Teachers’ planning considerations regarding students’ learning activities – an explorative study using the concepts of critical-constructive didactics as an analytical background

Abstract

This paper combines elements from three research domains: firstly, models of general didactics are taken into consideration. Secondly, research results on teachers’ lesson planning are reviewed. Thirdly, the paper takes up research on students’ activities and tasks.

Full text

Maria Hallitzky
Anatoli Rakhkochkine
Barbara Koch-Priewe
Jan Christoph Störtländer
Matthias Trautmann
(Hrsg.)
Vergleichende Didaktik und
Curriculumforschung
Comparative Research into
Didactics and Curriculum
Nationale und internationale Perspektiven
National and International Perspectives
Hallitzky
/
Rakhkochkine
/
Koch-Priewe
/
Störtländer
/
Trautmann (Hrsg.)
Vergleichende Didaktik und Curriculumforschung
Comparative Research into Didactics and Curriculum
Der vorliegende Band vereint nationale und interna-
tionale Perspektiven auf die Entwicklung von Curricula
sowie Prinzipien und (regionale) Rahmenbedingungen
ihrer Implementierung und Realisierung in unterricht-
lichen Settings.
Die vergleichenden Beiträge zu Curriculumforschung und
Didaktik ordnen theoretisch begründete Qualitätsanforde-
rungen an Curricula in den Horizont internationaler Maß-
stäbe ein. Mit Perspektiven auf 17 Länder und über alle
fünf Kontinente hinweg analysieren sie das Spannungsfeld
intentionaler Ansprüche und mikrodidaktischer Realisie-
rung und reflektieren die spezifischen kulturellen oder re-
gionalen Realisierungsformen und Bedingungen des Leh-
rens und Lernens. Bei aller regionalen Vielfalt zeigen sich
in den nationalen Diskurssträngen dabei überraschend
ähnliche Herausforderungen und Fragestellungen. Die Ein-
bindung methodologischer Fragen und Diskussionen zur
Praxis- und Innovationsforschung zielt darauf, die Ausein-
andersetzung von (angehenden) Lehrerinnen und Lehrern
mit Aspekten curricularer und didaktischer Entwicklung als
konstitutive Komponenten der Professionalisierung für die
Lehrerbildung fruchtbar zu machen.
978-3-7815-2120-9
Die Herausgeber
Die Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber lehren und
forschen forschen in den Bereichen Schulpädagogik,
Allgemeine Didaktik und Internationale und Vergleichende
Bildungswissenschaft.
Dr. Maria Hallitzky, Universität Leipzig.
Dr. Anatoli Rakhkochkine, Friedrich-Alexander-Universi-
tät Erlangen-Nürnberg.
Dr. Barbara Koch-Priewe, Universität Bielefeld.
Jan Christoph Störtländer, Universität Bielefeld.
Dr. Matthias Trautmann, Universität Siegen.

Hallitzky
/
Rakhkochkine
/
Koch-Priewe
/
Störtländer
/
Trautmann
Vergleichende Didaktik
und Curriculumforschung
Comparative Research into
Didactics and Curriculum

Maria Hallitzky
Anatoli Rakhkochkine
Barbara Koch-Priewe
Jan Christoph Störtländer
Matthias Trautmann
(Hrsg.)
Vergleichende Didaktik und
Curriculumforschung
Comparative Research into
Didactics and Curriculum
Nationale und internationale Perspektiven
National and International Perspectives
Verlag Julius Klinkhardt
"AD(EILBRUNNs

Dieser Titel wurde in das Programm des Verlages mittels eines Peer-Review-Verfahrens
aufgenommen. Für weitere Informationen siehe www.klinkhardt.de.
Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation
in der Deutschen National bibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten
sind im Internet abrufbar über http://dnb.d-nb.de.
NÚBY*ULIUS+LINKHARDT
Das Werk ist einschließlich aller seiner Teile urheberrechtlich geschützt.
Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung
des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen,
Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.
Satz: Kay Fretwurst, Spreeau.
Druck und Bindung: AZ Druck und Datentechnik, Kempten.
0RINTEDIN'ERMANY
Gedruckt auf chlorfrei gebleichtem alterungsbeständigem Papier.
)3".

Jan Christoph Störtländer, Harry Kullmann, Barbara Koch,
Anne Köker, Anna Pineker, Barbara Koch-Priewe
Teachers’ Planning Considerations Regarding Students’
Learning Activities
An Explorative Study Using the Concepts of Critical-Constructive Didactics as
an Analytical Background
1 Introduction
This paper combines elements from three research domains: l rstly, models of
general didactics are taken into consideration. Secondly, research results on teach-
ers’ lesson planning are reviewed. Thirdly, the paper takes up research on stu-
dents’ activities and tasks. Thus, the explorative study covers the intersection of
three related l elds:
Fig. 1: Central interrelated l elds
We decided to use the term ‘student activities’ instead of tasks because we found
that the common del nitions of ‘student tasks’ did not correspond to what teach-
ers were actually planning. For example, ‘speaking in a choir’ (see example below)
is rather an activity than a task because it does not involve independent and au-
tonomous thoughts or actions on behalf of the students within a specil c situation
(cf. Kleinknecht, 2010, p. 12).
Genera l
Didactics
Lesson
Planning
Tas ks,
Activities

78 |
2 Literature review and theoretical background
2.1 General Didactics and Lesson Planning
In our opinion, General Didactics is of present importance due to its theoret-
ical framing of “Bildung” (or the “German Didaktik Tradition” c.f. Westbury
et al, 1999; Arnold & Koch-Priewe, 20011; Arnold & Lindner Müller, 2012).
The approach is represented by several theories and models (e.g. Arnold, 2012)
of which this study focuses on the concept of Critical-Constructive Didactics
(Klafki, 1985) as it serves as a common reference point for didactical compendia
and federal states’ school laws (e.g. Peterßen, 2006; MSW-NRW, 2012). As the
associated lesson planning model – like other models of General Didactics – lacks
sufl cient empirical funding but nonetheless has a strong theoretical basis, we are
interested in relating this model to teachers’ real lesson planning activities.
Researchers have repeatedly claimed that teachers conduct their lesson planning
without reference to any models from General Didactics (c.f. Seel, 2011). How-
ever, Haag & Streber (2010) present empirical evidence of the opposite. While
Tebrügge (2001) describes lesson planning as domain-specil c, no such difference
can be found by Haag & Streber (ibid.). Thus, lesson planning studies with ex-
plicit reference to General Didactics are not only rare but also result in differential
l ndings (e.g. Mühlhausen, 1989; Haas, 1998; Hanke, 2012; Koch et al., 2013).
2.2 Lesson Planning and Research on Tasks
According to several studies (Bromme, 1981, 1992; Seel 2011), the core of lesson
planning is searching for tasks and assignments for the students to work on. Even
if teachers are not explicitly guided by models of Generals Didactics, they de facto
integrate aspects into their construction of tasks (Koch-Priewe, 1997, p. 147).
Educational psychology has extensively researched objective properties of tasks
as well as requirements for successful problem solving in general (tracing back
to Abeli, 1963; e.g. Renkl, 2010). Mathematics classes and students’ cognitive
performances have frequently been focused on. Blömeke emphasizes the danger
of reducing schools’ duty to only offering general education (‘Allgemeinbildung’)
by adopting unsubstantiated “task didactics” in which the inm uence of cognitive
psychology merely serves as an inspiration (Blömeke, 2009, p. 20).
2.3 The Bielefeld Approach
In our analysis regarding the subjective legitimation of teachers’ planning of stu-
dent activities, we took up the question raised by Blömeke on the analysis of tasks
from a General Didactics point of view. A student activity, as we conceptualise
it, comprises all anticipated and planned actions of students that are initiated by
questions or instructions. As we studied research on teachers’ subjective perspec-
tives in the context of Critical-Constructive Didactics, we encountered manifold
J.C. Störtländer, H. Kullmann, B. Koch, A. Köker, A. Pineker, B. Koch-Priewe

| 79
Teachers’ Planning Considerations Regarding Students’ Learning Activities
objections to Klafki’s model. The counterpoints were that the model is both con-
tent- and teacher-centered, and thus neglects student’s learning processes (e.g.
Meyer & Meyer, 2007, p. 75).
This raises the question whether, and if so how, students’ activities have been
integrated in didactical models. Our focus in this paper is thus the “perspective
scheme for lesson planning” (Klafki, 1985, cf. l g. 2). In extension of Klafki’s
didactical analysis (1958), he brings forward seven areas relevant for lesson plan-
ning:
Fig. 2: Perspective Scheme for Lesson Planning (Klafki, 1985, p. 272)
In the seventh area of this scheme – the procedural structure of teaching and
learning – the students’ learning processes have been taken into account. How-
ever, Kiper (e.g. 2011, p. 126) and others – with reference to Aebli (1963) –
criticize Klafki (e.g. Kiper 2011, p. 126) for not sufl ciently taking into account
psychological l ndings on students’ activities (learning and thought processes,
mental operations). This blank space could be l lled in by asking where and by
what means student activities could become visible within the perspective scheme.
Analys is of deter mining factors: Analysis of the social-cultu rally me diated conditio ns of a group of
learners (class), of the teacher, as well as of theinstitutionel conditions relevant for teaching (chan-
geable a nd non-c hangeable in the s hort-run), e.g. possible or probable diffi culties resp. incide nces.
(contex t of
justifi cation)
(thema and Structure)
(identifi cation
of possible
approaches and
(re-)presentations
(methodological
structure)
5. reviewability and
verifi ability
1. present importance
of lesson/unit
theme for students
2. future importance
of lesson/unit
theme for students
3. exemplary signifi -
cance, represented
by the general
objectives of the
teachin g unit,
the project or the
training sequence
4. thematic structure
(including second
order partial
objectives and
social learning
objectives)
6. a proach o r (re-)
presentation
(e.g. with and
through media)
7. proceduralstruc-
ture of teaching/
learning
understood as
variable concept
of necessary or
possible forms of
organisation and
implemantation of
learning (including
gradual sucessions)
and respective
teachin g aids,
being a interaction
nexus as well as a
medium fo r social
learning processes

80 |
Aiming at its further development, one also could ask in what way student activ-
ities inm uence the interconnection of the seven constitutive question areas (cf.
Fig. 2). From our point of view, such questions could be approached subsequent
to the ongoing research process.
We hereby bring forward an empirical study of teachers’ lesson planning. We took
a closer look at explicit and implicit categories from General Didactics that are used
to design and justify student activities. This exploratory study is a l rst step towards
empirically reconstructing the subjective didactical motives in lesson planning.
3 Research Questions
This study focuses on three research questions:
Õ How do teachers plan student activities?
Õ What didactical justil cation patterns can be ascertained?
Õ To what extent are these justil cations and Klafki’s perspective scheme related?
In order to answer these questions we analysed Think-Aloud-Protocols of teachers
planning their lessons. We aimed at assessing elements of planning which lead to
activities on a micro-scale, and then at categorizing these elements using General
Didactics as an analytical background.
4 Research Design
There is a broad variety of research designs concerning the cognition of teachers
planning lessons or giving lessons (e.g. Bromme, 1981; Clark & Peterson, 1986;
Leuchter et al., 2006). According to Bromme (1981, p. 70f.), the strategy of initi-
ating and recording verbalised thoughts in a process termed “Thinking Aloud” is
particularly suited for reconstructing lesson planning activities.
So far, three lesson planning sessions of primary school teachers have been as-
sessed by means of qualitative content analysis. During data collection, the narra-
tive process alone was stimulated whereas intervening or directing questions were
omitted (cf. Bromme, 1981, p. 69). Data analysis was carried out as follows:
Firstly, transcripts were used to inductively identify l rst criteria for teachers’ les-
son planning strategies. Preliminary results revealed that the teachers considered
student activities rather than l xed tasks or assignments. Our coding manual was
updated accordingly.
Secondly, we identil ed every planned and anticipated student activity. The num-
ber of activities for each lesson varied greatly; for example, between four and 24
activities were included in each l rst lesson of a teaching unit. These activities were
termed by the teachers as l xed, meaning they will be part of the procedure that
will happen in the planned lesson. We coded such activities as “accepted”.
J.C. Störtländer, H. Kullmann, B. Koch, A. Köker, A. Pineker, B. Koch-Priewe

| 81
Teachers’ Planning Considerations Regarding Students’ Learning Activities
Thirdly, the teachers’ subjective didactical justil cations for each student activity
were assessed. These justil cations were used in several cycles of reduction in order
to develop a categorical system containing main and sub-categories, as well as
additional inductive categories.
Fourthly, we are currently working on an advanced coding manual comprising
our recent results and coding instructions (cf. Mayring, 2010) to further assess
our data. The following chapter gives an insight into our l rst and preliminary
exploratory results.
5 Student Activities as Didactical Planning Element
As mentioned, looking for tasks or assignments in Think-Aloud-Protocols proved
itself to be unsatisfactory. Thus, our research group decided to use the broader
concept of student activities which includes classical tasks. The following quote
(an English teacher in a German primary school, pseudonym “Miss Yellow”) may
provide an example of why we moved from tasks to activities:
Ok, within a plenary discussion, that’s what I would do next, go into plenary session,
and, right, I collect the picture cards and then one could do this quite well, I ask “what
words do you remember?” “Do you remember the words?” (9 sec) In this way, one can
build up the black board picture step by step. One student states a word and I put the
picture card on the blackboard, OR, another possibility, I don’t put up the pictures but
another student does. Ok (writing) students state words, (4 sec) and other students put
picture cards on black board. Ok, then we have them all hanging there, hopefully, and
(5 sec) good (Miss Yellow, lines 714–723).
Teachers’ planning of student activities– and this is no new result – is frequently
based on different media and materials. Our exploratory study gives detailed insight
into how teachers proceed: They can either decide to independently (re-)design ac-
tivities anew or to adapt activities which they found in their materials (e.g. textbooks,
worksheets etc.). When adapting activities, teachers can choose to leave the activity
unchanged or adapt it according to their needs and preferences. When choosing the
latter, they do this with different amounts of justil cations. Additionally, albeit some
activities are considered useful, they are postponed or dismissed for other reasons. Of-
ten, we were able to observe recursive loops, iterative sequences and diverse changing
procedures. These phenomena cannot be reconstructed by a linear or one-dimen-
sional coding only (cf. Koch et al, 2013 for transcription examples).
Our inductive approach to the teachers’ subjective justil cations for student ac-
tivities allowed us to identify categories which can be understood as elements of
General Didactics, e.g. variation, increasing level of difl culty, connecting to prior
knowledge, rituals, motivational aspects of the content matter, stimulating cre-

82 |
ativity. As an illustration we provide the following planned unit concerned with
the musical fairytale “Peter and the Wolf” (“Miss Green”):
Ok, children considered animals l tting to the music, now of course one can, of course one
can move like these animals, like these animals to the music, of course. […] Or I give (.)
we can, I don’t know, do a little theater exercise with it, what do I know, that the animals
should move differently, that the animals should move cautiously or (…) whatnot, with
different emotions or the like. That they feel free with it and not only use music cognitively
but include motion. This is actually also quite exciting. […] and (…) maybe I can make up
a story or something (…) in which the animals occur, I don’t know exactly yet. For now
I’ll write down: “animals give a scenic portrayal of the music” (Miss Green, lines 600–618).
The categories according to Klafki’s perspective scheme yield patterns of reason-
ing that not only refer to the procedural structure of teaching and learning but
also to other areas of questions. Thus, we were able to identify aspects of present
importance, accessibility, thematic structure and interdependencies.
We will now take a closer look at one example to illustrate the relation of sub-
jective justil cations and the perspective scheme for lesson planning: The teacher
Ms. Yellow prepares a unit with the main objective of leading students to an un-
derstanding of program music and the metamorphosis of l gures, feelings etc.
into music (partial learning objective). In the very beginning, the teacher chooses
“Peter and the Wolf” to achieve the different learning objectives (accessibility
in a wider sense). In the course of planning she is rummaging through her ma-
terial. The role of this material and her actions remain open in the l rst instance:
“I just took this with me, I don’t really know yet if I can use it.” But she is then
inspired by a book to use the method “painting to music” (procedural structure of
teaching and learning). She then follows this thought without the book, but the
thematic and methodic basic structure for opening the unit has been made up.
The planning of “pictorial visualization of acoustic motives” combines the partial
learning objectives with the procedural structure of teaching and learning without
yet taking accessibility into account. This follows in the next and distinct planning
stage: the teacher eliminates l gures from the fairytale whose acoustic representation
is too demanding to discern for the students. She then selects l gures instead that,
according to her opinion, allow the students to initiate a creative process – painting
to music. She chooses the wolf’s motive as she considers it to be most accessible for
students to start their creative activities.
6 Conclusion
From the perspective of General Didactics, teachers’ lesson planning contains
diverse thoughts and motives that surpass mere content matter or a cognitivist
basis for analyzing single tasks. Therefore, our research interest turned from re-
J.C. Störtländer, H. Kullmann, B. Koch, A. Köker, A. Pineker, B. Koch-Priewe

| 83
Teachers’ Planning Considerations Regarding Students’ Learning Activities
constructing principles of task development to an assessment of student tasks.
The teachers who took part in our study prepared lessons by means of analyz-
ing anticipated student activities motivated by subjective justil cation structures
which bear elements of General Didactics.
We found empirical evidence on how teachers channeled the complexity of didac-
tic thought into a linear structure of sequences, but it also became clear in what
intertwined ways they related student activities to learning objectives, the unit’s
topic, questions of accessibility and other aspects of the teaching and learning
process. They implicitly took into account planning dimensions that are, on the
one hand, consonant with theoretical models of lesson planning. Yet on the other
hand, those thoughts are assembled around an ensemble of student activities.
For now, the question remains open what these results mean for a possible further
development of General Didactics and especially of the perspective scheme for
lesson planning by Klafki. However, the l rst interpretation of data holds out the
prospect that further research concerning the relation between General Didactics,
teachers’ lesson planning, and student activities will be fruitful.
References
Aebli, H. (1963). Psychologische Didaktik. Stuttgart: Klett.
Arnold, K.-H. & Koch-Priewe, B.: The Merging and the Future of Classical German Traditions in
General Didactics: A Comprehensive Framework for Lesson Planning. In: Hudson, B., Meyer,
M.A. (Eds.): Beyond Fragmentation: Didactics, Learning and Teaching in Europe. Opladen &
Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich 2011, pp. 252–264.
Arnold, K.-H. & Lindner-Müller, C. (2012). The German Tradition in General Didactics: Its origins,
major concepts, approaches, and perspectives. Jahrbuch für Allgemeine Didaktik, 2, 46–64.
Arnold, K.-H. (2012). Didactics (didactic models) and learning. In: Seel, N.M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of the sciences of learning (Vol. 4). Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 986–990.
Blömeke, S. (2009). Allgemeine Didaktik ohne empirische Lernforschung? Perspektiven einer rem e-
xiven Bildungsforschung. In: Arnold, K.H., Blömeke, S., Messner, R. & Schlömerkemper, J.
(Eds.), Allgemeine Didaktik und Lehr-Lernforschung. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt, pp. 13–25.
Bromme, R. (1981). Das Denken von Lehrern bei der Unterrichtsvorbereitung. Weinheim: Beltz.
Bromme, R. (1992). Der Lehrer als Experte. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Clark, D.M. & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In: Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.), Hand-
book of Research of Teaching. 3rd Ed. NY: Macmillan, pp. 255–296.
Haag, L. & Streber, D. (2010). Unterrichtsvorbereitung bei Lehrern – mit System? Lehrerbildung auf
dem Prüfstand, 3(1), pp. 107–117.
Haas, A. (1998). Unterrichtsplanung im Alltag. Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Planungshandeln
von Hauptschul-, Realschul- und Gymnasiallehrern. Regensburg: S. Roderer.
Hanke, U. (2012). Bedingungen und Prozesse des Lehrens. Warum Lehrende unterrichten, wie sie
unterrichten. Saarbrücken: Südwestdeutscher Verlag für Hochschulschriften.
Hanke, U. & Seel, N.M. (2012). Why teachers act as they do in teaching? A descriptive theory of
teaching. Jahrbuch für Allgemeine Didaktik 2012, (2), pp. 159–179.
Kiper, H. (2011). Unterrichtsplanung auf der Grundlage einer Integrativen Didaktik. Jahrbuch für
Allgemeine Didaktik, 1, pp. 125–142.

84 |
Klafki, W. (1958/1963). Die didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung. In: Ders.,
Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Weinheim: Beltz, pp. 126–153.
Klafki, W. (1985). Zur Unterrichtsplanung im Sinne kritisch-konstruktiver Didaktik. In: Ders., Neue
Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Zeitgemäße Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruk-
tive Didaktik. Weinheim: Beltz, pp. 251–284.
Kleinknecht, M. (2010). Aufgabenkultur im Unterricht. Eine empirisch-didaktische Video- und In-
terviewstudie an Hauptschulen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.
Kleinknecht, M., Maier, U., Metz, K. & Bohl, T. (2011). Analyse des kognitiven Aufgabenpotenzials.
Entwicklung und Erprobung eines allgemeindidaktischen Auswertungsmanuals. Unterrichtswis-
senschaft, 39(4), S. 328–344.
Koch, B., Koch-Priewe, B., Köker, A., Kullmann, H., Pineker, A. & Störtländer, J.C. (2013).
Schüleraktivitäten in den Planungsüberlegungen von Lehrern: Eine explorative Studie zur Di-
daktik im Kontext der kritisch-konstruktiven Didaktik. Jahrbuch für Allgemeine Didaktik, 3,
pp. 267–277.
Koch-Priewe, B. (1997). Grundlegung einer Didaktik der Lehrerbildung. Der Beitrag der wissenspsy-
chologischen Professionsforschung und der humanistischen Pädagogik. In: Bayer, M., Carle, C. &
Wildt, J. (Eds.), Brennpunkt: Lehrerbildung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 139–163.
Leuchter, M., Pauli, C., Reusser, K. & Lipowsky, F (2006). Unterrichtsbezogene Überzeugungen und
handlungsleitende Kognitionen von Lehrpersonen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4),
pp. 562–579.
Leuders, T. (2010). Nachdenken geboten – Unterrichtskonzepte zur Förderung selbstständiger
Rem exion im Mathematikunterricht. In: Bohl, T., Kansteiner-Schänzlin, K., Kleinknecht, M.,
Kohler, B. & Nold, A. (Eds.), Selbstbestimmung und Classroom-Management. Bad Heilbrunn:
Klinkhardt, pp. 221–235.
Maier, U., Kleinknecht, M., Metz, K., Schymala, M. & Bohl, T. (2010). Entwicklung und Erprobung
eines Kategoriensystems für die fächerübergreifende Aufgabenanalyse. Forschungsbericht zum Pro-
jekt Aufgabenkultur in der Hauptschule. Nürnberg: Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 11. Aum . Weinheim: Beltz.
Meyer, M.A. & Meyer, H. (2007). Wolfgang Klafki. Eine Didaktik für das 21. Jahrhundert? Weinheim:
Beltz.
Mühlhausen, U. (1989). Die Determiniertheit des Unterrichts durch Lehrer- und Schülerpläne. Un-
terrichtswissenschaft, 17(1), S. 60–78.
MSW-NRW = Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes NRW: Schulgesetz 2012. Online
verfügbar unter: www.schulministerium.nrw.de/BP/Schulrecht/Gesetze/Schulgesetz.pdf [30.6.2013].
Peterßen, W.H. (2006). Handbuch Unterrichtsplanung. 9. Aum .München: Oldenbourg.
Seel, A. (2011). Von der Unterrichtsplanung zum konkreten Lehrerhandeln — eine Untersuchung
zum Zusammenhang von Planung und Durchführung von Unterricht bei Hauptschullehrerstu-
dentinnen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 25(3), S. 257–272.
Tebrügge, A. (2001). Unterrichtsplanung zwischen didaktischen Ansprüchen und alltäglicher Berufs-
anforderung. Eine empirische Studie zum Planungshandeln von Lehrern in den Fächern Deutsch,
Mathematik und Chemie. Frankfurt/M: Lang.
Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., Riquarts, K. (1999). Teaching as a Rem ective Practice. The German
Didaktik Tradition. London: Routledge.
J.C. Störtländer, H. Kullmann, B. Koch, A. Köker, A. Pineker, B. Koch-Priewe

Maria Hallitzky
Anatoli Rahkhochkine
Barbara Koch-Priewe
Jan Christoph Störtländer
Matthias Trautmann
(Hrsg.)
Vergleichende Didaktik und
Curriculumforschung
Comparative Research into
Didactics and Curriculum
Nationale und internationale Perspektiven
National and International Perspectives
Hallitzky
/
Rahkhochkine
/
Koch-Priewe
/
Störtländer
/
Trautmann (Hrsg.)
Vergleichende Didaktik und Curriculumforschung
Comparative Research into Didactics and Curriculum
Der vorliegende Band vereint nationale und interna-
tionale Perspektiven auf die Entwicklung von Curricula
sowie Prinzipien und (regionale) Rahmenbedingungen
ihrer Implementierung und Realisierung in unterricht-
lichen Settings.
Die vergleichenden Beiträge zu Curriculumforschung und
Didaktik ordnen theoretisch begründete Qualitätsanforde-
rungen an Curricula in den Horizont internationaler Maß-
stäbe ein. Mit Perspektiven auf 17 Länder und über alle
fünf Kontinente hinweg analysieren sie das Spannungsfeld
intentionaler Ansprüche und mikrodidaktischer Realisie-
rung und reflektieren die spezifischen kulturellen oder re-
gionalen Realisierungsformen und Bedingungen des Leh-
rens und Lernens. Bei aller regionalen Vielfalt zeigen sich
in den nationalen Diskurssträngen dabei überraschend
ähnliche Herausforderungen und Fragestellungen. Die Ein-
bindung methodologischer Fragen und Diskussionen zur
Praxis- und Innovationsforschung zielt darauf, die Ausein-
andersetzung von (angehenden) Lehrerinnen und Lehrern
mit Aspekten curricularer und didaktischer Entwicklung als
konstitutive Komponenten der Professionalisierung für die
Lehrerbildung fruchtbar zu machen.
978-3-7815-2120-9
Die Herausgeber
Die Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber lehren und
forschen forschen in den Bereichen Schulpädagogik,
Allgemeine Didaktik und Internationale und Vergleichende
Bildungswissenschaft.
Dr. Maria Hallitzky, Universität Leipzig.
Dr. Anatoli Rakhkochkine, Friedrich-Alexander-Universi-
tät Erlangen-Nürnberg.
Dr. Barbara Koch-Priewe, Universität Bielefeld.
Jan Christoph Störtländer, Universität Bielefeld.
Dr. Matthias Trautmann, Universität Siegen.