Comparing Different Traditions of Teaching and ... - SAGE Journals

Download PDF
10 downloads 1763 Views 164KB Size Report
Comment
European Educational Research Journal, Volume 6, Number 2, 2007 doi: 10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.135. 135 ... communications technology for student-centred learning. 1. ..... Similarly, with applications such as spreadsheets, Logo and graphic.
European Educational Research Journal, Volume 6, Number 2, 2007

doi: 10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.135

Comparing Different Traditions of Teaching and Learning: what can we learn about teaching and learning? BRIAN HUDSON Umeå University, Sweden

ABSTRACT This article explores differences between traditions in relation to teaching and learning and aims to highlight the ways in which the study of the Central European and Northern European traditions of Didaktik has offered new dimensions to and fresh insights on the notion of reflective practice. In particular these traditions are seen to offer tools and ways of thinking that help to recognise and hold the complexity of teaching-studying-learning processes. A key tool for the analysis of the complex relations between teacher, student and content is the Didaktik triad. This provides a relational framework which places teaching and associated design issues at the heart of teaching-studyinglearning processes. Furthermore, it provides a means for teachers’ thinking about the most basic how, what and why questions around their work. Another key aspect of such traditions is the emphasis that is placed upon meaning and intentionality from the outset of the process of preparation for teaching. Connections are also made with current thinking in the field of scholarship in teaching and learning. Finally, the article aims to highlights ways in which such tools and ways of thinking can help to inform approaches to development in the didactical, pedagogical and technological uses of information and communications technology for student-centred learning.

1. Introduction The ideas contained in this article arise from the exploration of differences between traditions in relation to teaching and learning based upon a comparison between the Anglo/American curriculum tradition and the Central and Northern European tradition of Didaktik, as discussed in Hudson (2002, 2003). It is worth noting at the outset that several writers have highlighted the fact that Didaktik is a tradition of thinking about and studying teaching and learning which is virtually unknown in the English-speaking world (Kansanen 1995a, 1999; Hopmann & Riquarts, 2000; Westbury, 2000a). Whilst Hopmann & Riquarts (2000) have called for the start of a dialogue between the Didaktik and curriculum traditions, little sustained activity has resulted to date. This exploration of differences has offered a new dimension and fresh insights to the notion of reflective practice. In giving particular attention to processes of teaching and learning, Hudson (2002, 2003) sought to emphasise the significance of Klafki’s (2000) notion of Didaktik analysis for both professional practice and educational research, which has at its core a strong hermeneutic and interpretative stance. This article builds on Hudson’s work (2005a) and seeks to make further connections with work of those in the field of scholarship in teaching and learning (Kreber, 2005; Healey, 2005). In turn these researchers build on the work of Boyer (1990), who identified four ‘separate, yet overlapping’ functions of academic work – the scholarship of discovery, integration, application, and teaching based on recognition that ‘knowledge is acquired through research, synthesis, practice and teaching’. In the final section of the article, these ideas are developed into an integrative framework for thinking about the didactical, pedagogical and technological uses of

135

Brian Hudson information and communications technology (ICT) for the promotion of student-centred learning processes. 2. The Main Features of the Tradition of Didaktik In seeking to address the differences between different traditions in relation to teaching and learning, it is first of all necessary to acknowledge that terms such as ‘curriculum’ and ‘Didaktik’ are strongly culture-bound. Furthermore, it is necessary to recognise that the comparison of meaning across linguistic boundaries is fraught with a variety of difficulties, as is highlighted by Kansanen (1995a, b). In terms of the development of my own thinking, the direction given by Seel (1999) was influential at the outset. He argues that Didaktik may be conceived as the human or social science whose subject is the planned (institutionalised and organised) support for learning to acquire Bildung. This is an elusive concept to capture in English and has variously been translated as ‘formation’, ‘education’ and ‘erudition’. The latter derives from the Latin eruditio as used by Comenius and is the suggested translation by Hopmann & Künzli (1992). However Westbury (2000a, b) suggests that ‘formation’ is the best English translation to capture the German sense of the term. This is based on the connotations of the verb bilden (to form or to shape) and has close associations with the notion of religious or spiritual formation when applied to the preparation of a member of the religious clergy. In its turn, Bildung can be seen to be a state of being that can be characterised by a cluster of attributes described by terms such as ‘educated’, ‘knowledgeable’, ‘learned’, ‘literary’, ‘philosophical’, ‘scholarly’, and ‘wise’. Allgemeinbildung is a wider development of this concept and refers to a general competence for a productive coping with life with regard to co-existence and survival, including life in society and basic communicative and technical abilities and values (Friehs & Seel 2000). In his discussion of the nature of Didaktik, Seel (1999) emphasises that human beings are born into a culture and a cultural environment, including a social system. The acquisition of and the ability to deal with cultural objects may be conceived as a major part of the process of acquiring Bildung. This emphasis on the social context and societal goals is a distinctive characteristic of the tradition of Didaktik. Thus, Klafki (1995, 1998) highlights three main elements of contemporary Bildung: first, self-determination, by which is meant that every member of society is to be enabled to make independent, responsible decisions about her or his individual relationships and interpretations of an interpersonal, vocational, ethical or religious nature; second, co-determination, which refers to both the rights and responsibilities of each member of society to contribute, together with others, to the cultural, economic, social and political development of the community; and third, solidarity, which means that the individual rights to self-determination and opportunities for co-determination can only be represented and justified if they are associated with action to help others. This implies not only the recognition of equal rights but also active support for those whose opportunities for self-determination and co-determination are limited or nonexistent for reasons of, for example, social conditions, lack of privilege, political restrictions, or oppression. In considering teaching and learning in school from such a perspective, they are seen to be a complex nexus of interaction, social learning and content-related acquisition of knowledge and abilities. Accordingly Didaktik provides ways of thinking that highlight some very important, and universal, educational questions that are not well articulated in the English-language curriculum tradition. In considering these differences, Westbury (2000a) points out that in the US curriculum tradition, the dominant idea has been organisational. This involves an emphasis on the tasks associated with the building of systems of schools. These systems have a curriculum-as-manual as a central part of their overall organisational framework. This curriculum contains the templates for coverage and methods that are seen as guiding, directing, or controlling the routine classroom work of a school, or of an entire school system. Such an approach results in a view of the role of the teacher as an employee of the school system, who is concerned with implementing the system’s curricula in a relatively mechanical fashion. On the other hand, within the German tradition the state curriculum, i.e. Lehrplan, has not been seen as something, which could or should explicitly direct a teacher’s work. Although a Lehrplan does outline prescribed content for teaching, this is seen to be an authoritative selection 136

Comparing Different Traditions of Teaching and Learning from cultural traditions that can only become educative as it is interpreted and given life by teachers. Within this tradition there is an emphasis on teachers’ professional autonomy and on their freedom to teach without control by a curriculum in the US sense. This is also emphasised by Seel (1999), who highlights the tension between the notion of relative pedagogical autonomy for schools and teachers in German-speaking countries with the more narrowly focused AngloAmerican concept of teaching theory. Seel also draws attention to Shulman’s (1987) critique of a lesson-related instructional theory, which is seen as being too limited for a research basis for professional practice. Within the Anglo-American tradition the social and cultural world is seen as an ‘objective’ structure (Reid, 1998) and the task of curriculum is to present this structure to students, on the assumption that culture and society can be reduced simply to facts to be learned. In contrast, Reid noted that within the tradition of Didaktik the social and cultural world is ‘subjectified’: it is seen that there are things to be learned, but students are to be encouraged to find their own path. As Künzli (2000) indicates, the ‘Didaktiker’ does not begin by asking how a student learns or what a student should be able to do or know. Rather, he or she looks first at a prospective object of learning in terms of Bildung, to ask what it can and should signify to the student, and how students themselves can experience this significance. Klafki’s (2000) five questions are based on the earlier thinking of Hermann Nohl and Erich Weniger, who developed the idea, in contrast to the objectivism of previous thinkers, that a double-relativity constitutes the very essence of the contents of education: the value of any content can only be ascertained with reference to the individual learner and with a particular human, historical situation in mind, with its attendant past and anticipated future. Klafki’s questions are based on the view that any preparation for teaching is not a technical, but rather an interpretative issue, i.e. an issue to be considered in the light of a pedagogical situation. Thus, he asks: 1. What wider or general sense or reality do these contents exemplify and open up for the learner? What basic phenomenon or fundamental principle, what law, criterion, problem, method, technique or attitude can be grasped by dealing with this content as an ‘example’? 2. What significance does the content in question or the experience, knowledge, ability or skill to be acquired through this topic already possess in the minds of the children in my class? What significance should it have from a pedagogical point of view? 3. What constitutes the topic’s significance for the children’s future? 4. How is the content structured (which has been placed into a specifically pedagogical perspective by questions 1, 2 and 3)? 5. What are the special cases, phenomena, situations, experiments, persons, elements of aesthetic experience, and so forth, in terms of which the structure of the content in question can become interesting, stimulating, approachable, conceivable, or vivid for children of the stage of development of this class? 3. The Main Differences between the Traditions The study of Didaktik in recent years has given fresh perspectives on a number of issues related to teaching and learning which have been related to the themes of meaning and intentionality, attention to studying, recognising and holding complexity, tools for holding complexity and the role of the teacher (Hudson, 2002). These are discussed further below. Meaning and Intentionality A key feature of Didaktik is the emphasis that is placed upon meaning and intentionality (or purpose) from the outset of the process of preparation for teaching. Thus, in his discussion of lesson preparation, Klafki (1995, 2000) observes that it is through Didaktik analysis – of the kind that can be initiated by reflection on the five questions that he offered – that the interactive relationship between theory and practice and the interplay between experience and reflection are made concrete in the form of decisions for planning instruction, and studying/learning. But Klafki also emphasises the ‘draft character’ of preparation and the need for openness on the part of teachers to new situations, impulses, and the difficulties that arise in the moment: this openness of mind is a 137

Brian Hudson key criterion of the teacher’s pedagogical skill. Lesson preparation is merely the thoughtful design of one or several opportunities for particular students to make fruitful encounters with particular contents of education. Klafki draws particular attention to the misinterpretation that lesson planning is first and foremost, or even exclusively, concerned with the ‘how’ of the situation, i.e. methods. The search for method must be the final, though necessary step, in good preparation. The first step is concerned with the subject matter to be conveyed or acquired in the lessons: it is this issue which throws up the crucial questions that are at the heart of the whole process of lesson preparation: ‘What comprises “the matter”? What is the nature of this “lesson content”?’ Thus, in summarising Didaktik analysis Klafki (1995, 2000) describes it as ‘the subsumption of all the mental effort directed at aspects of content’, at the what of instruction and education (Bildung) which is to be distinguished from the how – which he sees as a topic of a theory of learning methods, i.e. Methodik. This perspective has a strong resonance with the position of Shulman (1986), who emphasises the way in which a professional is seen to be concerned not only with the how, but also with the what and why. In both Klafki’s and Shulman’s perspectives, the teacher is seen to be in command not only of procedure but also of content and rationale, and to be capable of explaining why something has to be done. For Shulman the experienced professional teacher is well able to engage in the reflection that leads to self-knowledge, i.e. the metacognitive awareness that distinguishes the ‘draghtsman’ from architect and bookkeeper from auditor. Recognising and Holding Complexity Engagement with the tradition of Didaktik has also given me a fresh perspective on the recognition and the complexity of what in the English-speaking world is referred to as ‘learning’. Differences between the ways in which language can operate across different cultures can either mask or highlight this complexity. For example, in Russian there is only one word, Obuchenie, for teaching/learning, and there is no sharp conceptual distinction made between the terms, thus indicating a degree of complexity. This idea has a parallel in German with the word Unterrichtfach, which Kansanen (1995b) suggests is best translated as teaching-studying-learning. The same phenomenon can be seen with the Swedish word Undervisning and the Finnish word Opetus. Furthermore, if we consider the Chinese characters that represent the word ‘learning’, we see a quite complex picture, as represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The Chinese symbol for learning.

The first character to the left-hand side means ‘to study’, which is made up of two parts. The lower symbol means to ‘to accumulate knowledge’ and this is positioned beneath a symbol of a child in a doorway. The second character to the right means ‘to practise constantly’ and it shows a bird developing the ability to leave the nest. The upper symbol represents flying and the lower symbol represents youth. As Senge et al (1994) note, ‘For the oriental mind, learning is ongoing’. Taken together, the twin ideas of ‘studying’ and ‘practising constantly’ suggest that learning should mean: ‘mastery of the way of self-improvement’ (Senge et al, 1994). Attention to Studying Through recognising the complexity of the process of ‘learning’, particular attention is given to the studying aspect of this process, i.e. those key functions that need to be fulfilled in order to achieve 138

Comparing Different Traditions of Teaching and Learning the goal/end point of the process, which might be interpreted as a state of learning. A parallel way of thinking would seem to underlie the work of Lave (1996) with her emphasis on ‘teaching as learning in practice’. The ideas of Carlgren (2005) are also very relevant, and in particular her argument for a shift from knowledge (as substance) to knowing (knowledge as a contextualised relation). She writes in terms of dispositions to act and qualities of knowing as embedded in the habits of social practices. Tools for Holding Complexity A key tool for the analysis of the complex relations between teacher, student and content in the teaching-studying-learning process is the Didaktik triad (see Figures 2 and 3). As Kansanen & Meri (1999) emphasise, the Didaktik triad should be treated as a whole, although this is almost impossible to do in practice. They point out that the most common approach is to take the pedagogical relation between the teacher and the student(s) as a starting point. As Kansanen & Meri (1999) also note, the pedagogical relation between the teacher and the student is taken as the significant starting point in Geisteswissenschaftliche, i.e. human science, pedagogy.

Figure 2. Pedagogical relation in the Didaktik triad.

Figure 3. The didaktik relation in the Didaktik triad.

However, the relationship between the teacher and the content must also be considered, and then the teacher’s ‘competence’ is brought into focus. They also note that teaching in itself does not necessarily imply learning and, therefore, the preferred term for the activities of students is 139

Brian Hudson ‘studying’. It is through studying that the instructional process can be observed, while the invisible part of this relation may be learning. The teacher’s key task is guiding this relation. The Role of the Teacher In other words, within Didaktik the didaktik relation is a relation to another relation, and concentration on this set of relationships is the core of a teacher’s professionalism. And in view of the complexity of this set of relations as it manifests itself in any situation, it is difficult to think that the didaktik relation could be organised universally, or according to some technical rules. Consequently, teachers’ own practical theories and pedagogical thinking are seen to be of vital importance. As Westbury (2000a) highlights, curriculum theory seeks to provide a structured framework for thinking about institutional issues. As a result of the influence of what is widely regarded as the core text of the field (Tyler 1949), a managerial framework for curriculum development and specification, and subsequently for the control and evaluation of the educational service delivery, has developed. Technologies for curriculum-making, for writing behavioural objectives, ‘instruction’, test development and curriculum evaluation follow from this framework. This structure is seen to offer a rationale in that it is assumed that it is possible to specify a set of orderly steps setting out how an optimal curriculum can be developed for a national, regional or local school system. Teachers become the invisible agents of such a system, and are seen as animated and directed by the system, rather than as sources of animation for the system. Accordingly, as a further consequence of this perspective, teachers become viewed as a (if not the) major brake on the innovation, change and reform that might be considered by policy makers as necessary by the system. In contrast, the tradition of Didaktik provides a framework which places the teacher at the heart of the teaching/studying/learning process. This follows from the emphasis that is placed upon Didaktik analysis and from the relative professional autonomy of the teacher within this tradition. Furthermore, it provides a framework for teachers’ thinking about the most basic how, what and why questions around their work, once again having a strong resonance with the position of Shulman (1986). 4. On Scholarship in Teaching and Learning In reflecting on the relationship with scholarship and teaching in higher education Kreber (2005) addresses the scholarship of teaching as a form of research-based teaching and draws attention to the work of Healey (2005) in relation to curriculum design at the research-teaching nexus. From this analysis it is proposed that teaching can be primarily research led, research tutored, research orientated or research based. This work highlights a major difference between research-led and research-based teaching, in that the former is content oriented and teacher centred whereas the latter is process oriented and learner centred. Under such a process-oriented approach students are seen to become the ‘generators’ of knowledge. This overview is presented by Healey in two dimensions by means of the diagram reproduced as Figure 4. Furthermore, Kreber (2005) suggests that a different conception of research-based teaching can be achieved by ‘switching the lens to those who are doing the teaching’. Accordingly, she offers the perspective that ‘teaching that is research-based is teaching that is characterized by inquiry into the process of teaching itself’ and relates this activity to Boyer’s scholarship of discovery.[1] The strategy of ‘switching the lens’ resonates with Didaktik traditions of thinking about the processes of teaching and learning.

140

Comparing Different Traditions of Teaching and Learning

Figure 4. Curriculum design and research-teaching nexus (Healey, 2005).

5. Implications for the Development of Didactical, edagogical and Technological Uses of ICT for Learning The Role of Scholarship In approaching the development of the use of ICT in teacher education and schools, an approach based on Boyer’s scholarship of integration has been developed (Hudson, 2006a). This approach is captured in the adapted version of the approach outlined by Savage & Betts (2005) which takes the scholarship of integration as being central to the development of a community of scholars motivated by inquiry (Andresen, 2000) in building a ‘“network of knowledge”’ (Boyer, 1990, p. 80) in relation to ICT use in teacher education and schools (Figure 5). Such scholarship of integration relates to: • teaching in terms of enhancing teaching and learning through ICT use; • application in terms of developing ICT tools, applications and infrastructure for supporting teaching and learning; and • discovery in terms of researching the pedagogical and didactical uses of ICT. The Role of Research The role of research is seen to relate to both informing development and underpinning professional practice in relation to two main aspects: firstly, educational work in general and secondly, in specific subject didactics. In relation to development, research informs the theoretical frameworks and approaches that are adopted. With regard to professional practice, there is significant potential in collaborative action research (Hudson et al, 2006a), and with regard to development, in design research approaches that integrate the processes of research, evaluation and dissemination (Hudson, 2005b).

141

Brian Hudson

Figure 5. Developing a community of scholars and inquiry in ICT use in teacher education and schools.

An Integrative Didactical Framework for ICT and Learning This approach is seen within an integrative didactical framework which addresses the what, why and how of ICT use in relation to content, design and interaction/ICT use (Figure 6). Such a didactical approach is intended to promote engagement in a process of critically questioning the purpose and added value of ICT use, our own assumptions, and also of whose interests are served, in the application of ICT to support learning processes. This framework takes the design of teaching-studying-learning situations as a central role of the teacher in the promotion of student-centred learning processes based on a social constructivist philosophy of learning. In this context teaching is seen to be ‘a dynamic endeavour involving all the analogies, metaphors, and images that build bridges between the teacher’s understanding and the student’s learning’ (Boyer, 1990) and as a process of design, interaction, evaluation and re-design (Shulman, 2005). Pedagogical procedures involve careful planning, continuous examination, and relate directly to the subject taught. Teaching at its best is seen to go beyond simply transmitting knowledge to ‘transforming and extending it’ (Boyer, 1990). Accordingly, in thinking about the relationship between teacher, content and student, this can be considered as a didactical content relation that gives rise to the traditional didactical questions of what content, why and how. The introduction of new technologies into the picture highlights the didactical design relation when considering the relation between content and new technologies, giving rise to questions about what technologies, why and how. When considering the relation between the student and new technologies the focus shifts to direct ICT use, i.e. a didactical interaction relation. Questions arising centre on what pedagogical approaches, why and how. With regard to the didactical design relation, such questions relate directly to the subject being taught. For example, in mathematics, the opportunities afforded by the use of dynamic geometry software enable students to independently study the invariant (unchanging) relationships between points, lines and circles, forming their own conjectures and testing them out visually, which is the very essence of geometry. Similarly, with applications such as spreadsheets, Logo and graphic calculators purposes will be many and varied but will include helping students in developing their own mathematical thinking and conjecturing, in observing patterns and generalising, in seeing 142

Comparing Different Traditions of Teaching and Learning connections and visualising and also in exploring data. In considering the didactical ICT use/interaction relation, such questions have a more generic nature which relate to the design of student-centred learning environments in particular. This integrative didactical approach provides the frame for guiding current development in relation to individual development planning involving the use of the individuell utvecklingsplan (IUP) in schools and digital portfolios in teacher education (Hudson, Mårell-Olsson and Österlund, 2006b).

Figure 6. An integrative didactical framework for ICT and learning.

6. Concluding Comments The rapid development of the World Wide Web in recent years has transformed the ways in which we can think about teaching and learning, opening up new possibilities for the development of learning communities independent of time and place, e.g. (Hudson, 2006b). The potential of social software for social networking through the opportunities afforded by Web 2.0 is highlighted by Low (2006). The term Web 2.0 refers to a second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that are intended to facilitate people in collaborating and sharing information online. In contrast to the first generation, Web 2.0 aims to provide users with an experience that is closer to desktop applications than to interaction with the traditional static web pages. Low (2005) argues that it ‘is not so much about a change in technology, but rather, a change in philosophy’. He argues further that whereas ‘old web’ sites are generally nothing more than isolated repositories of information, Web 2.0 are designed to be ‘sources of content and functionality – facilitating the sharing, exchange and discovery of information, and the construction of networks of information and people’. He also highlights the resonance of such a philosophy with social constructivist student-centred theories of learning which emphasise the social construction of knowledge by active learners that is resonant with the role of networking in relation to professional development (Huberman, 1995; Hudson, 2005a). Examples of such social software include applications such as news readers, weblogs and wikis with considerable pedagogical and didactical potential, e.g. Chen et al (2006). Some of the questions arising relate to pedagogical approaches and assessment practices. The advent of such 143

Brian Hudson social software tools combined with simple aggregating applications (e.g. RSS) offers opportunities to learners to make their own connections based on their own identities, which for the ‘digital natives’ are now so often made visible in digital form through the use of such tools. The rapid expansion of ICT infrastructure and applications in recent years has led to an emphasis on the idea of personalisation and personalised learning. This has been seen as being about the drive ‘to tailor education to individual need, interest and aptitude’ (DfES Publications, 2004). However, social software tools combined with Web 2.0 offer the potential of a more radical vision of personalisation. A technologically-centred interpretation of personalisation as customisation and consumption can lead to a view of students merely as customers and passive consumers of quality certified learning objects provided by centrally administered service providers. On the other hand, ‘radical personalisation’ as co-construction offers a learning-centred perspective of students as active participants in building their own ‘networks of knowledge’ (Boyer, 1990, p. 80) with the freedom to choose which connections to make and which communities to identify with and engage in, thus opening up new possibilities for the design of more open, democratic and participatory learning environments in the future. Notes [1] As one of Boyer’s four ‘separate, yet overlapping’ functions of academic work – the scholarship of discovery, integration, application, and teaching based on recognition that ‘knowledge is acquired through research, synthesis, practice and teaching’.

References Andresen, L. (2000) A Useable, Trans-disciplinary Conception of Scholarship, Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2), pp. 137-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/072943600445619 Boyer, E.L. (1990) Scholarship Revisited. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton University. Carlgren, I. (2005) The Content of Schooling – from knowledge and subject matter to knowledge formation and subject specific ways of knowing. Paper presented at ECER 2005 – European Conference on Educational Research, University College Dublin, 5-10 September 2005. Chen, H.L., Gilbert, D. & Sabol, J. (2006) Using Wikis to Build Learning Communities: successes, failures and next steps. Advancing Learning: Insights and Innovations, Educause 2006 Annual Meeting, San Diego, 29-31 January 2006. DfES Publications (2004) A National Conversation about Personalised Learning. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills. http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk (accessed 4 July 2006). Friehs, B. & Seel, H. (2000) The Concept of ‘Bildung’ and Its Impact on German Pedagogy. Paper presented to meeting of Socrates European Module Didaktik at Charles University, Prague. Department of Education, Karl-Franzens University, Graz, Austria. Healey, M. (2005) Linking Research and Teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning, in R. Barnett (Ed.) Reshaping the University: new relationships between research, scholarship and teaching. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Hopmann, S. & Künzli, R. (1992) Didaktik-Renaissance, Bildung and Erziehung, 45(2), pp. 117-135. Hopmann, S. & Riquarts, K. (2000) Starting a Dialogue: a beginning conversation between the Didaktik and curriculum traditions, in I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds) Teaching as a Reflective Practice: the German Didaktik tradition, pp. 3-11. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Huberman, M. (1995) Networks that Alter Teaching: conceptualizations, exchanges and experiments, Teachers and Teaching, 1(2), pp. 193-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354060950010204 Hudson, B. (2002) Holding Complexity and Searching for Meaning – teaching as reflective practice, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(1), pp. 43-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220270110086975 Hudson, B. (2003) Approaching Educational Research from the Tradition of Critical-constructive Didaktik, Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(2), pp. 173-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681360300200171 Hudson, B. (2005a) Networking as/for Knowledge Transformation and Innovation: from research-based practice to the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL) 2005 Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, 14-16 October 2005.

144

Comparing Different Traditions of Teaching and Learning Hudson, B. (2005b) Research-Based Practice: on the relationship between action research and design research in the context of the development of an international on-line MSc programme. LERU Invitation Seminar on Research-Based Teaching in HE, League of European Research-Intensive Universities, University of Helsinki, 22-23 March 2005. Hudson, B. (2006a) Development Plan for Research and Postgraduate Studies. Department of Interactive Media and Learning (IML), Faculty of Teacher Education, Umeå University. Hudson, B. (2006b) Promoting Postgraduate Learner Engagement in Communities of Practice across National Boundaries. Multi-National Forum of Teacher-Scholars, East Midlands Conference Centre, Nottingham, 5 July 2006. Hudson, B., Owen, D. & Van Veen, K. (2006a) Working on Educational Research Methods with Masters Students in an International Online Learning Community, British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), pp. 577-603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00553.x Hudson, B., Mårell-Olsson, E. & Österlund, D. (2006b) IT Use in Teacher Education and Schools: developing individual development planning and the use of digital portfolios. Paper to the Faculty Board for Teacher Education, Umeå University, 30 May 2006. Kansanen, P. (1995a) The Deutsche Didaktik, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(4), pp. 347-352. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/0022027950270401 Kansanen, P. (Ed.) (1995b) Discussion on Some Educational Issues VI. Research Report No. 145. Helsinki: Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki. Kansanen, P. (1999) The Deutsche Didaktik and the American Research on Teaching, in B. Hudson, F. Buchberger, P. Kansanen, & H. Seel (Eds) Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as Science(-s) of the Teaching Profession? TNTEE Publications, 2(1), pp. 21-36. http://tntee.umu.se/publications/publications.html (accessed 4 July 2006). Kansanen, P. & Meri, M. (1999) The Didactic Relation in the Teaching-Studying-Learning Process, in B. Hudson, F. Buchberger, P. Kansanen & H. Seel (Eds) Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as Science(-s) of the Teaching Profession? TNTEE Publications, 2(1), pp. 107-116. http://tntee.umu.se/publications/publications.html (accessed 4 July 2006). Klafki, W. (1995) Didactic Analysis as the Core of Preparation for Instruction [Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung], Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), pp. 13-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022027950270103 Klafki, W. (1998) Characteristics of Critical-Constructive Didaktik, in B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds) Didaktik and/or Curriculum: an international dialogue, pp. 307-330. New York: Peter Lang. Klafki, W. (2000) Didaktik Analysis as the Core of Preparation of Instruction., in I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds) Teaching as a Reflective Practice: the German Didaktik tradition, pp. 197-206. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kreber, C. (2005) The Scholarship of Teaching as a Form of Research-Based Teaching. LERU Invitation Seminar on Research-Based Teaching in HE, League of European Research-Intensive Universities, University of Helsinki, 22-23 March 2005. Künzli, R. (2000) German Didaktik: models of re-presentation, of intercourse, and of experience, in I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds) Teaching as a Reflective Practice: the German Didaktik tradition, pp. 41-54. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lave, J. (1996) Teaching, as Learning, in Practice, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(3), pp. 149-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0303_2 Low, L. (2006) Social Networking: philosophy and pedagogy, EdNA Groups. http://www.groups.edna.edu.au/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=6615 (accessed 4 July 2006). Reid, W.A. (1998) Systems and Structures or Myths and Fables? A Cross-cultural Perspective on Curriculum Content, in B.B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds) Didaktik and/or Curriculum: an international dialogue, pp. 11-27. New York: Peter Lang. Savage, S. & Betts, M. (2005) Boyer Reconsidered: priorities for framing academic work. Higher Education in a Changing World, herdsaconfrence2005, University of Sydney. Seel, H. (1999) ‘Allgemeine Didaktik’ (‘General Didactics’) and ‘Fachdidaktik’ (‘Subject Didactics’), in B. Hudson, F. Buchberger, P. Kansanen & H. Seel (Eds) Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as Science(-s) of the Teaching Profession? TNTEE Publications, Umea, Sweden, 2(1), pp. 85-93. http://tntee.umu.se/publications/publications.html (accessed 4 July 2006). Senge, P.M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R.B. & Smith, B.J. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

145

Brian Hudson Shulman, L.S. (1986) Those Who Understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 15(2), pp. 4-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1175860 Shulman, L.S. (1987) Knowledge and Teaching: foundations of the new reform, Harvard Educational Review, 5(1), pp. 1-22. Shulman, L.S. (2005) What is the Scholarship of Teaching? [WWW video file] http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/president/index.htm (accessed 19 May 2005 – no longer available as of 4 July 2006). Tyler, R. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Westbury, I. (2000a) 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. 15-40. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Westbury, I. (2000b) Introduction, in Peter Menck, Looking into Classrooms: papers on didactics, pp. xi-xx. Norwood: Ablex.

BRIAN HUDSON is Professor in Educational Work (Pedagogiskt Arbete) for ICT and Learning at the Department of Interactive Media and Learning (IML) in the Faculty of Teacher Education at Umeå University, Sweden and is also a member of Umeå Forskningscentrum för Matematikdidaktik. He also works for part of his time as Professor of Education at Sheffield Hallam University. His main research/teaching interests are in the field of ICT and learning, mathematics education and comparative perspectives on teaching, learning and didactics. Correspondence: Dr Brian Hudson, Department of Interactive Media and Learning (IML), Faculty of Teacher Education, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden ([email protected]).

146