Development logic didactics

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of development logic didactics (from “ didactics ”, the “art” and “science” of teaching and learning) was developed in the 1980s by the educational scientist Georg Feuser and presented for the first time in his work General integrative pedagogy and development logic didactics . The term describes the didactic foundation of general pedagogy . Institutionally , this goes hand in hand with the creation of a kindergarten and a school for all grades and levels of development.

description

The development logic didactics in the sense of a general pedagogy represents an alternative to the established standard pedagogy. The aim is that all people - regardless of the type and severity of their impairment - in cooperation with each other at their respective level of development within the scope of their perception, thinking and action competence and in To be able to play, learn and work on and with a common object with a view to their further development .

Georg Feuser justifies the development logic didactics on the one hand through a criticism of the current upbringing, education and teaching system, but also scientifically and theoretically, among other things with regard to activity -theoretical and system-theoretical foundations of human development, in connection with the subject-oriented materialistic disabled pedagogy and the concept of categorical formation according to Wolfgang Klafki . Within his criticism, it is pointed out that the segregation and selection of students in the standard and support system of the school as an institution strives for the greatest possible homogeneity of learning groups. As a result, educational content is shortened for certain learning groups. Structurally, this logic leads to exclusion or even isolation and repeatedly brings about disadvantages, e.g. B. by people with disabilities and thus also take care of so-called special educational needs.

Structural analysis

This article or section is not worded in a generally understandable manner. The shortcomings are described under Discussion: Didactics of Development Logic . If you remove this block, it is founded, please visit the article talk page, and fill up the project page section created automatically Wikipedia: Incomprehensible Article #Entwicklungslogische didactics to{{ Done | 1 = ~~~~}}.


The following should be improved: Formulated much too complicated - WP articles should be for non-experts!

The development logic didactics is characterized by the activity structure, action structure and subject structure. This three-dimensional didactics designs inclusive social spaces in which people of different biographies, performance levels and learning opportunities are enabled to learn differently in cooperation with a knowledge-relevant dimension of reality. However, these three structures also provide the contours of lesson planning. A combination of these three dimensions can lead to subjective action on the object, as a result of which new thinking, perception and action skills can be achieved.

Activity structure analysis

On the part of the subject, there is an activity structure analysis in this model. With a view to the planning and implementation of lessons, the so-called zone of current development, which defines the individual's perception, thought and action skills, is to be diagnosed on the basis of the biographical personality development. There is thus a reference to the findings and theories of Lev Vygotsky . Here learning and development is defined as an active activity starting from the current level up to the achievable level in the sense of a zone of the next development, which is understood as a space of possibility in progression and through learning structural and therapeutic help. Since learning takes place at the boundary between the zone of current and next development, this understanding of learning and development is not based solely on the current level of performance. It is based on what can become of a person and is therefore resource-oriented rather than deficit-oriented. Feuser uses the concept of dominant activity according to Alexei Nikolajewitsch Leontjew to diagnose or analyze the two zones with regard to internal activity . This shows a sequence depending on the development of the human being in the areas of perception activity, manipulative activity, objective activity, playing, organized learning and work activity. In addition, conclusions can be drawn about the levels of appropriation.

In the sense of the cultural history school , however, these activity diagnoses must not be understood as a rigid step model, but people must be recognized in their individuality and historicity.

Action structure analysis

As a second dimension, the didactics of development logic has an analysis of the structure of the action, which represents the means between object and subject. Action, understood as an internal activity that is alienated, is goal-oriented and related to an object. In the sense of Galperin's interiorization theory , the internalization of the tangible, cultural and social world into the spiritual, individual world takes place gradually. in the form of the orientation basis, the materialized action, the spoken language action, the external language, the internal language and thinking. At the core of the action structure analysis is the question of which action on the learning object (object) with a view to the zone of the current development and the zone of the next development leads to learning, to internal activity and thus also to development

Factual structure analysis

The third dimension is the structural analysis. In addition to the subject orientation, the object must also undergo a didactic approach in the sense of Feuser. The aim here is to analyze projects, contents, factual relationships, teaching concepts and areas of science and to adapt them methodologically and medially with a view to the individual concepts of the learners. It is about the question of how the learning object must be processed or offered so that action can take place on it.

Overall, it can be seen that the question of the educational content is the focus of the structural analysis. Orientation towards the established didactic models (including that of Wolfgang Klafki ) is suggested here. With regard to the subject structure, attention must not only be paid to the connectivity of the learning object in relation to the general generation of meaning and importance for people, but also individual, biographical factors of the individuals must be included, as the motivation in relation to individual goals, wishes and interests have a decisive influence on learning and development.

Basic moments of development logic didactics

The three-dimensional didactic structure cannot be thought of as being independent of the basic elements of development-logic didactics: Cooperation on the common object and inner differentiation through individualization . These basic elements or pillars of development logic didactics are based on a complex understanding of learning and development, shaped by the motto of Martin Buber (1932): "You become me". Accordingly, learning is primarily dependent on the degree of complexity of the other person and not on the possibilities and capabilities of one's own system. This is due to the knowledge that our brain is a neuro-social organ. In this context Feuser again refers to the findings of the culture-historical school: Man learns and develops only in exchange with the environment. The zone of the next development should not only be understood as a space for the possibility of cognitive learning goals, but must also be understood as an intersubjective and emotional-cognitive space in which learning and development between people are conditioned for life.

cooperation

Cooperation can be differentiated in the area of ​​education: not everyone has to act in every area, but everyone can work together with everyone in all areas. In this context, cooperation should create a lesson based on diversity, recognition, increasing competence and relinquishing power. The important thing here is interaction, dialogue in the form of communication or assistance. Communication always takes place when at least two people in an exchange with one another direct their activity to an object in the world and process, fathom or change it. Cooperation as such only makes sense in the context of recognition. in that the other person is understood as a fully-fledged person without taking into account a personal assessment of the person's value.

Inner differentiation through individualization

The second reason moment, the Differentiated. In distinction to the exterior differentiation and systematic prior categorization, often by age or ascribed level of performance, with the goal of creating the greatest possible uniformity in which students separated taught thinks Differentiated or Binnendifferenzierung all those forms of differentiation who understand the individual level of development and biographical factors and thus the fact of the heterogeneity of learning groups as the starting point for learning and development and place this at the center of didactic-pedagogical considerations.

Wolfgang Klafki distinguishes between two basic forms of differentiation - the "differentiation according to methods and media with the same learning content and learning objectives" and the "differentiation in the area of ​​learning objectives and learning content". In the case of development logic didactics, a distinction must be made between the two, which is why Feuser suggests the project as a concrete form of teaching implementation .

The prerequisite for this inner differentiation is individualization. It sees itself as an understanding of heterogeneity and as a level of development-related biographically oriented handling of differences. However, individualization should not be understood as isolation or isolation.

Common object

The common object as the last basic moment is opposed to this process and is not to be understood as something concrete material or tangible, but depicts the central dialectical process between meaning and meaning. It is the common point of reference in the field between them, where a cooperative collective can develop. This cooperation on the common object organizes a supra-individual, subjective process related to the product, which is developed by the individuals themselves and develops them at the same time. Here the mutual relationships between the individual, the collective and the four basic elements of developmental didactics can be recognized.
Feuser describes this interaction as a tree metaphor: In its core, as the center and inside, as the trunk, he situates the common object, framed by the outer thematic structure (the bark), fed from the scientific areas (as roots), the individual learning goals arise in cooperation every individual. The tree grows and with it the people individually and collectively.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Georg Feuser: General integrative pedagogy and development logic didactics. In: Disabled Education. Volume 28, No. 1, 1989. pp. 4-48.
  2. ^ Georg Feuser: Disabled children and young people. Between integration and segregation. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1995.
  3. ^ Georg Feuser: Development logic didactics. In: Astrid Kaiser u. a. (Ed.): Didactics and teaching. ( Enzyklop. Hdb. Der handicapped pedagogy. Volume 4: Disability, education, participation. ) Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2011, pp. 86-100.
  4. ^ Georg Feuser: Development logic didactics. In: Astrid Kaiser u. a. (Ed.): Didactics and teaching. (= Encyclopedia. Handicap. Handicapped Education: Disability, Education, Participation. Volume 4) Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2011, pp. 86–100.
  5. ↑ Georg Feuser: Inclusion - a challenge for education? In: Martin Dust u. a. (Ed.): Yearbook for Pedagogy 2015. Inclusion as Ideology. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2015, pp. 133–146.
  6. ↑ Steffens, Jan (2016): Psychological development paths between inclusion and exclusion. On the importance of resonance and isolation for human development. In: HEP. Journal of the professional association for curative education care in Germany. Volume 38, Issue 3, 33-40.
  7. ^ Lanwer, Willehad (2006): Methods in curative education and curative education care. Diagnosis. 1st edition. Troisdorf: Bildungsverlag EINS.
  8. ^ Feuser, Georg (1989): General integrative pedagogy and development logic didactics. In: Disabled Education. 28th year issue 1/1989. Pp. 4-48.
  9. ^ Georg Feuser, Heike Meyer: Integrative teaching in elementary school. Jarick Oberbiel Verlag, Solms-Oberbiel 1987.
  10. ^ Feuser, Georg (1995): Disabled children and young people. Between integration and segregation. Darmstadt: Scientific Book Society.
  11. ^ Vygotskij, Lew Semjonowitsch (1985): Selected writings. Vol. I. Cologne: Pahl-Rugenstein.
  12. ↑ Kramer, Martin (2014): Considerations on the Zone of Proximal Development in the Light of the Inclusion Debate - An Activity Theory Approach. In: Hollick, Danièle u. a. (Ed.): Heterogeneity in educational fields of action. Perspectives, findings, conceptual approaches. Kassel: kassel university press. Pp. 7-24.
  13. ^ Pitsch, Hans-Jürgen (2011): Activity and work, action and learning. In: Kaiser u. a. (Ed.): Didactics and teaching. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Pp. 67-76.
  14. ↑ Leontjev, Alexej (1982): Activity, Consciousness, Personality. Cologne: Pahl-Rugenstein.
  15. ↑ Franz, Eva-Kristina; Trumpa, Silke (2013): This is how it becomes possible! - Didactic key questions for inclusive teaching. In: Minges, Britta (ed.): Inclusion. An insight for teachers. Stuttgart: Raabe. 55-70.
  16. ^ Feuser, Georg (1995): Disabled children and young people. Between integration and segregation. Darmstadt: Scientific Book Society.
  17. ↑ Siebert, Birger; Rodina, Katarina (2013): Interiorization in the Zone of Next Development. In: Feuser, Georg; Kutscher, Joachim (ed.): Development and learning. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Pp. 230-234.
  18. ^ Feuser, Georg; Wehrmann, Ilse (ed.) (1985): Information on the common upbringing and education of disabled and non-disabled children. Integration in kindergarten, day care center and school in Bremen: Self-published Brem. Ev. Church.
  19. ↑ Klafki, Wolfgang (1996): New studies on educational theory and didactics. Up-to-date general education and critical-constructive didactics. Weinheim and Basel.
  20. ↑ Buber, Martin (1984): The dialogical principle. 5th edition. Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider.
  21. ↑ Dornes, Martin (2000): The emotional world of the child. Frankfurt a. M .: Fischer paperback.
  22. ↑ Feuser, Georg (2013): The “Cooperation on the Common Object” - a development-inducing learning. In: Feuser, Georg; Coachman, Joachim. (Ed.): Development and learning. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 282-293.
  23. ^ Feuser, Georg (2011): Development logic didactics. In: Kaiser, Astrid u. a. (Ed.): Didactics and teaching. Volume 4 of the encyclopedia. Handicapped Education: Disability, Education, Participation. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Pp. 86-100.
  24. ↑ Jank, Werner; Meyer, Hilbert (2002): Didactic models. Berlin: Cornelsen.
  25. ^ Feuser, Georg (1984/1987): Joint upbringing of disabled and non-disabled children in a day care center. Diakonisches Werk Bremen eV, regional association for ev. Day care centers (ed.): Selbstverlag Ev. Church. Bremen. URL: http://bidok.uibk.ac.at/library/feuser-kindestagesheim.html#idp401632 [11/04/2018; 11:45]
  26. ↑ Heimlich, Ullrich (2011): Project teaching. In: Kaiser, Astrid (ed.): Didactics and teaching. Kohlhammer Verlag
  27. ^ Feuser, Georg (1998): Common learning on the common object. Didactic foundation of general (integrative) pedagogy. In: Hildeschmidt, Anne; Schnell, Irmtraud (ed.): Integration pedagogy. On the way to a school for everyone. Weinheim. 19-36.
  28. ↑ Feuser, Georg (2013): The “Cooperation on the Common Object” - a development-inducing learning. In: Feuser, Georg; Coachman, Joachim. (Ed.): Development and learning. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 282-293.