School pedagogy
The Schulpädagogik is a branch of education (Education). As a scientific discipline , it deals with the theory and practice of developing and reflecting on scientific concepts for the design of school life and teaching . As a discipline with the special tasks outlined here, school pedagogy only exists in a few European countries. a. in Germany .
School pedagogy
Classification of the subject
The discipline school pedagogy is assigned to the educational sciences. It deals with all dimensions of school teaching and learning in a government organization. It describes the many areas of a school organization (see school development) and the theoretical basis of teaching and learning in a socially and state-organized education system . Finally, she designs ways of teaching and learning for teachers and students in the sense of a higher probability of school success.
The dilemma of school pedagogy is that it cannot carry innovative ideas and concepts into schools on its own, but must always go through the more conservative school bureaucracy and through education policy. This narrowing explains u. a. also that it has barely differentiated itself in recent decades. It wants to be a descriptive science by describing the school phenomena, differentiating them conceptually and creating theoretical foundations. But it also wants to be a constructive discipline in which models, methods and concepts are developed that promise a higher probability of school success for teachers and learners. To this end, it also undertakes empirical studies that are intended to provide data on this.
theory and practice
The previously postulated unity of theory and practice (Jank / Meyer 2002) or, in other words: “As a science of practice for practice” (Kron. 2004, p. 31) can no longer be maintained. It obscured the fundamental differences between theoretical statements and didactic action in a specific context in a state organization and in a social context (see Kösel 2007). The most serious difference is that in the theoretical area you can construct everything sensibly without having to face any consequences. In didactic action, only one version applies in the here and now, without being able to reverse the decision. The consequences of this action are imputable immediately or later.
History of school education
The discipline of school pedagogy was established as part of the educational reform of the 1960s. It broke away from the previous unit of general didactics and education and tried to establish itself as a separate discipline. To this day, the relationship between general didactics and school pedagogy has been blurred.
Approaches to school education research can be traced back to Johann Michael Herbart (1703–1768; see traditional school education ) and Wilhelm Rein (1847–1929). Peter Petersen (1884–1952) then tried to find knowledge about the lessons on the basis of “pedagogical facts” and through observation and experiments in real teaching situations. School pedagogical research then developed only marginally due to the state framework. The reasons are u. a. to see in the fact that the representatives of this discipline could not and cannot do independent research in schools. Due to the state narrowing and the unity of the representation of reality of the cultural bureaucracy, many approaches of an independent school pedagogical research were undermined.
Pedagogical psychology and sociology - often without a school context - have taken over many of their very own areas . Lately it has largely turned to the behaviorist position (input-output version), which is committed to causal law. The more recent approaches (resonance research, objective hermeneutic research, conversation analysis) reject such a one-sided linear explanation of causes, because everything is connected with everything and therefore many relevant areas are omitted (dependence of the school on educational policy guidelines, blurring of social determinants in teaching and learning process, overemphasis on output measurement instead of individual support, denial of the learner's subjective knowledge maps, etc.). Educational research is increasingly also occupying school pedagogical perspectives and tasks.
Sub-disciplines
General didactics
General didactics occupies a central position in school pedagogy: it describes u. a. the processes and structures of teaching aimed at imparting knowledge and behavior. In the course of development it has solidified into a predominantly humanistic-idealistic position (see FW Kron 2004). Action-based or empirical foundations are seldom found. Urgent real-world problems, such as B. educational standards, performance measurement and evaluation, teacher behavior, pupil behavior, the development of learning cultures, awareness-raising among teachers and learners in a postmodern situation, social and political myths about teaching and learning, are in vain in most didactic textbooks. Rather, pages old, z. Sometimes outdated didactic models, approaches and learning theories, often presented without reference to today's everyday school-pedagogical situation and context (see Kron, Gudjons, Peterßen, Jank / Meyer).
More recent approaches (Flechsig, 1991, Heitkämper 2000, Reich 2000, Kösel 2002, 2007, Scheunpflug 2001) find it difficult to establish themselves in teacher training and teacher training. For example, the old models of didactics are predominantly adopted by the young generation of teachers, who in many cases cannot relate to today's school reality. In the second phase of teacher training there is a practical shock, because the reality there looks very different from what is suggested in the didactic theory. Reluctantly, attempts are made to integrate new perspectives into a meaningful didactic action plan (Bovet 2004, Kösel 2007).
School theory
The theory of the school aims to deal with the many aspects of the school as an organizing, descriptive and constructive concept. The sociologist Helmut Fend , who for the first time described fundamental functions and mechanisms of the school (1980) such as enculturation , allocation, integration and qualification, has made great contributions . He recently (2007) expanded it to include the aspects of topography of the educational system, multi-level construction and the interlinking of social and educational policy premises. The theory of the school is the attempt to describe the various references of the school subsystem in our society, to find out the function and dynamics of the school for society, for the pupil, for the parents and for the later recipients of the learners. It always starts from the school system and from this point of view looks at its organization and the mechanisms that work within it.
School organization / school development
In school pedagogical theory and in the consideration of everyday school life, the aspect of organization has mostly only been discussed in relation to the meaning and performance of the school types (elementary school, secondary school, secondary school, grammar school, special schools). The mechanisms of an organization and their effects on its members and vice versa have only recently been discovered and described (Kösel 2007b). Essentially, the aim is to secure the didactic options by an organization and not to promote the organization's dominance over didactic concepts (Luhmann).
The operational and didactic references are important ( personnel development , role allocation and role power, standardizability, routinability, habitualization, absorption of insecurity, availability of members, management style , product prestige, legal provisions, school autonomy, pressure, recognition, grades, trust, distrust, etc.). In the field of school development , many aspects of school organization and their interlinking for the development of the school have so far been worked on (Rolff 1993, 2007, M. Schratz 2008, Maag Merki 2008). It has recently achieved a systematic classification for the first time (Journal für Schulentwicklung 2/2008).
School learning cultures
School learning cultures encompass all dimensions of school life. It is a living environment that teachers and students experience as a central point in their lives. They experience this world in very different ways (Kösel. 2007 b). Decisive for a modern learning culture are the agreed key differences, principles and postulates, how a didactic community wants to design its school and the state requirements are to be incorporated into it. A learning culture forms a core and an edge. A number of aspects can be seen in the core education: decision-making behavior, communication style, production of meaning, common preferences, product creation, product presentation, the initiation of the learners into a learning culture and into individual subjects, product prestige of a school or type of school in a society, the myths in a learning culture Management style of superiors, type of employee orientation, indicators of innovation orientation, performance measurement and performance appraisal, etc.
Edge formation (internal and external relations) is about delimitations from other subsystems of society and z. T. their overwhelming expectations of the school. This also includes the perception, processing and delimitation of expectations of other subsystems, such as B. Politics, economics and parenting, furthermore the exchange and communication with the other subsystems of society. The decisive factor is the climate that prevails in a learning culture. If there is trust, coherence in mutual behavior, if the principles of self-organization and mutual respect are given, if rules and norms are reflexively worked out and adhered to, this learning culture also offers protection for the learners. A central question is whether the school management is congruent.
There are a number of types of learning cultures (Kösel 2008) such as: B. learning cultures with identified options, functional-instrumental learning cultures, facade learning cultures, learning cultures with defined orders and structures, learning cultures according to operational aspects, etc.
Didactic epistemology
While curriculum theory was a partial aspect of school pedagogy in the past few decades, a new perspective on knowledge, knowledge construction, the deep structure of knowledge and its transfer by professional people has recently developed: Today's curriculum practice is increasingly being covered and transformed by the concept of educational standards . The aim is to achieve standardization and at the same time leveling in the German school system through educational standards (the standard version in society, see also knowledge society, see Klime, Prange, Prenzel).
But there is also a different view of how knowledge and its communication can be seen in the emerging knowledge society in the 21st century (Kösel 2007). The concept of knowledge is no longer to be met with the conventional ontological claim to truth, but with solid didactic relativism.
You used to stand on safe ground. According to Luhmann, the distinction between good and bad was good because it could identify the bad as bad. In this way you could ban misassignments and bring them close to being wrong. Everything is as it is. The designated reality is unambiguous and one-valued. It is therefore not necessary to describe processes, dynamics and the present with its thousand appearances and paradoxes. From this perspective, the school world is also a division and an inclusion logic, which the learners must divide and allocate early on through the tripartite school system in a place intended for each person as a form of differentiation. There must also be differences in this unity that are to be regarded as natural (with the help of the term talent). One should actually be of the same opinion about the same thing. If not, that's a mistake, or morally, it's bad. As before, there is still a fight for the predominance of ontological classification and generalization in schools. The best example in the present can be seen in the belief in the unity of knowledge through educational standards.
In contrast to this, there are demands to insert knowledge not only in its unitary and surface structure, but also the instruments of the deep structure of knowledge as part of a curriculum. This is the only way to create an effective global qualification tool for the young generation (Kösel 2007c.). In view of the sucking away of knowledge, especially by the Eastern and Asian peoples, and the constant disintegration of knowledge, a new qualitative level of knowledge must be achieved in the school system (see knowledge architecture). The criticism is directed primarily at the inadequate frame of reference of the specifications of what the future generation should know, what has been excluded and what other alternatives of knowledge construction would have been possible. Due to the top-down position of the state in the school system vis-à-vis the school, the state governments can still allow themselves to appoint an anonymous group of curriculum members who are not subject to control according to scientific, independent and public criteria. A didactic epistemology has the task of providing a framework for how the next generation could be introduced into the cultural stock of a society, qualified and protected by knowledge in the face of globalization. To this end, didactic epistemology provides tools for building up, building and imparting knowledge.
Emotion didactics
This sub-area of school pedagogy is about research into the learning of emotions and the design and training of teachers in handling emotions in school and other areas in the worlds of children and young people. In the public, didactic concepts with emotional components are often viewed with skepticism as cuddle education , cuddle education , etc. and devalued, whereby the connection between emotion, cognition and learning is overlooked. This sub-discipline includes other processing areas such as B. the position of emotion in the school process, the social prestige value of emotion for learning behavior, the results from brain research between cognition and emotion, concepts and methods of emotion didactics (Roth 2003, Heitkämper 2000).
Didactic proxemics
This sub-discipline has the meaning of space and spatial movement in the proximity and distance of interpersonal relationships, of territorial behavior, of poisoning of spaces through insults, dishonors and public shaming and their consequences, of the type and the amount of the allocation of learning spaces by the state, to examine and describe the egocentricity of the semiotic space for each learner and finally the spatial presentations of knowledge (topological knowledge maps) and to make appropriate suggestions for the didactic action of the teachers (E. Kösel 2007b).
Didactic chronicle
This sub-discipline of general didactics and school pedagogy in particular has to examine the importance of time for teaching and learning processes in a school learning culture. The importance of the time dimension in classroom communication, in school organization, in the social, cultural and didactic aspects of teaching and learning is often underestimated or not seen at all for the development of students and in teacher behavior.
Many areas would have to be examined: Temporalization as a characteristic of a postmodern school culture, time as a determinant of the teaching and learning process, time drivers in the learning process, dissonances between teaching and learning behavior over time (especially in the subject didactics e.g. mathematics), neurotization of Teachers and students due to time pressure and time constraints.
Soma didactics
The incorporation of knowledge and behavior in the body and the integrated awareness of teaching and learning processes in an existing learning culture is the focus of this sub-discipline. Without the body, teaching and learning is unthinkable. Instead of admiring the body in its incredible development, diversity and differentiation and making it resonant for teaching and learning processes, there is an increasing reduction and one-sidedness under the overlaying education exchange market (grades are traded like shares) and the educational standards. The belief in feasibility in this contradicts the latest research, which says that humans are self-contained and can only learn according to their own internal laws (theory of autopoiesis, Maturana / Varela 1987).
Humans are living systems, they do not work in the sense of input-output, but external processes are received as impulses and processed individually. The same impulses can cause very different reactions. Peter Heitkämper (2000) compiled the didactic dimensions of the body for the first time: the most important of these are: the dependence of learning on the hormonal balance , the movement and importance of the sensory training, the training of the senses (sight, smell, taste), maintenance the homeostasis (balance) of the body against physical overload and an excessive stress balance . Pattern formation, overexertion in the learning process, the signals of body language, state framework conditions and demands on the somatic requirements of the learner in the respective development stages, etc.
There are already many methods and concepts of soma didactics, unfortunately they are still often ignored or devalued as cuddle education. Methods are u. a. Motopedics , eutonics , Feldenkrais method , bioenergetics , breathing didactics, aggression didactics, muscular relaxation according to Jacobsen, psychodramatic elements, etc.
Media didactics
Media didactics has developed into an extensive differentiation in the last few decades. There are mainly the following aspects:
- Media didactic approach,
- Media educational context,
- Socialization-related media skills
- School development skills among teachers
- Lesson-related skills
- System-related knowledge - new technologies and their contexts
Media didactics is gradually breaking away from its previous affiliation with educational science and didactics. This is u. a. a consequence of the low theoretical and empirical differentiation in educational science and didactics (Baacke 1999, Hüther 1997). Media research, with its enormous striving for expansion, has also become an independent sub-discipline, especially in the e-learning movement. This area took its starting point from impact research with the question of which medium and which media context affects whom and how? This linear approach has been preserved to this day. Then there is resonance research, which assumes that the same information can trigger very different resonances and reactions. One can assume that the media act as a carrier of symbolic and real information in the teaching and learning process. All media carry information on the surface structure. In the deep structure, however, they are also carriers of cultural and social patterns and myths, each of which is subjectively incorporated differently (Kösel 2007).
In the school sector, the textbooks and learning books from the schoolbook publishers are the secret carriers of an epistemological orientation for teachers and students. It is largely tied and connected to the school bureaucracy's approval authority; they necessarily have an enormous, conservative character in the knowledge transfer for the younger generation. There is hardly any research into the consequences and effects of this symbiosis of publishing houses and school bureaucracy in the face of a globalized knowledge society for the young generation.
A broad area is the connection between media consumption and learning behavior. There is still little empirical material on the influence of media consumption (duration, intensity, content, violence) on the various systems of consciousness of learners (according to Kösel 2002, Chreoden) and what resonance patterns in the various subject areas and on the general learning behavior of students arise (see Spitzer 2005). In media didactics, broad media competence is required (Kron / Sofos 2003, Oevermann 1979, Aufenanger 1999, Blömke 2000), but without an empirical or theoretical basis on how media patterns arise in learners.
classes
Classes in state-organized schools represent a specific form of learning and teaching. All areas of state organization, the special position of the teacher (oath of office, civil servants, hierarchy, public servants, etc.), expectations from society (as good grades as possible for career), from educational research (e.g. educational standards), from parents (struggle for advancement and career), the economy (training maturity and best qualification) and finally the competence expectations from pedagogy. How is a teacher supposed to meet all of these expectations in the face of postmodern youth who bring all facets of their parents' lifestyles and from the media?
The lessons can be understood as a drift zone (Kösel 2002) in which the individual members learn or not learn according to their previous structure. It always applies that classroom communication always represents a mutual interpretation of knowledge constructions and behavior. There is no 1: 1 takeover of the construction or prescription of the teacher to the learner, but different mutual resonances arise due to the respective individual constitution (theory of living systems). Today these range from a highly motivated adaptation to the rejection of the didactic offer by individual learners.
Lessons are also essentially determined by the mechanisms of everyday action (routine action, habit formation, power relations, teacher types, labeling processes, experiential action, belief systems, power structures, etc.). Finally, the teacher decides which educational shares (grades) to distribute to the individual pupil and under what conditions (consciously or covertly) he supports or hinders learners in the classroom. As part of the state selection of students (mostly still after the age of 10 in the three-tier school system) and the way in which performance is assessed, the students are now classified more according to their symbolic value (grade point average) than according to their individual skills and competencies.
An additional determinant for teaching is the increasing temporalization (time constraints and time pressure) of teaching. In many cases it contradicts a granting and hopeful development time for many students (especially at the beginning of school, students in difficult family situations and during puberty).
Teacher behavior
An important part of school pedagogy is the preparation and qualification of the teaching profession. This includes clarification and biographical self-reflection of one's own person, the processing of theoretical considerations for one's own future teacher action and finally the testing of one's own didactic actions in the many highly complex teaching situations and fields.
In biographical self-reflection, the teacher should be clear about his own structure - especially the early programming in the primary habitus - his own conceptions of the world and his constructions about students (projections, transfers) and be able to make corrections if necessary (see psychological and epistemological dominances for teachers (Kösel 2007b)).
In preparation as an expert in knowledge, he should focus on the respective subject areas such as B. Prepare mathematics and understand the interlinking of subject knowledge and processing options in very different postmodern learners (representation types) and know the corresponding methods.
From a social point of view, he must get to know the most important areas of social interaction and train appropriate methods (communication styles, methods of conducting discussions, methods of competence analysis among students, methods of initiation into a learning culture or subject, aggression training, promoting the class atmosphere, etc.). It also depends on how he applies his power of definition and selection to the individual students. In class, he must be able to grasp the many current and latent mechanisms of a school class and master the corresponding methods of process control and the probability of success.
After all, the teacher is part of a didactic community that develops its own preferences and rules. Often, young members are quickly fitted into the existing normativity of the didactic community. Here, certain types of teachers play an important role as opinion leaders in the previous everyday patterns of the teachers and in the assignment of labels / roles.
In the meantime, many sub-competencies for didactic action have been collected on a theoretical level (see Didactic Competencies). However, they must not be seen as a requirement for completeness on the part of the observers (school inspection, advice, examination offices, etc.). It is impossible for a teacher to be able to acquire all theoretically listed competencies: The often tacit demand for an oscillation within seconds between action and reflection by examiners, mentors, school councils, etc. in and afterwards is not sustainable. This results in huge catalogs of competencies that a teacher should have at least in part:
Student behavior
In the postmodern situation (Welsch), student behavior has differentiated itself to such an extent that today one can speak of an almost limitless diversity of behavior, expectations and appearances in school as well. In the current discussion about student behavior, it is mainly the dramatic situations (rampage, stabbing, violence) that are dealt with in public. Usually, however, the underlying causes are hardly noticed by the public. Through a certain initiation, young people are introduced to a school system ( learning culture ). Already now it depends on how the novice experiences this initiation as hope, joy, fear or threat. Then there are permanent and solidifying scripts about success, failure, joy in learning, frustration in learning and learning progress over the school path. A successful control of the teacher's learning behavior through the conditions of the brain, the most diverse family and social patterns has become a gigantic achievement. There are many new perspectives for the teacher to work on, such as B. the many different systems of consciousness (chreodes) of learners have to be brought into a meaningful learning arrangement. It is not for nothing that teachers are expected to have more and more competencies (see concept of competence). The resulting and relatively stable structures of consciousness and action of the learners (Chreoden, Kösel 2002) essentially determine, together with the teacher behavior, the behavioral structures in the school: How do learners learn based on their previously acquired patterns and logics? What logic do learners have to develop in order to cope with the various subjective structures of the teachers in school? The simple mechanism “gifted” or “not gifted”, “stupid” or “intelligent” is no longer compatible and sustainable on a postmodern professional level in view of the plural appearances of child structures and teacher structures in the mediation process. Due to the increasing pressure in the education exchange market, those learners find themselves in an almost hopeless struggle who lack the appropriate logics, representation profiles and personality traits that are expected there (Uhlig, J., Solga, H. Schupp, J. (2009): Uneven education opportunities. What role do underachievement and personality structure play. WZB. Berlin). One can observe very different behavior among the learners (Kösel, 2003): 1. Student behavior in everyday and experience situations: 2. Student behavior in the assessment situation 3, student behavior under scientific dimensions a. Student behavior after emergence through social patterns b. Student behavior according to biographical development c. Student behavior as a structure of consciousness and behavior in the learning process d. Student behavior as personality dominance e. Determination of student behavior through internal representation patterns.
Definitions
School pedagogy requires a definition of the terms school , teaching and education . Hilbert Meyer (1997) suggests the following working definitions:
- "Schools are institutions for the common and systematic education and instruction of the next generation." (1997, 22)
- "Lessons are the planned pedagogical interaction between learners and teachers for the purpose of clarification and imparting practical skills." (1997, 27)
- "Upbringing is the intentional influence of educators on the growing generation for the purpose of personality development." (1997, 27)
In today's school pedagogy, there is increasing use of concepts that enable open forms of school and teaching. These are largely based on reform pedagogy and subjective didactics . Individual learning is emphasized more strongly; new methods and perspectives for action are intended to open up opportunities for teachers and students to experience school as a place of learning, education and society. This is in contrast to traditional forms of school (e.g. with frontal teaching).
See also
literature
- Hans Jürgen Apel, Hans Ulrich Grunder (ed.): Texts on school pedagogy . Weinheim 1995.
- Hans Jürgen Apel, Werner Sacher (ed.): Study book school pedagogy . 2nd Edition. Klinkhardt Verlag, Bad Heilbrunn / Obb. 2005.
- Olaf-Axel Burow: Developing all-day schools. From the educational institution to the creative field . Wochenschau-Verlag, October 2005, ISBN 3-89974-231-1
- Helmut Fend: New Theory of School. Introduction to understanding educational systems. VS, Wiesbaden 2006.
- Helmut Fend: History of the education system. The special way in the European cultural area . VS, Wiesbaden 2006.
- Helmut Fend: Shaping schools: system control, school development and teaching quality. VS, Wiesbaden 2008.
- Andreas Flitner: Reform of education. Impulses from the 20th century . Beltz Verlag, 2001, ISBN 3-407-22096-0 .
- Hermann Giesecke : What is the school for? The new role of parents and teachers. 2nd Edition. Klett-Cotta Verlag, Stuttgart 1997.
- Herbert Gudjons : Basic pedagogical knowledge. Overview - Compendium - Study book. , 9., act. Edition. Klinkhardt, Bad Heilbrunn / Obb. 2006.
- Freerk Huisken : About the ungovernability of the school people - Rütli schools, Erfurt etc. Hamburg 2006, ISBN 3-89965-210-X .
- Werner Jank, Hilbert Meyer: Didactic models. 3. Edition. Cornelsen Scriptor, Berlin 1994.
- Heinz Klippert: Educational school development . 2nd Edition. Beltz Verlag, 2000, ISBN 3-407-62405-0 .
-
Edmund Kösel : The modeling of learning worlds, Volume I: The theory of subjective didactics. 4th ext. Edition. SD-Verlag Bahlingen 2002, ISBN 3-8311-3224-0 .
Volume II: The Construction of Knowledge. A didactic epistemology. SD-Verlag Bahlingen 2007, ISBN 978-3-00-020795-2 .
Volume III: The Development of Postmodern Learning Cultures. A plea for rebuilding the school. 2nd Edition. SD-Verlag Bahlingen 2008, ISBN 978-3-00-020794-5 . - Horst Küppers / Hermann Schulz / Peter Thiesen: Errweg learning field conception in the teacher training, "small & large" vol. 12/2014, Verlag Oldenbourg, Munich 2014
- Hilbert Meyer : School Pedagogy. Vol. 1 - for beginners. 1st edition. Cornelsen Scriptor, Berlin 1997.
- Willy Potthoff : Introduction to Reform Education. From classic to current reform pedagogy. 3rd, act. u. exp. Edition. Reformedagogischer Verl. Jörg Potthoff, Freiburg 2000.
- Georg Simmel : School Pedagogy. Lectures; held at the University of Strasbourg. Revised and expanded edition. Dr. Klaus Fischer Verlag, Schutterwald / Baden 2007, ISBN 978-3-928640-85-5 .
- Peter Thiesen: Teaching social pedagogy. Small compendium of teaching at training centers for social education / social work. Beltz, Weinheim and Basel 1999, ISBN 3-407-55743-4