Socially inclusive teaching

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a social integrative teaching is called in the classroom teaching since exchange / barter a form of teaching and learning, making the learning processes in which all parties involved in the learning experience, despite unequal playing field and competencies of partnership agreement with each other. Socially integrative teaching occupies a middle position between the working methods of teacher-centered and student-centered teaching .

Concept emergence

The debate initiated by Kurt Lewin, Ralph White and Ronald Lippitt about the appropriate leadership style in education had led in the 1970s to schools of thought that were almost ideologically conflicting. The often incompatible educational concepts promoted numerous corresponding typologies of leadership styles. The research group took up the distinctive designations under discussion, authoritarian and anti- authoritarian leadership style , examined their pedagogical effects in an experimental psychological way, and finally countered the extreme forms with a third, the so-called democratic leadership style , as a compromise formula. This procedure followed the dialectical principle of thesis , antithesis , and synthesis , which was tried and tested in extreme positions .

In the course of further arguments, however, the ideologically pre-defined terms as well as the politically tinted label “democratic” turned out to be unsustainable for a consensus and not very conducive to the tasks in the education sector : Educational small groups are not a “ people ” and their interactive action does not have much to do with “ people's rule” (democracy) .

In 1979 , the psychologist couple Tausch / Tausch , who work in family therapy, introduced the three forms and terms teacher-centered teaching , student-centered teaching and “socially integrative teaching” into the discussion. These have largely prevailed in didactic theory and practice to this day, especially since swap / swap made further differentiations after the criticism of Lewin: Within the individual “educational style” they again differentiated between a purely technocratic “steering dimension” (rational control, control of the learning process ) and an “emotional dimension” (personal affection, appreciation) in teacher behavior, which in turn can be specified as “high”, “medium” and “low”. This gave the teacher personality a large share in the impact of the leadership style.

Justifications

The empirical studies as well as the objectifying debates showed that none of the upbringing styles represented by the many parties can be judged as completely wrong or right, as negative or positive. The educationalists recognized rather that each leadership style has its place in certain teaching situations and the different approaches are likely to complement each other in the educational events. So has z. For example, the use of teacher-centered, even strictly authoritarian leadership style is an indispensable function in situations involving dangerous constellations that must be kept under control and are non-negotiable like behavior in the swimming pool (running on wet ground, Water jumps from the side edge etc.) or the handling of protective measures in technology or physics lessons . Even the referee in sport has to make non-debatable, autonomously responsible decisions. The student-centered and even the anti-authoritarian style of upbringing makes sense where personal responsibility and the acceptance of its consequences are to be learned. In addition, swap / swap wanted to create an opportunity for consensus on the factual and conceptual.

The socially integrative style of upbringing differs from the democratic teaching principle, apart from depoliticization, through the explicit emphasis on partnership behavior despite personal differences. Teachers and students, girls and boys, weak and strong, disabled and non-disabled are not all treated equally, but are included in the learning group according to their individual characteristics and are allowed and should contribute accordingly. Exchange / exchange is not about dealing with one another in the larger state area (democracy), but about getting along in the small area of ​​the immediate educational environment that is accessible to children.

Didactic objective

The term triad established by Tausch / Tausch follows the generally recognized thought model of the didactic triangle , according to which the three poles "teacher", "pupil", "learning material" are to be brought into harmony in the learning process. With different objectives, each of the three components can become an objectively justified starting point in everyday education.

Socially integrative teaching aims to realize diversity of ideas, tolerance and multidimensional learning in teaching and to teach thinking and acting in it. Teachers and students form a teaching and learning community on an equal footing. They enter into an equal partnership with regard to the choice of material, the organization of the lessons and the evaluation of the learning results. Naturally , they are not of equal rank in terms of technical competence , methodological competence and pedagogical experience . The implementation of the curricula also remains the responsibility of the teacher. He is - albeit on a different level - like his students on the one hand a teacher, but on the other hand also a learner. However, in accordance with his training lead, his official authority and his teaching assignment , he retains overall responsibility for the teaching process and its results. These cannot be delegated to the students. The task is to gradually involve the students in shaping their own learning processes and to teach them to learn independently.

Social forms

The objective results in social forms that already visually and organizationally, for example in the grouping, have to express the equality of those involved in the learning process. Everyone is in principle turned towards everyone and must be able to cooperate with them. The teacher fits himself into the learning group without exaggeration. B. can form in a circle. It would be a didactic mistake to practice social integrative teaching as frontal teaching, for example . But even self-organized, self-reliant learning in pure student groups, student-centered teaching, has no place in this type of teaching.

Communication structures

Since there is no power gap between teachers and students, the designed communication on a partnership level that both initiatives of the teacher allows as those of the students, which is also critical confrontation does not exclude. Anyone can report criticism if he can objectively justify it, and he must withdraw it if it turns out to be incorrect. All communication has to be carried out non-violently, which concerns not only physical but also verbal or psychological aggression (ridicule, scorn, cynicism). The lines of communication involve teachers and students equally, which requires a learning process on both sides.

Areas of application

Socially integrative teaching is nowadays the method favored as particularly valuable in teacher training , but also didactically very demanding method, which is reserved primarily for teachers trained for this purpose. However, it can be a role model and target image of a functioning community in schools as well as in leisure activities and in social interaction. In this form of teaching, not only democracy, but also tolerance and friendly interaction with one another are taught and lived within the pedagogical framework. The interdisciplinary project lesson is a lesson, the success of which is based on the shared responsibility of all those involved to achieve the project goals and which clearly needs and represents this style of education.

Limits

Socially integrative teaching has to give way to other teaching forms where objectives are sought that can be achieved with other methods and organizational forms, e.g. B. with the teacher-centered or the student-centered teaching method, can be achieved more effectively and economically. Deciding on this appropriately requires specialist training that enables a supply of didactic alternatives that are suitable for learning objectives and enables the children to correctly assess the developmental abilities of the children.

literature

  • Th. Göth, K. Lohmann, B. Gauser, L. Haag: Use of teaching methods . In: Empirische Pädagogik 19 (2005) pp. 342–360
  • Jochen Grell: Techniques of Teacher Behavior . Beltz publishing house. Weinheim. 2nd edition 2001.
  • Herbert Gudjons: Frontal teaching rediscovered - integration in open forms of teaching , Beltz Verlag, Weinheim 2003, ISBN 3-781-51124-3 .
  • Wolfgang Klafki: The educational problem of the elementary and the theory of categorical education . 4th edition. Beltz Verlag, Weinheim 1964.
  • Wolfgang Klafki: New studies on educational theory and didactics: contemporary general education and critical-constructive didactics . 2nd expanded edition. Beltz Publishing House. Weinheim and Basel 1991.
  • Kurt Lewin, Ralph White, Ronald Lippitt: Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimental created social climates. In: Journal of social psychology 10 (1939) pp. 271-299
  • Kurt Lewin: Writings on applied psychology , ed. VHE gap. Krammer publishing house. Vienna 2009. ISBN 978-3-901811-46-3
  • Reinhard Tausch, Anne-Marie Tausch: Educational Psychology. Psychological processes in education and teaching . Publishing house Hogrefe. Göttingen 1998 11th edition
  • Siegbert Warwitz, Anita Rudolf: The principle of multi-dimensional teaching and learning . In: Dies .: Project teaching. Didactic principles and models . Hofmann publishing house. Schorndorf 1977. pp. 15-22. ISBN 3-7780-9161-1 .
  • Siegbert A. Warwitz: The skills of the child . In: Ders .: Traffic education from the child. Perceive-play-think-act . Publisher Schneider. Baltmannsweiler. 6th edition 2009. pp. 37-49. ISBN 978-3-8340-0563-2

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Reinhard Tausch, Anne-Marie Tausch: Educational Psychology. Psychological processes in education and teaching . Göttingen 1979.
  2. ^ Kurt Lewin, Ralph White, Ronald Lippitt: Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimental created social climates. In: Journal of social psychology 10 (1939) pp. 271-299.
  3. ↑ Kurt Lewin: Writings on applied psychology , ed. v. HE gap. Vienna 2009
  4. ^ Wolfgang Klafki: The pedagogical problem of the elementary and the theory of categorical education . 4th edition. Weinheim 1964.
  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. ^ Heimann Paul, Otto Gunter, Schulz Wolfgang: Lessons - Analysis and Planning , Verlag Schroedel, Hannover 1965, 10th edition 1979
  7. ^ Bönsch Manfred: The didactic triangle as a basic model , In: Ders .: Allgemeine Didaktik , Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 149–150
  8. ^ Siegbert A. Warwitz: Multidimensional learning. The child's abilities . In: Ders .: Traffic education from the child. Perceive-play-think-act . Baltmannsweiler. 6th edition 2009. pp. 37-49
  9. ↑ Jochen Grell: Techniques of Teacher Behavior . Beltz publishing house. Weinheim. 2nd edition 2001.
  10. ^ Siegbert Warwitz, Anita Rudolf: Features of a project . In: Dies .: Project teaching. Didactic principles and models . Hofmann publishing house. Schorndorf 1977. pp. 18-27
  11. ↑ Th. Göth, K. Lohmann, B. Gauser, L. Haag: Use of teaching methods . In: Empirische Pädagogik 19 (2005) pp. 342–360
  12. ↑ Herbert Gudjons: Frontal teaching rediscovered - integration in open forms of teaching . 2003
  13. ^ Siegbert A. Warwitz: The skills of the child . In: Ders .: Traffic education from the child. Perceive-play-think-act . Baltmannsweiler. 6th edition 2009. pp. 37-49