Concepts for teaching – presented as models, theories or schemes – aim to scaffold teacher action. In contrast to this aim, research on teaching practice has highlighted that teachers do not rely much on scaffoldings provided in these models (Wahl 2001), consequently pointing to a missing link between concepts and practice of teaching. This missing link is caused by a problem present in both Didaktik and teaching and learning research. In the European educational debate, conceptualisations of teaching have been criticised because they “render the complexity of educational reality not only largely unreflective, but even difficult to perceive as sites of reflection” (Jörg, Davis & Nickmans 2007, 148). Concepts for teaching often do not correspond with the everyday actions of teachers. To understand the gap present between concepts for teaching and teaching action, I analysed how action has been conceptualised in Didaktik and teaching and learning research. Both paradigms are subject to change and continuous further development in several European research traditions. A comparative European perspective offers the unique opportunity to analyse advances in conceptualising action in both paradigms. Analysis shows that many theories in both Didaktik and teaching and learning research traditionally do not conceptualise action. However, some current research programs aim to comprehend action through ontological assumptions and readjusted methodological frameworks. These research programs assume that teaching and learning is framed by double contingency (Vanderstraeten 2002) and takes place as situated and performative action and interaction (Breidenstein 2008, 207; Wiesemann 2008, 165) in respect to a specific phenomenon (Gruschka 2005; Terhart 2002, 83). 

Breidenstein, G. (2008): Allgemeine Didaktik und praxeologische Unterrichtsforschung [Didaktik and praxeological classroom research]. In: Sonderband der Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft: Neue Perspektiven der Didaktik, 201-218. Breidenstein, G. (2010). Überlegungen zu einer Theorie des Unterrichts [Observations on a theory of classroom teaching]. In Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 56(6), 869-887. Gruschka, A. (2005). Auf dem Weg zu einer Theorie des Unterrichtens. Die widersprüchliche Einheit von Erziehung, Didaktik und Bildung in der allgemeinbildenden Schule. Vorstudie [Towards a action theory of teaching. The paradox unity of education, Didaktik and Bildung in schooling]. Frankfurt/Main: Fachbereich Erziehungswissenschaften der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität. Gruschka, A. (2011). Pädagogische Forschung als Erforschung der Pädagogik. Eine Grundlegung [Educational research as research on educational action]. Opladen: Budrich. Jörg, T., Davis, B. & Nickmans, G. (2007): Towards a new, complexity science of learning and education. In: Educational Research Review 19(2), 145-156. Terhart, E. (2002). Fremde Schwestern. Zum Verhältnis von Allgemeiner Didaktik und empirischer Lehr-Lern-Forschung [Uncanny sisters. The relationship of Didaktik and teaching and learning research]. In Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 16(2), 77-86. Vanderstraeten, R. (2002). Parsons, Luhmann and the Theorem of Double Contingency. In Journal of Classical Sociology 2(1), 77-92. Wahl, D. (2001). Nachhaltige Wege vom Wissen zum Handeln [Sustainable ways from knowledge to action]. Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 19(2), 157-174. Wiesemann, J. (2008): Was ist schulisches Lernen? [What is learning in school?]. In: Breidenstein, G. & Schütze, F. (Ed.): Paradoxien in der Reform der Schule. Ergebnisse qualitativer Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden. 161-176. Wulf et. al. (2010). Ritual and Identity: The Staging and Performing of Rituals in the Lives of Young People. London: Tufnell Press.