This presentation is to be understood as a theoretically driven argument about the legitimacy of Didaktik, as it contributes to a critical discussion about the problem of Didaktik as a general theory of learning, hence in this presentation we illuminate some of the shortcomings of such an approach. Herwig Blankertz (1987) states that unsolved problems do not disappear just because we ignore them. In other words, Blankertz criticizes in general terms common technical rationalities to conceal structural problems within organizations such as schools. Our case stems from the unspoken presumption that learning within educational research in general, and in Didaktik specifically, is not considered to be a problem (Biesta, 2015). On the contrary, learning is generally assumed being at the core center of schooling and therefore unassailable as an educational concept (Biesta, 2015; von Hentig, 1997). This becomes particulary evident when it comes to foster democratic citizens, as assigned in the Swedish curricula as “foundational values” (Nordmark, Jonsson & Månsson, 2018).  

In response to this assignment Didaktik seems to – regardless school subject – be either about education as transformation, i.e. teaching is about initiating the young person to society, or education as progression, i.e. teaching is about letting the young person to discover society, within society (see Månsson & Nordmark, 2015). If teaching is about initiation, knowledge, norms and values are to be inscribed in the becoming member of society through instructions, democracy as learning outcome equals “being in society”. The teacher´s role boils down to socializing the next generation into an existing social order. If teaching is about progression, knowledge, norms and values must be made relevant for becoming agents of society, through negotiation rather than instructions, democracy as learning outcome equals “agency within society”. The teacher’s role boils down to socializing the next generation to partake in society (Hopmann, 1997, 2007; Klafki, 1997).

The problem as we see it, while teaching as transformation more or less eliminates the capacities of the up-growing generation to partake in society as critical agents, teaching as progression risks to oversee the burden and accountability for the up-growing generation to partake in society as critical agents. Either way, the distinction between socialization and education crumbles, and learning goes uncontested. Understanding learning as transformation, the process of socialization assumes that “the learner” adopts certain ways of being a part in society. The ethical and political aspects of socialization can however be easily evaded: how can we possibly know that the transformation wanted is not something else like submissive behavior, adopting manners or pretending performances? Learning becomes such a wide concept, it loses its legitimacy to explain why we teach, what we are teaching about, and for whom we teach. When it comes to learning as progression, the process of socialization assumes that ”the learner” develops certain ways of being and acting within society. The ethical and political aspects of socialization can however be easily evaded in the same manner as in learning as transformation, i.e. how can we possibly know that the progression wanted is not something else like submissive behavior, adopting manners or pretending performances? Learning becomes such a wide concept, it loses its legitimacy to understand teaching as something for individual growth, not only for societal growth.

Methodologically the discussion is to be understood as a theoretically driven argument about Didaktik where we applicate a specific theoretical critique within that field. Following Blankertz (1987) methodological approach we focus on two opposing positions within the field of Didaktik, in order to illuminate the complexity of Didaktik and the problem when it comes to relate Didaktik to a general theory of learning. Our presentation will therefore unfold in three movements. In the first part we discuss the assumption that Didaktik and learning is a given. This assumption is problematized in the second part, where we identify the specifics of two traditions within the field of Didaktik. In the third part we arrive at the conclusion that no general theory of learning can comprise Didaktik. The critical perspective offered in this discussion contributes to a discussion about Didaktik in the context of European educational research.

As a concluding remark we raise the question whatever happens to the teacher. If Didaktik is understood as learning as transformation the teacher is reduced to a functional tool in the child’s journey towards a full membership of society. Consequentially, the question about what the teacher shall be is replaced with the question about what the teacher shall do. If Didaktik is understood as learning as progression the teacher is elevated to a facilitator of democratic agency, whilst the children carry the burden for democracy to prevail. Consequentially, the question about what the teacher shall do is replaced with the question about what the teacher shall be. Therefore a general theory of learning can’t comprise Didaktik whether it rests on transformation or progression, since the ethical dimension of the teacher-pupil relation will be easily evaded. Because each perspective seem to focus only on one side of the duality between the class room and society, we draw the conclusion this duality must be addressed as a both/and-issue rather than a matter of either/or. The duality shows that there is no clear cut answer to how the teacher shall approach the assignment to foster democratic citizens, only that the teacher must.

Biesta, G.J.J. (2015). What is Education For? On Good Education, Teacher Judgement, and Educational Professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), pp. 75-87. Blankertz, H. (1987). Didaktikens teorier och modeller. Stockholm: HLS Förlag. von Henting, H. (1997). Bildning eller utbildning? Göteborg: Daidalos. Hopmann, S. (1997). Wolfgang Klafki och den tyska didaktiken. I M. Uljens (Red): Didaktik – teori, reflektion och praktik, pp. 198-214). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: the common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), pp. 109-124. Klafki, W. (1997). Kritisk-konstruktiv didaktik. I M. Uljens (Red): Didaktik – teori, reflektion och praktik, (pp. 215-228). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Månsson, N. & Nordmark, J. (2015). Den allmänna didaktikens gränser. Om möjligheter och begränsningar för en samhällsomvandlande didaktik. Utbildning & Demokrati. Tidskrift för didaktik och utbildningspolitik 24(3), pp. 65-82. Nordmark, J., Jonsson, L. & Månsson, N. (2018). Att bilda eller bedöma? Om skapandet av demokratiska medborgare. Nordisk Tidskrift för Allmän Didaktik 4(2), pp. 3-16.