Search

This article is concerned with presenting a qualitative study of teachers dealing with undemocratic attitudes in secondary school. The research question was: how do teachers teach when the aim is to remove undemocratic attitudes and prevent the formation of undemocratic attitudes? The research group which was part of the study established collaboration with two teacher groups at a Norwegian secondary school. This collaboration included two start-up meetings, filming and observation of teaching sessions, as well as group interviews with two different teacher groups about the teaching which had been filmed and observed. The findings were analysed by way of the theory of indirect pedagogy and its different models for teaching, including both direct and indirect approaches of teaching. First, there is the model of direct instruction; second, there is the model of indirect summoning which is specified; and third, there is the model of indirect summoning which is unspecified. A major finding was that the teachers who participated in the study combined direct and indirect approaches in their teaching. While direct approaches and the model of indirect summoning which is specific were mostly used for learning purposes, such as acquiring knowledge of certain concepts (epistemology), the model of indirect summoning which is unspecified was particularly prominent in situations where the purpose was to make students responsible for society and democracy (existence and morality).

This article searches for an autonomous discipline of education, one that is a self-governing discipline and exercises the right to organize its own activities and to make independent decisions. In undertaking this quest, it asks: how may education be organized to safeguard its autonomy so as to be able to generate strong and unique educational knowledge and theory? To address this question, Herner Saeverot argues for a conceptual structure comprising three interrelated perspectives: education as translation (ETN), education as task (ETK), and education as truth (ETH). These three perspectives are part of the overarching term "the science of education" (SE). While ETN translates knowledge from noneducational disciplines into educationally relevant knowledge, ETK produces distinct educational knowledge or theory directly from educational practice (EP). Through these processes, education can function as an autonomous and a self-governing discipline. However, more research is needed to identify what would be required for education to become a strong autonomous discipline. The reason for this is that ETK ultimately produces educational theory in a weak sense, that is, it yields knowledge structures that are too loose or poorly articulated to be designed as strong theory. Thus, ETH examines ETK to produce educational theory in a strong sense, in other words, knowledge that has undergone thorough scientific verification and theoretical substantiation. By way of this organization, educational theory is developed through (1) ETK as a firsthand experience in which practice-based knowledge and theory is derived directly from EP, and (2) ETH as a second-order observation of EP in which theory-based knowledge is derived indirectly from EP and directly from practice-based theory (ETK).

While teachers and practitioners are increasingly expected to conduct research on their own practice, there is a lot of educational research that is not directly involved in practice. This often leads to unilateral research perspectives on educational practice. Therefore, this article calls for an alternative model of researching educational practice, summarised through the term 'pedagogical science'. We argue that practical and normative theories that seek to improve educational practice should be combined with theories that aim to describe and explain. It is further argued that the combination of such perspectives and theories, a so-called stereoscopic point of view, can allow for a thorough and holistic investigation of educational practice. As part of this argumentation, the article addresses critical questions of various theoretical models of educational research, models that are being used in Scandinavian, European and Anglo-American research on educational practice. With reference to interdisciplinary models of educational research, such as educational sciences, learning sciences and "Bildungswissenschaften," there are trends in which pedagogy is marginalised. Thus, the second argument of the article calls for placing pedagogy at the centre of knowledge production in a broad sense, after which pedagogy is made into a source of knowledge for pedagogical science, which sets forth to test and provide empirical support for pedagogy-based knowledge.

This article argues that Hegel's book The Phenomenology of Spirit can be read as a Bildungsroman or a theory of reception. Hegel (as he appears in this book) sets forth to educate his readers to a historical understanding. This is the article's main argument which will be split up in three parts. First, it seems that Hegel tries to lead the uneducated reader to his own ideal philosophy. If so, the reception will be merely technical, i.e., the book has only one answer and the reader has to submit to Hegel to get him right. The article argues against such a reading. Secondly, it seems more likely that Hegel invites his readers to take an active part in the interpretation of the book. To substantiate this claim, the article argues that the hitherto unknown phenomenon in the book "touches" and challenges the reader, who must "touch" back and accept the challenge in order to grasp the phenomenon. This reception involves the experience of "touch" (not physical) and is therefore haptic. Thirdly, and in extension of the haptic reception, the article argues that there is a reception as recollection, meaning that Hegel invites the reader to reflect upon the recollected experiences or "the gallery of images" that Hegel has archived in his book. In doing so, the reader will see the gallery of images with new eyes—which ultimately is a process of Bildung as the reader gains self-awareness and knowledge through Hegel's images. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the book "Forgotten Connections. On Culture and Upbringing," originally from 1983, the late German educator Klaus Mollenhauer interprets Johann Friedrich Herbart's educational concept of "Bildsamkeit", i.e., the ability and willingness to be educated. Furthermore, Mollenhauer conceives "Bildsamkeit" as growing out of a primitive state towards a cultivated life. The Danish thinker Søren Kierkegaard, however, conceives the Christian concept of "primitiveness" as a growing in the opposite direction, i.e., as a growing out of a cultivated state towards a primitive one, in which the self shall let itself be invented by "God". Thus, I investigate whether the concept of primitiveness may enrich the reflection on the educational concept of "Bildsamkeit", as it is conceived by Mollenhauer. Towards the end of the paper I turn to Emmanuel Levinas, whose ethical reading of the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud may reveal a weakness in Kierkegaard's concept of primitiveness. But rather than rejecting the concept of primitiveness, I suggest that we re-consider the concept, with the help of Levinas's transcendental perspective of "God". Essentially, I try to address the following question: Can "Bildsamkeit" be something more than the ability to be educated? Can not "Bildsamkeit" also be defined as being susceptible to "God", who transcends our existence, after which we are lead towards a teaching and education otherwise?

This article states that the concept of time we generally hold is a spatial version of time. However, a spatial time concept creates a series of problems, with unfortunate consequences for education.The problems become particularly obvious when the spatial time concept is used as a basis for the education function that is connected to the individuality of the pupils. In order to examine this problem more closely, the article turns to literature in order to get a new and different insight into education. In part four of the novel "Ada or Ardor: A family chronicle" (1969) the Russian-American author Vladimir Nabokov claims, by way of the protagonist Van Veen, that a spatial notion of time will lead to a determinate and reduced view of the future. Not only does one in this way sweep the very notion of time under the carpet, but one will moreover hinder the possibility of appearing as a unique and individualised person. Van is preoccupied with a pedagogic question: viz., the question of how one can become individualised through time. This is also the reason he attempts to re-create a time concept that can give him the status of a free and independent individual. With a background in Van's analysis of time, the article attempts to derive two forms for education. First, formal education, which bases itself on a spatial time concept. Secondly, non-formal education, which bases itself on a time concept that has freed itself in the greatest possible manner from space. Neither of these two solutions is appropriate in regard to education's individualising function. Therefore, the article draws on Nabokov's best-known novel, "Lolita" (1955), so as to broaden Van's understanding of time. In the end, then, the article articulates a time concept that introduces a notion of education where time occurs through acts of responsibility. Not until education has such a time concept as a basis, can one, so the article argues, attain the education function that has as its goal to individualise and make responsible children and young people.

This paper takes the position that the aim of existential teaching, i.e., teaching where existential questions are addressed, consists in educating the students in light of subjective truth, where the students are "educated" to exist on their own, i.e., independent of the teacher. The question is whether it is possible to educate in light of existence. It is, in fact impossible, as existence is a subjective matter, meaning that it must be determined individually. In this way the existential teaching appears thus: even though existence cannot be determined educationally, as it is a subjective matter, it does require some kind of education. However, the teacher cannot make use of pedagogical means that coerce the students to take responsibility for their subjective truth. A pedagogical "expedient" is nonetheless required, which deprives of all types of constraint but still opens up for the students taking responsibility for their subjective truth. I argue that this expedient must be irony, but not all types of irony. I therefore discuss which conception of irony the existential teaching should and should not be connected with.

This interview attempts to articulate what it might mean to speak for "Padagogik" in an era where new trends in education run the risk of marginalizing "Padagogik" as an independent academic discipline. This trend can be found in several European countries and is judged by Herner Saeverot and Gert Biesta to be a development that is cause for concern. (Contains 2 notes.)