The Didactics of Higher Education and it’s problems
In didactics based on the theory of knowledge and achievements of modern psychological and pedagogical sciences developed and actively use a number of concepts of learning, acquiring knowledge, skills and abilities
Some authors, such as B. Oconee and IP. Pidlasyy define these concepts as an educational system that they understand how coherent set of statements that are based on the unity of purpose, content and didactic principles concerning ways of organizing the teacher and students. Didactic integrity systems are characterized by internal structures created by the unity of purpose, organizational principles, contents, forms and methods.
Teaching the concept of "concept" and "didactic system" are identical in content. In this connection the justified use the first and second term. IP. Pidlasyy distinguishes these educational systems which are fundamentally different from one another:
■ didactic system Arne Friedrich Herbart;
■ J. didactic system. Dewey.
In pedagogical literature didactic system which it substantiated and
F. Herbart called traditional, traditional education system in view primarily from the point of view of the teacher, where he - a subject of study, and students - objects of his pedagogical influences. It is believed that effects disappear training depends mainly on the methods and techniques of the teacher, and therefore are focusing on search and substantiation of effective teaching methods. Features of the cognitive activity of students is usually not taken into account.
In this explanatory, illustrative model training teacher tells students some information, and they learn it. That teacher "puts" knowledge into the heads of students who can only perceive, learn them and then play. Teaching, learning and playing - the main stages of traditional education. The main function of the teacher sees in a clear, accessible and understandable presentation, explaining the students educational material ready knowledge and skills.
The main provisions of the traditional system of substantiated Y.F. Herbart, which singled out four formal degree training: clarity, association, generalization, application.
Clarity - presenting new material in the form of a story or conversation. This must be preceded by preparation of students, updating of basic knowledge. Main - clear, clear, accessible submit material using visual aids, students form a concrete idea.
Association - to link the new material with previously learned knowledge, concept formation, conclusions, generalizations based on previously acquired concepts.
Synthesis - including new concepts to the previously existing system of knowledge methods conversations and discussions.
Application of acquired knowledge in practice through exercises and tasks as a result of the implementation of which the students formed skills.
Thus, in the learning process, organized under the formal powers of Arne Friedrich Herbart, students must maintain the specific ideas to concepts from the concepts in the formation skills. Didactic system Arne Friedrich Herbart criticized for:
■ verbalizm intellectualism and training;
■ underestimating the activity of students, one-sided orientation to the transfer of ready knowledge;
■ identification of cognitive development and learning;
■ formalism training, methodical routine and conservatism.
Theory J. F. Herbart was a significant step forward in the development of didactics. It contains many valuable recommendations on the organization explanatory, illustrative teaching in the classroom.
Didactic system that grounded the American philosopher, psychologist and educator John Dewey called pedotsentrychnoyu (from davnohrets. "Paydos" - child and Latin. "Centres" - the middle). In this view the education system in terms of student - as a process of learning. Title pedotsentrychnoyi she got that Dewey offered to build training based on the needs, interests and abilities pet. Pedotsentrychnyy direction didactics focuses not on the methods of the teacher, and the psychological aspects of the student in the learning process.
John. Dewey saw the lack of traditional education that students submit final, ready to results of the study, leaving aside the process of development. In contrast, the teacher introduced the idea that learning should be built as a research Search the trigger which are problematic situation.
Pedotsentrychnoho In terms of approach, the main purpose of education is to enhance learning of students, not the transfer of ready knowledge. Because thinking is activated in problem situations, when a person is faced with certain difficulties, John. Dewey proposed as a solution to build training students under the guidance of the teacher specific practical problems. These problems should be vital, understandable and close to students.
The basic idea - "learning by discovery", which should be implemented in the following stages:
■ difficulties in students a sense of the process;
■ analysis and formulation of the problem;
■ study hypotheses for its solution;
■ logical test hypotheses;
■ practical test hypotheses through observation and experimentation.
Obviously, singled Dzh.Dyui stages reflect the stage of learning of students, while formal degree Y.F. Herbart - stages of teaching the teacher.
Didactic approach that puts at the center of student learning, often criticized as romantic rather than realistic. His supporters often accused of excessive liberalism, indulging student interests. Although such observations, there are some grounds for them can not agree entirely.
Pedotsentrysty, from Rousseau to Dewey, always claimed that allow pupils to love what they do, is not the same as allowing them to do what they love.
Didactic approach John. Dewey also criticized by:
■ neekonomichnist "learning by discovery";
■ anti-intellectualism, underestimate the importance of theoretical knowledge in teaching;
"Exaggeration of the role of random students' interests
during the selection of educational content. Despite these shortcomings, the idea pedotsentrychnoyi didactics gained considerable popularity in pedagogical practice. It is in line with the approach developed popular nowadays oriented concepts personality, developmental, problem, heuristic learning.
Modern didactics, considering the problem of training, increasingly takes into account the concept of technology of educational process in high school.
Until recently in higher education, content knowledge (as opposed to professional, i.e. pedagogical and didactical knowledge) was the only fundament for the teacher’s confidence in her or his meeting with students. However, since the mid1980s, an enhanced focus on pedagogical and didactical professionalization has arisen in higher education. At first, this expressed itself in the form of a nascent proposition and the demand for formalized teacher qualification programs; however, over time, the ‘scholarship of teaching in higher education’ (SoTL) has gradually emerged as a new research discipline. Confronted with an emerging research discipline, one might ask oneself the following questions: What is the content of the discipline? Does it contain topics of particular interest? What knowledge does it provide to teachers emerging professionalism? Drawing on Hopmann (n.d.) we designate the pattern in didactic topics ‘the didactics of didactics’.
The aim of is to examine and discuss how SoTL places itself at the disposal of the on-going didactical professionalization of teachers in higher education. In order to achieve this aim, this article analyses the contributions in three journals for research and development in higher education and discusses the significance of the results for general didactics and education research.
An empirical reconstruction of the didactics of higher education didactics is relevant, since it reveals where SoTL can contribute to the professionalism of teaching, but it also reveals where support, new ideas and concepts for reflection must be located elsewhere. When teaching does not succeed as intended, or when the teacher, the student, or the parent does not agree with the teaching situation and results, it is of limited utility to repeat a previous procedure (Hopmann n.d: 142) In these cases, it is essential to assess a wide range of conceptualizations of and strategies for teaching (Hattie 2009: 36-37).
To classify the journal contributions, we require a model that systematically provides us with analytical categories. This framework is found in German didactics, more specifically in the “Lernteoretische Didaktik, (learning theoretical didactics), as formulated in Heimann (1976).
This framework seems appropriate, since Heimann’s aim was to develop a practical relevant, analytical and holistic framework capable of grasping the fundamental complexity of teaching and the interdependence of choices and decisions. The theory offers six categories at the first level of reflection (structure analyses): Intention, content, methods, media, students’ background and context. However, research indicates that assessment has a significant influence on students’ behaviour and the interpretation of teaching (e.g Biggs 1996). The second level of reflection offers an additional category, the factor analysis dealing with norms, values and approaches to teaching and learning.
According to Künzli (1998), the sides of the didactic triangle represent three key dimensions in teaching and supervision. Hence, the model contributes to a systematic classification of teaching in three archetypes/didactical principles:Teaching as representation of content, teaching as interplay and teaching as experience. The model is used for further classification of contributions in the category ‘methods’. The aim is to explore whether the didactics of didactics has a stronger interest in some methodological principles for teaching and learning than in others.
Method
The empirical data used in our analysis comprises three SoTL journals that share a common aim: to “publish scholarly articles that make a significant and original contribution to the theory, practice or research of higher education”.
The criteria for selection of journals were: 1. Journals from countries with a background in both the Didaktik and the Curriculum tradition (Gundem and Hopmann 1998), which allowed us to ascertain whether the Scandinavian tradition focuses more on content and formation (Bildung), 2. Journals dedicated to both research and development of practice. Three journals were selected:
Higher Education Research & Development (HERD); Uniped (Norway) and Danish Journal for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Categorization was based on eight categories, generated from the theoretical framework: Intention, Content, Methods, Assessment, Media, Students' background, Context and Factor analysis. The method-category was subjected to further analysis based on the three fundamental methodological principles as formulated by Künzli (1998). Contributions that fell outside the analytical categories were excluded. Categorization was based on the article abstracts. Full texts were read only in those cases where the aim and the focus of the article were only vaguely described in the abstract.
The condition for indication is that the contribution explores and discusses a specific category. An example on indication from the category ‘aim’ is Edwards and Coates (2011): “The development of a strong and vibrant knowledge economy is linked directly to successful learning outcomes among university graduates. Building evidence‐based insights on graduate outcomes plays a particularly important role in shaping planning and practice”.
A contribution may of course address more than one of the eight analytical categories. Accordingly, the number of indications exceeds the number of abstracts. To facilitate comparison between the journals, the number of contributions in each category is expressed in relative terms, i.e. the number of contributions in the categories divided by the total number of contributions from the journal.
Outcomes
The didactics of higher education didactics is characterized by a strong orientation towards methods, i.e. didactics as methodology. The methodological attention is directed towards methods focusing on teaching as social interaction and teaching as experience and active engagement with the subject matter. It is not our aim to question the relevance of this focus on methods and student activities, as educational research indicates that a variety of approaches are among the ten most significant tokens for good teaching (Hattie 2009; Helmke 2009; Meyer 1994).
However, it is relevant to question the implications of the fact that didactics as research on and theories for reflection on teaching has been reduced to methodology and, as such, can be characterised as " some kind of process-didactics largely stripped of any concern for content" (Terhart 2003: 42). One answer is that teachers must justify their choice of subject matter by experience, tradition in general didactics within other areas, or, in rare cases, in subject matter didactics.
A second conclusion is that the didactics of higher education didactics is characterized by a blind spot regarding research on subject matter, which means that teachers must justify their choice of subject matter by appealing outside educational research and higher education didactics.
A third conclusion is that the majority of the contributions in higher education didactics deal with structure analysis. Acknowledging that the conceptual point of departure (theories, concepts, assumptions, values, norms etc.) produces narratives and interpretations of the categories in the structure analysis, the low frequency indicates that reflections on the conceptual framework is not a genuine topic in the didactics of higher education didactics. An obvious risk is that the implicit values in, what Tight (2008) describes as, tribes and communities become self-evident and self-justifying.