the interaction can also be indicated by thick directional arrows. Subordinate payments can be dashed.

The thus highly variable designed didactic triangle in which the student usually takes as the subject of all learning efforts, the apex of the triangle should, in lesson planning and teaching reflection help as possible to take into account many of the educational events influencing factors and sometimes at all "in the view ”.

Effective forces and influences

According to the experimental psychologist Kurt Lewin, the learning object contains a so-called challenge character , with which he relates to the learner as well as the teacher and motivates them to deal with him. As a cultural asset to be conveyed , as a skill or stock of knowledge, its complexity or difficulty makes demands on the teaching activity of the teacher and the receptivity of the learner.

In the ideal case, the learner encounters the stimulating nature of the matter with curiosity, interest, willingness to learn, affection, discussion or, in the negative case, with rejection and disinterest. For him, the teacher is a reference person whose offers of help he can accept or refuse.

The teacher is required to act as a competent mediator between the subject matter and the learner. He does this in relation to the learning object with appropriate methods that simplify the complex object in a way that is appropriate for the student, as well as with organizational forms that promote the learning process. He does this to the learner through motivation , learning impulses, advice, instruction, and setting an example, which differ depending on the chosen form of teaching.

The socio-cultural environment provides the framework in which the organized lessons take place. The learning processes do not remain in the protected area of ​​the school , but are based on the requirements of the out-of-school. The respective society determines the learning objectives and learning content via the curricula and the school system from its political structure . It therefore has a decisive influence on each of the three teaching components and the entire teaching process. On the other hand, there is the chance, also the other way around, from a critical teaching and learning process to have an emancipatory effect on a change in the socio-cultural social environment.

Critical reception

The criticism of the structural model of the didactic triangle in Hartwig Schröder's “Didactic Dictionary” is limited to mere labels such as “ model of older didactics ” and unsubstantiated vocabulary such as “ simplifying ” without reference to literature . In his detailed fundamental criticism of didactics, the school pedagogue Andreas Gruschka condemns the didactic triangle across the board with labels such as “ falsification through simplification, falsification through schematization, falsification through updating, falsification through analogy formation, disposal of content through media consumption, trivialization ” under the catchphrase “didactization of education” and control, as well as disposal of the content through presentation ”.

In the case of critical statements, however, an outdated, no longer up-to-date original model or its content-related filling with individual theories is obviously used, the further developments since Klafki, Heimann, Winkel u. a. overlooked and misunderstood the character of a non-ideological structural model, which only formally describes the possible references in teaching processes. The Tübingen educational scientist Klaus Prange , on the other hand, stated in his "Structural Forms of Lessons" in 1983 that the didactic triangle, albeit in a simplified manner, can be used to excellently illustrate the basic structures of every lesson . The school pedagogue Manfred Bönsch describes the didactic triangle as the “ basis of elementary didactics ”, which “ starts with the elementary conditions of teaching and learning processes ”.

The extensive reception in the pedagogical and didactic literature as well as the widespread use in the practice of teacher training at the scientific universities and the study seminars of the second phase prove that the didactic triangle in its further developed complex form, interprets flexibly and unideologically, is still relevant today is and appears suitable to graphically illustrate the different forms of organized learning. In this way it can fulfill an important function in visualizing the interactive levels and relationships in teaching.

literature

  • Gerwig Mario: Where is education in the didactic triangle? , In: Quarterly Journal for Scientific Education, Volume 93, Issue 3/2017, Paderborn, Ferdinand Schönling-Verlag, pp. 377–389.
  • Andreas Gruschka : The didactic triangle - a theoretical reformulation , In: Ders .: Didaktik. The cross with mediation . Wetzlar: Pandora's Box 2002, pp. 87 ff
  • Heimann Paul, Otto Gunter, Schulz Wolfgang: Lessons - analysis and planning , Verlag Schroedel, Hannover 1965, 10th edition 1979, ISBN 3-507-36310-0 .
  • Schröder Hartwig: Didaktisches Dreieck , In: Ders .: Didactic dictionary , 3rd edition, Munich-Vienna, Oldenbourg Verlag 2001, p. 75 f, ISBN 3-486-25787-0
  • Warwitz Siegbert A., Rudolf Anita: The didactic thought picture . In: Dies .: Project teaching. Didactic principles and models . Hofmann publishing house. Schorndorf 1977. pp. 20-22, ISBN 3-7780-9161-1 .

Single receipts

  1. ^ Dietrich Benner: Johann Friedrich Herbart: Systematic Pedagogy . Deutscher Studienverlag, Weinheim 1997, p. 49
  2. ↑ Klafki Wolfgang: Studies on educational theory and didactics . Juventa, Weinheim 1964, p. 33 ff
  3. ^ Heimann Paul, Otto Gunter, Schulz Wolfgang: Lessons - Analysis and Planning , Verlag Schroedel, Hannover 1965, 10th edition 1979
  4. ^ Schulz Wolfgang: Lesson planning , Munich, Verlag Urban & Schwarzenberg, 1980
  5. ^ Warwitz Siegbert A., Rudolf Anita: The didactic thought picture . In: Dies .: Project teaching. Didactic principles and models . Hofmann publishing house. Schorndorf 1977. pp. 20-22
  6. ^ Bönsch Manfred: The didactic triangle as a basic model , In: Ders .: Allgemeine Didaktik , Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 149–150
  7. ↑ Warwitz, Siegbert, Rudolf Anita: The didactic thought picture . In: Dies .: Project teaching. Didactic principles and models . Hofmann publishing house. Schorndorf 1977. pp. 20-22
  8. ↑ Schröder Hartwig: Didaktisches Dreieck , In: Ders .: Didactic Dictionary , 3rd Edition, Munich-Vienna, Oldenbourg Verlag 2001, p. 75
  9. ↑ Gruschka, Andreas: Teaching understanding. A plea for good teaching . Stuttgart: Reclam 2011, pp. 72-86
  10. ↑ Prange Klaus: Structures of teaching. Didactics for Teachers , Bad Heilbrunn / Obb., Klinkhardt, 1983, pp. 35–42
  11. ^ Bönsch Manfred: The didactic triangle as a basic model , In: Ders .: Allgemeine Didaktik , Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 149–150, page 149
  12. ^ Bönsch Manfred: The didactic triangle as a basic model , In: Ders .: Allgemeine Didaktik , Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 149–150