Didaktik and curriculum are the two most prevalent educational traditions that provide the framework for education systems worldwide, and in the western world in particular. German Didaktik theory is central to curriculum, teaching and learning in Continental Europe generally and German speaking world specifically, as well as in Nordic Europe, but is mostly unknown in the English speaking world (Hopmann, 2007; Westbury et al., 2000). In its original conceptualization, “Didaktik is about how teaching can instigate learning, but learning that as a content-based student activity not as swallowing a sermon or a monologue or otherwise one-sided distribution of knowledge by a teacher” (Hopmann, 2007, p. 113).

Curriculum, on the other hand, is a widely used theory amongst many countries, primarily in the English-speaking world. While there are numerous definitions and constructs on curriculum, varying largely from one period of time to the other, what I refer to as curriculum here, is the prevailing curriculum model that has been in place in the U.S. since early 1900s, when the so-called social efficiency model of curriculum promoted by Franklin Bobbit and largely perpetuated by US industrial forces of the time, won the American education battle against humanistic-based models of curriculum, who were mainly led and supported by John Dewey (Kliebard, 2004).

One objective of the study is to empirically test theoretical claims made about Didaktik and curriculum in previous literature. For example, one of the core claims in prior Didaktik/curriculum exchanges is that there is more teacher autonomy and professionalism in Didaktik systems than in curriculum systems (Westbury, 2000). Further, the purpose is to understand and further extend cross-national and cross-cultural educational dialogues and exchanges between Didaktik and curriculum theorists, educational practitioners, researchers, and policy makers. There are two main research questions that this study addresses: 1) How do Didaktik and curriculum countries compare across teacher autonomy measures, using Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2009 data?, and 2) How does teacher autonomy measures affect student science performance in PISA 2009?

Theoretical Frameworks

This study draws heavily from Didatik and Curriculum theories. First, I use Didaktik/Bildung theory to place the discussion within Continental and Nordic European educational thinking. Klette (2007) describes this tradition “as a relation between teachers and learners (the who), subject matter (the what) and instructional methods (the how)” (p. 147). Hopmann (2007), states that Didaktik is matter of order, sequence, choice. Within the frame of order, sequence, and choice, Hopmann states that “Didaktik became the main tool for creating space for local teaching by providing interpretative tools for dealing with state guidelines on a local basis” (p. 113). German concept Bildung is a noun meaning something like “being educated, educatedness.” It also carries the connotations of the word bilden “to form, to shape”. Bildung, as understood by Humboldt (1792), means ‘grasping as much world as possible’ and as ‘contributing to human kind’ by development of one’s own unique self.

            Second, the study draws from curriculum tradition. While varying models have competed to take over the curriculum in the US and other English speaking countries, the social efficiency model that seeks to prepare qualified workforce for the job market has largely dominated the field (Kliebard, 2004; Labaree, 1997), with democratic equality and social mobility being influential from time to time. Curriculum has also been defined as a “complicated conversation” (Pinar, 2011; Pinar 2012) “Structured by guidelines, focused by objectives, and overdetermined by outcomes, the US school curriculum struggles to remain a conversation (Pinar, 2011, p.2). Further, the focus on objectives and outcomes and relying on standardized testing and accountability models has deprived teachers of academic freedom (Pinar, 2011).

Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained Teaching: the common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109–124. Humboldt, W.v. ([1792]2000). Theory of Building. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 57-62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Klette, K. (2007). Trends in Research on Teaching and Learning in Schools: didactics meets classroom studies. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 147–160. Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958. Routledge. Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81. Pinar, W. F. (2011). The character of curriculum studies: Bildung, currere, and the recurring question of the subject. Palgrave Macmillan. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? Routledge. Smith, R. C. (2001). Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. Language in Language Teacher Education. Retrieved from http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacher_autonomy.pdf Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a Reflective Practice: What Might Didaktik Teach Curriculum? In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 15-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: the German didaktik tradition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.