Didaktiske paradigmer og refleksion

replik til Ellen Krogh

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

The article discusses the proposal of a didactic reflection paradigm set forward by Ellen Krogh in this issue of CURSIV. In CURSIV 9, Krogh proposed the paradigm in a discussion of possible links between the phenomenological analysis of subject didactics by Frede V. Nielsen and the semiotic analysis of subject didactics by Sigmund Ongstad. The two positions offer fundamentally different insights into didactics. Nielsen’s position establishes didactics as a knowledge domain and Ongstad’s position points to the dynamics of subject didactics by analyzing communication as a basic aspect. Krogh’s proposal is discussed in some detail and it is argued that a reflection paradigm does not live up to the criterion provided
by Nielsen that a didactic paradigm must refer to a naturalistic phenomenon to be applicable for selection of content, at least in the interpretation of Nielsen that underlies this article.
A possible utilitarian didactical paradigm, already indicated by Krogh as a historical paradigm prominent in our time, is also discussed. It is suggested that reflection could be seen as a normative response to the utilitarian paradigm, and not as a paradigm in its own right. It is concluded that reflection must be understood as an overarching cultural phenomenon and a very important qualification of all Nielsen’s paradigms, and also a possible utilitarian paradigm, because it has the potential to add dynamic elements to the more or less static didactic paradigms. Thus the semiotic analysis may be said to qualify the phenomenological analysis. In this sense, the phenomenological and the semiotic analysis can be linked.
OriginalsprogDansk
BogserieCursiv
Vol/bind13
Sider (fra-til)125-139
ISSN1901-8878
StatusUdgivet - 2014

Emneord

  • Didaktik, fagdidaktik,didaktisering,fænomenologisk analyse, semiotisk analyse.

Citer dette

@article{d60fd8c564a941f5a8fa0c52c8fb1793,
title = "Didaktiske paradigmer og refleksion: replik til Ellen Krogh",
abstract = "The article discusses the proposal of a didactic reflection paradigm set forward by Ellen Krogh in this issue of CURSIV. In CURSIV 9, Krogh proposed the paradigm in a discussion of possible links between the phenomenological analysis of subject didactics by Frede V. Nielsen and the semiotic analysis of subject didactics by Sigmund Ongstad. The two positions offer fundamentally different insights into didactics. Nielsen’s position establishes didactics as a knowledge domain and Ongstad’s position points to the dynamics of subject didactics by analyzing communication as a basic aspect. Krogh’s proposal is discussed in some detail and it is argued that a reflection paradigm does not live up to the criterion providedby Nielsen that a didactic paradigm must refer to a naturalistic phenomenon to be applicable for selection of content, at least in the interpretation of Nielsen that underlies this article.A possible utilitarian didactical paradigm, already indicated by Krogh as a historical paradigm prominent in our time, is also discussed. It is suggested that reflection could be seen as a normative response to the utilitarian paradigm, and not as a paradigm in its own right. It is concluded that reflection must be understood as an overarching cultural phenomenon and a very important qualification of all Nielsen’s paradigms, and also a possible utilitarian paradigm, because it has the potential to add dynamic elements to the more or less static didactic paradigms. Thus the semiotic analysis may be said to qualify the phenomenological analysis. In this sense, the phenomenological and the semiotic analysis can be linked.",
keywords = "Didaktik, fagdidaktik,didaktisering,f{\ae}nomenologisk analyse, semiotisk analyse.",
author = "Christensen, {Torben Spanget}",
year = "2014",
language = "Dansk",
volume = "13",
pages = "125--139",
journal = "Cursiv",
issn = "1901-8878",
publisher = "DPU, Aarhus Universitet",

}

Didaktiske paradigmer og refleksion : replik til Ellen Krogh. / Christensen, Torben Spanget.

I: Cursiv, Bind 13, 2014, s. 125-139.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Didaktiske paradigmer og refleksion

T2 - replik til Ellen Krogh

AU - Christensen, Torben Spanget

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The article discusses the proposal of a didactic reflection paradigm set forward by Ellen Krogh in this issue of CURSIV. In CURSIV 9, Krogh proposed the paradigm in a discussion of possible links between the phenomenological analysis of subject didactics by Frede V. Nielsen and the semiotic analysis of subject didactics by Sigmund Ongstad. The two positions offer fundamentally different insights into didactics. Nielsen’s position establishes didactics as a knowledge domain and Ongstad’s position points to the dynamics of subject didactics by analyzing communication as a basic aspect. Krogh’s proposal is discussed in some detail and it is argued that a reflection paradigm does not live up to the criterion providedby Nielsen that a didactic paradigm must refer to a naturalistic phenomenon to be applicable for selection of content, at least in the interpretation of Nielsen that underlies this article.A possible utilitarian didactical paradigm, already indicated by Krogh as a historical paradigm prominent in our time, is also discussed. It is suggested that reflection could be seen as a normative response to the utilitarian paradigm, and not as a paradigm in its own right. It is concluded that reflection must be understood as an overarching cultural phenomenon and a very important qualification of all Nielsen’s paradigms, and also a possible utilitarian paradigm, because it has the potential to add dynamic elements to the more or less static didactic paradigms. Thus the semiotic analysis may be said to qualify the phenomenological analysis. In this sense, the phenomenological and the semiotic analysis can be linked.

AB - The article discusses the proposal of a didactic reflection paradigm set forward by Ellen Krogh in this issue of CURSIV. In CURSIV 9, Krogh proposed the paradigm in a discussion of possible links between the phenomenological analysis of subject didactics by Frede V. Nielsen and the semiotic analysis of subject didactics by Sigmund Ongstad. The two positions offer fundamentally different insights into didactics. Nielsen’s position establishes didactics as a knowledge domain and Ongstad’s position points to the dynamics of subject didactics by analyzing communication as a basic aspect. Krogh’s proposal is discussed in some detail and it is argued that a reflection paradigm does not live up to the criterion providedby Nielsen that a didactic paradigm must refer to a naturalistic phenomenon to be applicable for selection of content, at least in the interpretation of Nielsen that underlies this article.A possible utilitarian didactical paradigm, already indicated by Krogh as a historical paradigm prominent in our time, is also discussed. It is suggested that reflection could be seen as a normative response to the utilitarian paradigm, and not as a paradigm in its own right. It is concluded that reflection must be understood as an overarching cultural phenomenon and a very important qualification of all Nielsen’s paradigms, and also a possible utilitarian paradigm, because it has the potential to add dynamic elements to the more or less static didactic paradigms. Thus the semiotic analysis may be said to qualify the phenomenological analysis. In this sense, the phenomenological and the semiotic analysis can be linked.

KW - Didaktik, fagdidaktik,didaktisering,fænomenologisk analyse, semiotisk analyse.

M3 - Tidsskriftartikel

VL - 13

SP - 125

EP - 139

JO - Cursiv

JF - Cursiv

SN - 1901-8878

ER -