How learning is organized, how it is perceived, how issues about it are debated are always rooted in the particularities of national histories, of national habits, and national aspirations.

W. A. Reid (1998)

 As Stefan Hopmann and Kurt Riquarts note in their Introduction to this volume, Didaktik is a tradition of thinking about teaching and learning which is virtually unknown in the English-speaking world. Although the core of this volume will be taken up with texts from Didaktik, intended to introduce readers to this tradition in its own words, we will also be arguing in the pages that follow, implicitly if not explicitly, that this German tradition of curricular and pedagogical thought is worth the sustained and serious attention of those who work within the "Anglo-Saxon" educational and curriculum traditions. We will be arguing that Didaktik provides ways of thinking that highlight some very important, and universal, educational questions that are not well-defined in the English-language curriculum tradition. In addition, we propose that Didaktik suggests ways of thinking about, and some practical approaches to, some of the core tasks of preservice and inservice education of teachers, which many recognize are not being well handled in American teacher education. In this introductory chapter to this volume, I will sketch one version of the case that I have asserted in these sentences and, at the same time, seek to outline a framework for reading the chapters that follow.

But is it possible that there are ways of discussing the "curriculum" and teacher education that are different from those we Anglo-Saxons know and that our curriculum, and our practice of teacher education, might learn from? Hopmann and Riquarts outline a case for this difference in their Introduction to this volume. However, Wolfgang Klafki (1995; see Chapters 5 and 8), one of the most distinguished of contemporary scholars in the Didaktik tradition, has suggested that "curriculum," i.e., American curriculum theory, and Didaktik are not far apart, not least because they are concerned with the same set of issues:

• teaching and learning goals;

• the topics and contents that follow;

• organizational forms, teaching and learning methods and procedures;

• teaching and learning media;

• prerequisites, disturbing factors, and unintentional auxiliary effects; and

• the ways in which learning results and forms can be controlled and evaluated.

One implication of this kind of listing is that Didaktik can be more or less straightforwardly assimilated to the categories of English-language curriculum theory. I, on the other hand, will be arguing here, with Hopmann and Riquarts, that, although Didaktik and curriculum theory do address similar issues or topics, there are fundamental differences in the ways in which traditional American curriculum theory and Didaktik have posed, and then sought to answer, the questions that flow from these topics. These differences provide, if nothing else, directions for elaboration within the curriculum tradition. In addition, there is a body of issues that are addressed within the Didaktik framework that are simply not asked within the curriculum tradition &emdash; but are very important. Didaktik also has highly developed (and highly usable) approaches to the education of teachers that flow from its starting points which are also not found in the Anglo-Saxon tradition of teacher education. It is these features of Didaktik, and the different way of thinking about the "curriculum" that they represent that makes this German tradition of educational thought so interesting for Anglo-Saxons. But what are these differences, and why do they occur?

 In the American case the dominant idea animating the curriculum tradition has been organizational, focusing on the tasks of the building of systems of schools which have as an important part of their overall organizational framework a "curriculum-as-manual," containing the templates for coverage and methods that are seen as guiding, directing, or controlling a school, or a school system's, day-by-day classroom work. These manuals replicate, in place after place, the somewhat open categories of the national, institutional curriculum &emdash; but it is seen as a major responsibility and task of each school system to decide, for itself and after appropriate public deliberation, what the larger national curriculum means for this place in the light of its circumstances. The resulting curricula are sometimes "progressive" in spirit and sometimes not so progressive, but that difference is not essential. What is essential is the idea that public control of the schools means that, whatever the character of the curriculum that is developed for a school or school system, teachers as employees of the school system have been, and are, expected to "implement" their system’s curricula &emdash; albeit with verve and spirit &emdash; just as a system’s business officials are expected to implement a system’s accounting procedures or pilots are expected to follow their airline’s rules governing what they should do (see Westbury, 1994). Teachers are, to use Clandinin and Connelly's (1992) apt metaphor, seen as more or less passive "conduits" of the system’s or district’s curriculum decisions. Curriculum as a field of study within American education has traditionally sought to address, and to prescribe for, the problems involved in developing and implementing curricula seen in this way.

In the German case, on the other hand, the state's curriculum-making has not been seen as something which could or should explicitly direct a teacher’s work &emdash; indeed, teachers are guaranteed professional autonomy, "freedom to teach," without control by a curriculum in the American sense. The state "curriculum," the Lehrplan, does lay out prescribed content for teaching, but this content is understood as an authoritative selection from cultural traditions that can only become educative as it is interpreted and given life by teachers &emdash; who are seen, in their turn, as normatively directed by the elusive concept of Bildung, or formation, and by the ways of thinking found in the "art" of Didaktik.

Thus, Didaktik is centered on the forms of reasoning about teaching appropriate for an autonomous professional teacher who has complete freedom within the framework of the Lehrplan to develop his or her own approaches to teaching. Didaktik, as a system for thinking about the problems of the "curriculum," is not centered on the task of directing and managing the work of system of schools or of selecting a curriculum for this school or this district. Instead Didaktik, as Wallin (1998) put it, provides teachers with ways of considering the essential what, how and why questions around their teaching of their students in their classrooms. These are, of course, the core issues that are the heart of a reflective practice of teaching! Within Didaktik the range of possible answers to these questions are further elaborated to become, in turn, frameworks for structuring, and sometimes assessing, the larger rationales teachers have for their classroom work. The centrality Didaktik gives to such rationales for teacher thinking reflects its starting point that every teacher must, necessarily, assume a role as reflective educational (and curriculum) theorist in order to teach anything, anywhere. Table 1 below spells out these core assumptions of the German Didaktik and contrasts them with the core assumptions of the Anglo-Saxon curriculum tradition.

 Table 1. Didaktik and curriculum compared (adapted from Hopmann and Riquarts (1995: 26).

As I have suggested, it is these starting points around Didaktik, and the ways in which they are elaborated and worked out in relation to the idea of Bildung, that makes this tradition so interesting to those from outside its northern and middle European worlds. Didaktik offers ways of thinking about issues that have been, to this point, barely identified, and certainly not elaborated, in American educational theory. We argue in this volume that a better-developed relationship between curriculum and Didaktik would promise a great deal for "Anglo-Saxon" educational theory, curriculum studies, and teacher education. However, seeing the promise of Didaktik takes work &emdash; because, as Reid (1998) points out, the Didaktik tradition, like the curriculum tradition, is rooted in the particularities of a national history, national habits, and national aspirations.

In the balance of this chapter I will explore these claims &emdash; and, in so doing so, frame this book &emdash; by, first, offering an interpretation of the traditional Anglo-Saxon curriculum theory and Didaktik individually as ideal-types, and then comparing them. I conclude by outlining a framework which offers a way of seeing the constructive relationship between the two traditions that we need &emdash; when we come to know each other better.

 Curriculum Theory and Research

For American students, the world that education should help to create is presented as objectified . . . . The social and cultural world is [seen as] an objective structure . . . The task of curriculum [is] to present this structure to students, and help them determine what place they will occupy in it. The premises behind such reasoning are, firstly, that culture and society can be rendered in facts to be learned and, secondly, that, for students, the question of how they are to relate to society and culture is one that they have complete freedom to answer for themselves.

Reid (1998: 13)

 If we start our analysis by staying close to the practical curriculum work found in the world of American schools, all of the essential elements of curriculum studies can still be readily described within the framework outlined in the core text of the field, Ralph Tyler's (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, that is, the Tyler Rationale. 1 In the text of the Rationale, but also in the nested national-to-local praxis it symbolizes, there are two distinct themes and several sub-themes; and while these aspects of curriculum thinking are generally seen as fused, they reflect different strands in American curriculum theory &emdash; and become different issues in practice.

First, there is the assumption which Reid (1998: 13) identifies, that the world that the school seeks to reflect is objective and can be "rendered into facts to be learned" &emdash; an assumption which leads inevitably to (and at the same time is a result of) a managerial framework for, first, curriculum development and specification and, later, for the control and evaluation of the effectiveness of educational "service delivery." The core curriculum technologies of planning, objective-writing, instruction, test development and curriculum evaluation follow from the larger framework.

This structure is seen as rational 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. In the Rationale, this rationality is value-neutral and framed by the steps of assessing, (1), subject-matters and the "needs" of students and society and, (2), screening what emerges from this analysis by way of a normative and a psychological analysis. The conclusions of such analyses provide the basis from which the goals of a school can emerge, which are in turn transformed into courses and units with their behavioral objectives &emdash; from which instructional methods, forms of student assessment, and curriculum evaluation follow. This evaluation provides feedback to the curriculum developers and teachers about the quality and appropriateness of their work. What happens in classrooms as a curriculum is transformed into teaching is not seen as a major problem. It is assumed that teachers can, or should, faithfully implement the curriculum if it is well developed and teachers are appropriately prepared to use it.

The second strand in the Tyler Rationale, and in American curricular thought more generally, gives the field its reforming, as distinct from its managerial, themes. This second strand, which emerged in the 1920s and 1930s contains three disparate aspects: first, curriculum work incorporated into itself the progressive movements of that period for the reform of the pedagogy of the elementary school; second, it picked up the set of tasks associated with the emergence of mass terminal secondary education as distinct from the élite preparatory secondary education of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This transition required both ideological and public legitimation of the curricular changes that were seen as the necessary concomitants of a "new" school intended to serve new classes of pupils, and the communication of the social inventions that accompanied the "new" school of the American 1930s, the comprehensive, "democratic" high school. The curriculum field took on this task of ideological legitimation of the new ways for teachers and the task of "teaching" teachers and school administrators how the new ways might work.

These communicative, educational tasks of the curriculum field, which necessarily involved some distance from existing institutional categories and the organization of the then-school, were taken up aggressively by the new class of university "intellectuals" who addressed the curriculum "problem." With the entry of these intellectuals to the center of the activity curriculum studies assumed its modern form: it became an expert endeavor which sought to support, rationalize, direct and legitimate changes being undertaken in the schools, or changes which should be undertaken in schools. While this movement identified itself with the curriculum, and with the work of progressive schools districts, schools, and teachers, the target was still the "system," albeit a reformed system (see Westbury, 1992; Doyle and Westbury, 1992).

The three primary themes circling around all American discussions of curriculum follow from this history and from its embedded cultural understandings and institutions. First, as the formal plan-of-work for a publicly-determined and centrally-managed, community- or nation-wide service delivery system, all discussion of the curriculum is framed in terms of conceptions of public "needs," with the school being seen as the agency for satisfying those "needs" by way of its structured (and codified) programs. No other conception is available within the dominant curriculum theory tradition or its policy-making mate. Second, curriculum thinking is inextricably associated with notions of "modernization" and "reform" of the schools. Both the reforming rhetorics and the systemic technologies that are the focus of much of traditional curriculum theory exist to change and redirect schools as institutions, not to maintain and support them or to nurture the on-going, routine work of their teachers! Finally, within the managerial perspective of curriculum, teachers are always the invisible agents of the system, seen as "animated" and directed by the system, and not as sources of animation for the system. This starting point leads to a view that existing teachers are a (if not the) major brake on the innovation, change, and reform that the schools always seem to require. As I will suggest in the concluding pages of this chapter, it is this view of the teacher as a cipher for the curriculum which represents perhaps the major source of internal tension within contemporary, "progressive" curriculum theory and practice. And, as I have been foreshadowing, it is their respective views of the teacher, and the role the teacher is given within their theoretical and institutional systems, that represents the most dramatic difference in viewpoint between Didaktik and curriculum theory.

For European students, [the world that education should help to create is presented] as subjectified . . . There are things to be learned . . . but students should be encouraged to "plot their own course."

W. A. Reid (1998)

The "Didaktiker" does not begin by asking how a student learns, how a pupil can be led towards a body of knowledge, nor does he or she ask what a student should be able to do or know . . . . The Didaktiker looks first for the point of a prospective object of learning in terms of Bildung, asks what it can and should signify to the student, and how students themselves can themselves experience this significance.

Rudolf Künzli

 

 The institutional and ideological form of the American (public) school system, and thus the institutional context for the American form of the curriculum and curriculum studies that I described above, emerged in the large cities of the United States in first half of the 19th century &emdash; and was a response to the problems associated with creating an effective administrative system for urban mass elementary education (see Kaestle, 1973a, b). The core structures and institutional context of the contemporary German school system are associated historically with the Gymnasium or academic secondary school, with the last decades of the 18th century and the first decades of the 19th century, and predate both Germany's urbanization and the emergence of the educational and curricular "systems" of the Anglo-American world. This German world was, in Grafton’s (1983) wonderful words, "a homely tapestry of Biedermeir, Bildung, and Besitz [i.e., property], populated by the large provincial burghers of small provincial cities, and only occasionally blackened by the smoke of a small factory." The very different contexts of emergence of Didaktik and curriculum studies in socially- and culturally-embedded systems for schooling lie at the very heart of the intellectual and practical differences between the two field. Let me briefly trace some of the tributaries that have flowed into modern Didaktik.

The German states developed systematized educational administrations in the 18th century and, in the first decade of the 19th century, extended the scope of this administration to the curriculum, and after 1830 to teacher education for the Gymnasium and the elementary school. But these states did not assume responsibility for the direct management of the pre-existing networks of schools adminstered by churches, towns, and foundations, but, rather, their initial focus of concern, the Lehrplan or the state-prescribed curriculum, was a set of guidelines to regulate the subjects and topics to be taught in these schools. Schools, and later individual teachers, were licensed to teach the topics outlined in the Lehrplan; thus, schools and classrooms had instructional plans, but schools and local administrative units did not have "curricula!" The management of schools, and teaching and planning for teaching, was thus decoupled from the idea of a curriculum.

Given the prior existence of long-sanctioned networks of schools which the state did not have the power to control, administrative expediency played an important role in the development of these institutional patterns. But, at the same time, the traditions associated with the larger context of the German professions &emdash; traditions that are very different from those of the English-speaking world &emdash; also played an important role in the emergence of the modern Didaktik.

 The framework for all German professions was (and is) heavily dependent on the state and on the idea of professional licensing (see Hopmann, 1988). Licensure gives a state-sanctioned right of autonomous practice by professionals within the state's legal and administrative frameworks. The prerogatives symbolized by such licensure are, in turn, derived from the German system of higher education and state examination of professionals. Within this framework, higher education and the state worked together to form a structure that, in Jarausch's (1990: 14) words,

imparted the general liberal education (Bildung) that is necessary for an elevated social position, a modicum of abstract scholarly knowledge (Wissenschaft) that is necessary for generalized problem solving, and some degree of trade training (Ausbildung) facilitating subsequent practical learning. The complex system of two tiers of state examinations, with the first testing scientific information and the second checking its application to practice, elevated all German academic vocations above lesser pursuits.

Just as "the law" provides the framework and the rationale for a lawyer’s professional work, Didaktik was to emerge to provide rationales within the terms of which "professional" teachers could reason about, and if necessary defend, their interpretations of the Lehrplan as the authoritative administrative framework for their professional work. And over time Didaktik became, as Hopmann and Gundem (1998: 341) point out, the common "language by which state administrators, principals, teachers, and all others involved in the process of education, could communicate about how to work within the framework" of the Lehrplan.

The form and manner of the intertwining of the state and the university around the professions in early 19th-century Germany also meant that the professions, and particularly Gymnasium or academic secondary school teachers and teachers in pedagogical seminaries, were influenced, in ways not found at any time in American public schooling, by "cultural" issues. The complex strains of influence which followed from this were central in the formation of the ideology of modern German teachers and teaching, and played a decisive role in the creation of both the intellectual and the professional framework around teaching that was to determine the essential character of both traditional and modern Didaktik. One strand of this influence was quite fundamental.

In the middle years of the 18th century, Staatswissenschaften, the sciences of the state, dominated both educated public opinion in the German lands and were the cutting edge of university change and reform. 2 These state sciences reflected a larger interest in practical and utilitarian images of the social order, the economy, and human nature. Thinking about education, Pädagogik, was seen from this viewpoint as a form of inductive science that sought to develop an understanding of the universal principles governing human growth, and the "art" of applying those principles. The 18th-century Staatswissenschaften were, of course, the precursors of the "sciences" of society, i.e., sociology and economics, and the individual, i.e., psychology, that emerged in their modern form in the 19th century and, of course, became the "sciences" that American school leaders and researchers were to use, in the 20th century, to justify and rationalize their reforms of schooling.

However, in Germany, in the last years of the 18th century, a "new" creed emerged to contest the ideology of Staatswissenschaften. Instead of celebrating the prosperity, order and opportunity that was possible in a properly constituted state, the new generation of neo-humanists would write that:

The true end of Man, or that which is prescribed by the eternal and immutable dictates of reason, and not suggested by the vague and transient, is the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole. (Humboldt, 1969: 16)

This movement, with the word Bildung or "formation" as its"embodiment," ³ was decisively important for the future of German thinking about teaching and schooling, and of the German professions and culture more generally. 4 It overwhelmingly captured the heart not only of university humanists and classicists, and the Gymnasium teachers and other professionals who graduated from their classes and seminars, but also much of German culture. Indeed, Louis Dumont’s fascinating study, German Ideology (1994: 35; 19-20) explores the idea of Bildung with its ebbs and flows as "representative of the entirety of German culture" in the 19th and 20th century:

The German intellectual not only ignores society (Gesellschaft) in the narrow sense of the word, but at the same time, in his inner life, he thinks of himself as an individual and devotes all his care to the development of his personality. This is the famous ideal of Bildung, or "self-cultivation". . . Here then is a duality which is both characteristic and at first sight puzzling. On the one hand, there is quiet survival, in modern times, of the community, that is to say, of a holistic feeling and orientation. . . On the other hand, there is a pronounced inner development of individuality, a jealous interiority devoutedly attended to.

Under the impulse of neo-humanism, this formative "inner development of individuality" was seen to occur as a result of the encounter of the individual with beauty and character in literature, in societies, and in cultures, and particularly the classical Greek culture. However, the actual form of this encounter in schools and universities in the first half of the 19th century was via teaching the methods necessary for the detailed, careful reading of texts that embodied that culture, teaching that was pointed towards the independent, scholarly analysis of these texts to create new knowledge of the ancient world. The graduates of such teaching were socialized to image themselves as scholars teaching, if they were successful, potential scholars with the skills needed to do highly disciplined "research" (Grafton, 1983).

However, in the last decades of the 19th century a new generation of Bildung-centered teachers in Gymnasien, in pedagogical seminaries for elementary teacher education, and in university-based pedagogical seminars for Gymnasium teachers began to articulate new conceptions of the teachers’ role &emdash; although it was one that continued to draw heavily on the then century-old ideal of Bildung. Thus, beginning around the mid-century, Gymnasium teachers began to image themselves not as potential scholars in their own right but, rather, as cultural leaders who had as their central responsibility the task of teaching in a way that would and should breathe life into a school and a middle- and upper-class social culture that was seen as a dry and formulaic (Pyenson, 1983). This new self-conception of the Gymnasium teacher fused with the widespread acceptance of a "genetic," "heuristic" teaching practice that saw understanding as a process of becoming to be nurtured by teachers as they refined and clarified simple ideas in the classics, physics, math, and so on, in ways that permitted students to easily grasp them. If students were taught in this way it was believed that they could and would actively participate in their own formation and be led to the comprehensive world-view that was immanent in, say, the sciences, mathematics, or Greek and Latin literature.

In the same period, both pedagogical seminaries and state examinations to prepare and initially license elementary school teachers as well as state examinations for the further licensing of school leaders were being institutionalized. The need for a "content" for these institutions stimulated a different kind of exploration of the ideas of Bildung and the educational theories of Herbart, Pestalozzi, Froebel and the like &emdash; which resulted in the emergence of an allgemeine Didaktik (i.e., a general, "whole-curriculum" Didaktik as distinct from the Fachdidaktik, i.e., subject-based Didaktiks, of the Gymnasium). It was from these seminaries that the first systematic compilations of Didaktik thought were to emerge; for elementary teachers, and for the teacher educators who worked alongside them, this Didaktik, a body of professional knowledge specific to their work, was crucial to their eventual professionalization.

The modern bildungstheoretische (Bildung-theory) and kulturtheoretische (culture theory) Didaktik traditions that Künzli describes in Chapter 2 emerged in the last years of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th century out of these streams of thought about the art of teaching. This new Didaktik brought together, and elaborated within the crucible of new discipline of Pädagogik, or education, the central ideas and approaches of both the elementary school-based allgemeine Didaktik and the secondary school-based Fachdidaktik -- as well as many elements of turn-of-the-century German culture. Thus, for the group around Herman Nohl (1879-1960) at the University of Gottingen, the Geisteswissenschaft (human-science) perspective of the Wilhelm Dilthey, with its emphasis on the necessity of a hermeneutic orientation in research in the human sciences, provided the starting point for a highly elaborated version of bildungstheoretische Didaktik, the geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik, i.e., human-science theory of education (see Weniger, Chapter 6), that had at its center both an explicitly hermeneutic Didaktik as well as the period’s concerns for a "progressive" reform of the school. The most developed, practical form of this human-science Didaktik is represented in this volume in Wolfgang Klafki’s "Didaktik analysis as the core of preparation of instruction" (see Chapter 8; see also Chapter 5), but we also see its hermeneutic orientation in "Didaktik as a theory of education" (see Chapter 6) by Erich Weniger, Noel’s succcessor as leader of the Göttinger Schule, and Heinrich Roth’s "The art of lesson preparation" (see Chapter 7).

 In other words, while the forms of schooling and teaching associated and legitimated by the ideal of Bildung were to change in the course of the 19th 20th centuries, 5 Bildung-centered humanism as an idea and ideal insulated much of German education from both empiricism and the idea that education, i.e., Pädagogik, could be a science until well into the 1960s. And contemporary bildungstheoretische Didaktik, and the subject-matter Didaktiks that flow from it, continue to be centered on the idea of Bildung and on the ideal of the teacher as a reflective professional who works within, but is not directed by, the framework provided by the "text" of the state curriculum, the Lehrplan. It continues to search for ways of offering students an experience in the school that can assist their development of a comprehensive world view. It continues to seek the explication of generalizable forms of teacher thinking and reflection, and examples of such thinking, to support the search for ways in which classroom practices and environments can support a personal and subjective encounter by students with potentially educative (in the sense of Bildung) subject matters, forms of social life, tradition, and the like. In the words of Wolfgang Klafki (see Chapter 8), one of the leaders of the post-World War 2 restoration and extension of the Weimar period’s geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik,

The task of Didaktik analysis . . . is . . . to establish as the pedagogically crucial elements of the material those parts "on which its internalization [one could also say, its power to penetrate] depends or, inversely, in which the form of subjective Bildung is fulfilled and perfected" . . . In other words, Didaktik analysis is to indicate wherein the general substance of specific content of education lies.

To do this, Didaktik provides models of teacher thinking, the elaborated forms of Didaktik analysis seen in Chapter 8, which can be institutionalized in teacher education and can, when internalized, structure reflection on the transformation to active life in the classroom of the educational potential that is available in the Lehrplan. Although contemporary Didaktik seeks to do this with a more critical stance towards the Lehrplan than is found in the classical bildungstheoretische Didaktik tradition, the underlying Bildung-centered starting point of the traditional Didaktik remains. And while Fachdidaktik, the Didaktik of subject-based teaching, has assimilated the frameworks of one or another psychology, it has, as we see in the chapters by Peter Reinhold (Chapter 17) and Michael Neubrand (Chapter 14) in Part 4, maintained its links with traditional Didaktik with its overriding concern for the formative potential of subject matter. Didaktik in all its forms is teacher- rather than system-centered: its focus, and ideal, is on the role of the teacher in "forming" rather than "instructing" his or her students and, to do this, celebrates the individuality of each teacher as an active, reflective curriculum maker and theorist rather than seeing the teacher as an agent of a workplace manual of best practices, i.e., a curriculum or curriculum package.

 To this point I have attempted to set out the context and character of the curriculum and Didaktik traditions separately. Now let me try to sketch the differences I see between the two systems more systematically. They are, as I have indicated, very different in their environing contexts, in their starting points and methods, and in the work they seek to do &emdash; but mapping these differences lays out a richly-textured territory.

Let me begin by summarizing the argument of the previous sections about the institutional contexts of curriculum theory and Didaktik. In the American world there is a vision of a system of schools with clear public purposes and well articulated curriculum, and a consequent strong and overt formal control over teachers as employees of the system. In this context "professionalism" is a contested and attenuated aspiration for American secondary or elementary teachers, and this is reflected in the language used to describe teacher education: teachers are "trained" and "certified" to teach the curriculum -- and then re-trained and "in-serviced." Teachers are not "licensed" as self-determining professionals who work within a larger institutional framework that directs, but does not control, the details of their work.

As I have noted, in the U.S. the role of the system in prescribing what teachers do &emdash; as employees &emdash; has been traditionally symbolized by the notion of the "curriculum" as an authoritative and directive manual of teaching tasks to be undertaken and procedures to be used. It is the responsibility of the elected governing authorities of each school system to determine the curricula (and the textbooks that will be used) that instantiate and symbolize the public values and goals of the school system &emdash; although more recently external testing has been the preferred mechanism of symbolic and organizational control. Traditional American curriculum thought has found its problems, and derived its language, from the framing assumptions that this context creates; traditional curriculum ideology, scholarship and practice is the servant of this larger institution &emdash; as is symbolized by its preoccupation with "curriculum implementation."

In Germany, on the other hand, teaching in the Gymnasium, or academic secondary school, was firmly "professionalized" by the mid-19th century &emdash; and, as Jarausch (1990 c; emphasis added) observes, the German professional ideal, which was to spread from academic secondary teachers to other kinds of teachers, centers on an effort to establish a "middle ground of expert self-determination" against bureaucratic, i.e., systemic, regulation. Like lawyers and engineers, teachers

expected autonomy of practice, with their "professional" decisions reviewed not by clients or employers, but by peers in a system of self-discipline. To justify such privileges, these callings embraced an ethos of public service, which was linked to central social values such as law, knowledge, and progress. (Jarausch, 1990 c: 219)

For the teacher the Bildungsideale is the "central social value" of teaching as a profession.

Didaktik is the institutionalized framework within which both generalist and subject teachers, and the profession of teaching, has pursued, and pursues, its aspiration to professional self-determination. Didaktik, as a body of theories and frameworks which order the considerations involved in planning for and thinking about Bildung-centered, formative teaching, provides the language for teacher reflection &emdash; and, as such, is a necessary and principal focus of formal teacher education. And while the Lehrplan, the state's framework for teaching, provides the institutional context for the teacher's work, this context is seen as embedded in the more fundamental social value of a Bildungsideale and the art of Didaktik analysis and reasoning, which serves to marry the resources the culture has for formation, represented in the Lehrplan, with the ideal of Bildung as both a process and an end. Through and by way of Didaktik reflection each and every teacher must determine, as an expert professional, what must be done in this setting, with this material, with these students, in the light of the values associated with Bildung &emdash; or that is the ideal. In the thesis that is part of the Second State Examination, every teacher must demonstrate how they marry, using the languages provided by one or another form of Didaktik analysis, the values represented by the teachers' role as a public servant working within the framework of the Lehrplan, understandings of the ideals embedded within Bildung, and the formative "needs" of their students (see Chapter 13 for an example of such a thesis). In this world "curriculum change" takes place as the schools are "reformed," as teachers make their independent judgments &emdash; in the light of their sense of the central social value associated with Bildung &emdash; that a new way is preferable to an old way.

These different contexts for teaching in the American and German worlds also provide the starting points within which curriculum and Didaktik as intellectual traditions have found their tasks. We can see what these differences mean when we compare these traditions using as the framework for the analysis the elements of a slightly modified version of the classical formulation of the Didaktik triangle (see Chapter 2). I will suggest that the different understandings of the enveloping topic of subject-matter seen in the two traditions lead to very different interpretations of the meaning of the elements of the triangle (see Figure 1; the figure replaces the "teacher" in the traditional formulation with "agent").

Figure 1. The Didaktik and curriculum triangle

For Didaktik, with its Bildung-centered, humanist roots, there is a basic distinction between the external, objective aspects of the subject matters to be taught in the school and their inner, formative meaning:

An entity is educative if it leads to an experience of values, creates intellectual needs, spiritualizes vital drives, forms attitudes, sparks moral understanding . . . . The educative moments of the object are those which attract vital interests, which capture feelings and emotions, but which in the dealings with the object &emdash; and this is the crucial point &emdash; transform: direct and bind them to higher values, in other words, moralize and spiritualize. (Roth, Chapter 7)

There are many metaphors for those activities which help to bring together the general and the individual, the objective and the subjective, for example, "reciprocating," "exchanging," "unifying," or "encountering." The objective side is perceived as factual, as independently valid; the subjective side is spontaneous in the acquisition of reality. It is these two factors which enable the teacher to function as a link. (Menck, Chapter 10; emphasis added)

An individual teacher is the only agent of such exchange and encounter by his or her students, and thus the animating heart of any realization of a Bildungsideale. The Lehrplan prescribes the traditions and topics, the "objects" in Roth’s words, or the "general" and the "objective" in Menck’s words, that will provide the "content" of teaching. But each teacher must understand this content as a reflection of the communal values that it represents, reflects, and might nurture, and be constantly aware of the subjective self-formation that teaching seeks to support. The deliberative reflection that this conception of formation requires is at the core of the Didaktik tradition of theory-building and praxis.

For curriculum theory, on the other hand, the curriculum and its subject matters do not have the dualism that is the heart of the idea of Bildung as formation through contact with a culture and its objects. The topics of the curriculum are bodies of information, repositories of skills and objective understandings, or ways of knowing, that can be specified, stand apart from the learner and the teacher, but can be "taught" using appropriate methods. And, of course, there is the clear implication that the efficacy of a curriculum and of teaching can be rationally evaluated. Thus the task of the curriculum maker is to build a organizational and/or curricular framework or program that optimizes the match between the educational and social goals of the school system, subject matters and topics, and the objective "educational needs" of students &emdash; while minimizing the problems that the idiosyncrasies of individual teachers pose for the effectiveness of the total system.

For curriculum, the central construct is, therefore, the abstracted, objective concept of agency, a school system which seeks to institutionally transmit appropriate understandings of "content" seen unproblematically as this or that view of and authoritative selection from a larger, objectively valid subject matter. The central questions are What knowledge is of most worth for this kind of student? How might the most appropriate and effective instructional structuring of that knowledge be determined? and How might that determination be implemented in this agency or school system? As the systematic, institutional program planning and evaluation that seeks to answer these questions is undertaken, a fourth necessary and central topic is added to the three terms of the Didaktik triangle, milieu: effective curriculum-building needs to understand the appropriate functional matches between the "purposes" of education and the larger social and economic context or milieu and link those understandings to a school's programs. Figure 2 seeks to summarize this interpretation of the central concerns of curriculum theory.

Figure 2. The "curriculum" triangle

For Didaktik, on the other hand, it is the individual teacher who nurtures the self-formation which is at the heart of Bildung: human individuality can only be nurtured by people &emdash; no abstracted and institutional "system" can support individual, interior formation. Thus Didaktik gives to each and every teacher the reflective task both of discerning what formative value is available for his or her students in this or that element of the Lehrplan and of developing his or her own teaching plans to instantiate those values. The core of the teacher’s professional work to discerning in what way, and how, such a web of potential interactions might be productively engaged &emdash; and to search for ways and means for such engagement. Didaktik seeks to explicate, and then find a usable framework for thinking about, teacherly reflection and deliberation around such a task. Thus teacher and teacher planning are the key terms in Didaktik's interpretation of the triangle. Figure 3 summarizes this interpretation of the central concerns of Didaktik.

Figure 3. The Didaktik triangle

If the analysis summarized in Figures 2 and 3 has succeeded in capturing the hearts of Didaktik and curriculum theory, we have in these traditions the very different frameworks for thinking about "curriculum" summarized in Table 1. Seen separately, the two traditions reflect, most centrally, very different imagings of the work of schooling and teaching, and they offer different interpretations of the idea and ideal of "education." But when they are seen comparatively, the two frameworks have complementary thrusts. Curriculum seeks to provide a structured framework for thinking about institutional issues &emdash; when, for example, the questions circle around the institutional forms that are needed to realize collective aspirations; Didaktik, on the other hand, seeks to provide a framework for teacher thinking about the most basic how, what and why questions around their work.

Curriculum addresses the "system" and the "needs" of the larger social and cultural order. Didaktik, with its starting point in a vision of the teacher transforming the bodies of content reflected in a Lehrplan into an educative subject matter for the classroom, has developed rich frameworks for thinking about "education" and children's life-worlds and, particularly, about the reflective transformation of subject material into teaching that reflects a Bildungsideale for this class and these students. It is a teacher's rather than policy-maker's or system administrator's framework. And in its institutionalized aspects, as seen both in its elaborated models for Didaktik analysis as a starting point for reflection on practice and in the role of these models in teacher education and teacher licensing, Didaktik instantiates models of teacher thinking and practices in teacher education to support its image of this thinking which are completely absent from the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

But the differences between Didaktik and curriculum that I began this chapter discussing remain and provoke interesting and fundamental questions: Is there a way, or a circumstance, in which the forms of thinking associated with Didaktik and traditional curriculum theory can be seen as usefully complementing each other? How? Or must they remain separate? And, if they complement each other, what different potentials do they offer for addressing the bewildering variety of questions around the curriculum studies? Before I can consider these questions I must explicate the elusive term, "curriculum."

Following Doyle (1992, 1993 6), "curriculum," and the related discussion and argument, can be seen occurring at two distinct levels of schooling, (1) the policy and programmatic levels, i.e. at institutional levels, and (2) the classroom level. At the institutional level curricular discussions emerge in two basic arenas:

• at the intersection between schooling, culture and society, the policy level, and

• in the analysis of "content" for and in school tracks and their "subjects" and in the construction of appropriate "content" for classroom use, the programmatic level.

At the classroom level, curricular reflection, discussion and argument is seen as the programmatic curriculum is further elaborated and connected to the events of the classroom and the worlds of real flesh-and-blood students. It is at this level that curriculum and pedagogy merge.

In curricular discussions at the institutional and programmatic level, we can see two major foci of concern:

• the form of the ideal curriculum or curricula that are seen as defining the connection between schooling and both a culture and a society; and

• the nature and character of the curricular structures and programs that translate the abstract curriculum into the organizational frameworks that are the ultimate basis for a system of schools and their work.

Discussion of curriculum at the intersection of schooling and society centers on images, metaphors, and narratives as broad typifications of what can happen in a school. Such typifications are fundamentally important because they embody conceptions of what is desirable in social and cultural orders, what is and should be valued and sought after by members of a community. Curriculum planning at the institutional level, and the public processes involved in such planning, is a social form for both clarifying social and cultural norms and responsibilities around schooling and bringing larger social values to bear on the special role schooling is to play in realizing social and cultural ideals. In another sense the variety of typifications around the institutional curriculum available at any time provide, as one or another language is embraced, languages which school people can use to redefine the curriculum to meet changing social and cultural circumstances.

The programmatic or organizational curriculum, as a framework for organizing schooling as "educational" service delivery, involves complex processes through which one or another curricular vision or typification is translated into an operational framework for systems of schools, and for understanding what social, cultural, and educational images mean for the character of work in classrooms. At this level the process of constructing curricula-as-programs is grounded in arguments that rationalize the selection and arrangement of subject matter content for schools of particular types and the transformation of that content into school subjects appropriate to those schools or school types. Thus, the organizational curriculum looks backwards (or upwards) to typifications of the ideal curriculum, but it also depends on the understandings which emerge from implicit and explicit theories of content that link the aims of education to the images of the activities of teaching. But this link between the organizational curriculum and teaching is not direct and addresses an image of teaching rather than teaching itself. At this level teaching is characterized, as Doyle (1992: 487) notes, as dependent on, or as an instantiation of, the organizational curriculum or the program.

However, at the classroom level, "curriculum" is a sequence of events, initiated by the teacher and jointly developed by teachers and students, that reflects a view of the organizational curriculum as a potentially educative (or, in the language of Didaktik, "formative") experience for students. Such events require and depend on societal, teacher, and student interpretations and understandings of culture and schooling, how they are constructed, how they affect the curriculum, and thus what the institutional curriculum actually comes to be in the events of teaching. Teachers are the essential interpreters of that institutional and programmatic curriculum and its Bildungsideale &emdash; in Germany &emdash; or its educational ideal &emdash; in the English-speaking world: they guide students through its topics, shape the views of that curriculum that are allowed, and, importantly, define the tasks that students are to accomplish and which instantiate the classroom curriculum. Teachers everywhere are the only "authors" of curriculum events.

This conceptualization provides a way of gathering the threads of this speculative chapter together &emdash; and also provides a starting point for reading the later chapters of this book. Thus, and as I have emphasized throughout this chapter, American curriculum theory (and practice) is a search for a way of ordering, intellectually and in praxis, institutional curricula,

• at the intersection between the society and the culture and the school, i. e., the interaction between social and cultural understandings and the tasks of schooling, and

• as a search for ways to manage and regulate the decisions that the society and polity has made about the curriculum within the schools seen as a service delivery system.

However, the American preoccupation with the institutional curriculum has meant that the classroom curriculum has been neglected in American writing and thinking about the curriculum. Teachers are imaged as agents of the decisions made at organizational and programmatic levels. The role of the teacher as an interpreter and author of the curriculum has been uncertainly seen in the dominant traditions for thinking about the curriculum.

In recent years, of course, the traditional curriculum theory, as I have described it in this chapter, has been subjected to sustained criticism originating from a wide variety of theoretical perspectives &emdash; and one result has been a new focus on the role of the teacher as an active maker of the classroom curriculum. As Doyle (1994; emphasis added) writes, reflecting this shift in concern and its rationale,

teaching and teacher education can never be treated solely as a matter of technical proficiency. Teaching is, at its core, an interpretive process grounded in conceptions of what one is teaching and what value that content has for students and society . . . . To teach effectively, teachers must be responsible curriculum theorists.

To use a different image, teachers must be "reflective."

It is, of course just such a starting point, with its focus on the classroom curriculum as an instantiation of the curriculum as something with formative potential, that has been at the heart of Didaktik. Didaktik represents a sustained attempt to work out what it means for teachers to be "responsible curriculum theorists" as they think about their work.

While there are real problems &emdash; which must be acknowledged &emdash; in any mapping of the specifics of the Didaktiks and Fachdidaktiks set out in the chapters of this volume into the Anglo-Saxon conceptual framework, the general orientation that underlies Didaktik does confront the central issues opened up, but not resolved, by the contemporary shift in American curriculum theory. Didaktik addresses, frontally and head-first, Doyle's assertion that "teaching is, at its core, an interpretative process" &emdash; and shows what one highly developed elaboration of what such a conception can mean. Didaktik gives the image of the teacher as a "reflective practitioner" a meaning that it does not have in the Anglo-Saxon work that invokes this phrase by unpacking Doyle’s (1992: 507) concept of "transformation:"

the doing of both curriculum and pedagogy involves transforming content in some way . . . . A central issue for inquiry at the intersection of curriculum and pedagogy is the grounds on which such transformations, especially at the classroom level, are made . . . . a curriculum is not simply content, but a theory of content, that is, a conception of what the content is, what it means to know that content, and what goal one is accomplishing when one is teaching the content.

The chapters in Part III of this book &emdash; by Klafki (Chapter 8), Roth (Chapter 7), Wagenschein (Chapter 9), and Kirsch (Chapter 15) &emdash; illustrate Didaktik's theoretical and prescriptive exploration of this "central issue for inquiry" most directly &emdash; although in different ways &emdash; and, in doing so, show what a classroom- and teacher-centered conception of curriculum as a theory of content can mean. The chapters in Part IV show these same issues being worked out in a different way &emdash; at a variety of levels of teaching practice and in scholarly exploration of possible classroom practice. Together the chapters in Parts III and IV of this volume offer American curriculum theorists a rich and exciting image of the curriculum theory that the American curriculum "reconceptualism" has been searching for, but not found.

 Thus while, as I have suggested, Didaktik and curriculum as institutionalized traditions find their starting points at different levels on what may be seen as a continuum of concern &emdash; and are, therefore, clearly and profoundly complementary &emdash; they are, nevertheless, in fundamental tension because of their very different culturally-embedded starting points. Each tradition is firmly located in its in the particularities of each culture’s "national histories, of national habits, and national aspirations &emdash; to recall Reid’s (1998) words. 7 Thus, Didaktik and curriculum theory address different issues and begin with different contextual assumptions. These starting points lead to different understandings of even the word "education" itself with, on the one hand, that word’s "subjectified" connotation in the German tradition and its "objectified" interpretation in the American tradition. As a result, any attempt to yoke Didaktik and curriculum too firmly within the common framework suggested by a notion of a curriculum continuum engages these tensions &emdash; with the result that, were we to see the two traditions merely as two sides of the same coin, they would be in tension at almost every point at which they might connect. Yet despite this reality, when seen as a tradition which addresses the "classroom curriculum," and the necessary role of the teacher as a curriculum theorist or "reflective practitioner," Didaktik has intensively explored what has been, to this point, a void in American curriculum theory. In addition, the Didaktik tradition offers forms and models for well-honed practices of teacher education and teacher development which can renew and enrich the education of teachers who are not well served within the assumptions of traditional curriculum theory. In other words, there are important lessons to be learned from Germany's Didaktikers.

 1. For recent, sympathetic, interpretations of the Tyler Rationale, see Hlebowitsh (1992) and Airasian (1994).

 2. For an extensive discussion of Staatswissenschaften in the 18th and 19th centuries, see Lindenfeld (1997).

 3. Bildung is a noun meaning something like "being educated, educatedness." It also carries the connotations of the word bilden, "to form, to shape." Bildung is thus best translated as "formation," implying both the forming of the personality into a unity as well as the product of this formation and the particular "formedness" that is represented by the person. The "formation" in the idea of "spiritual formation" perfectly captures the German sense. I am endebted to Klaus Witz of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for this explication of Bildung.

As Lindenfeld (1997: 7) writes, "Embodiments are unit-ideas or symbols which serve to condense or fixate a variety of meanings or shades of meaning in a single unit . . . . By virtue of their simplicity, embodiments can be apprehended quickly and shared by diverse groups within a culture."

 4. In 1808 Friederich Immanuel Niethammer, a school councilor in Munich, elaborated a conception of Bildung as the rationale for a reformed secondary school, a move which La Vopa (1988: 264) sees as the key step marking both the crystallization of a new educational ideology and the point "at which an emergent ideology was patterning in formulaic statement &emdash; the kind that could be incorporated into state laws and applied in organizational blueprints for schools."

 Culturally, the ideal of Bildung gave a new twist to the traditional Lutheran concept of "vocation" and, in so doing, gave ideological legitimacy and a sense of purpose to secondary school teachers as they sought to separate themselves from the clergy to become members of autonomous profession. It gave a new purpose and a new pedagogy to the classical curriculum and a new role for Greek in that curriculum as the core of "general human education." It condemned all older pedagogies, and the kind of rationalist Pädagogik, that reduced the student (and teacher!) to "subject," the passive object of external manipulation.

 5. The idea of Bildung has provided German educational thought with a stable language that can turned in ever-new directions: thus, as Ringer (1990: 18) notes, in Weimar Germany "The modernists asked themselves, for example, how the ideal of self-cultivation might be relevant to the experience of a factory worker, or to a much enlarged system of secondary schooling, or to sources of Bildung other than those of classical antiquity." And, as seen in Klafki’s "The significance of classical theories of Bildung . . . " (Chapter 5), post-war didacticians continued to reformulate and extend the neo-humanist legacy so that it could direct thinking about the democratic, egalitarian and, in the 1960s and 1970s, critical tasks of both elementary and secondary schooling.

6. Based on a parallel analysis of the "curriculum," Hopmann and Künzli identify "political," "programmatic," and "practical" levels of curriculum action. These words capture somewhat different aspects of the notions Doyle articulates. Hopmann and Künzli are currently undertaking an empirical exploration of these "levels" in a European cross-national study.

 7. Thus while much of the contemporary curriculum theorizing in the U.S. is setting its sights on the classroom curriculum, policy-making around the curriculum, and most of the thinking around such policy-making, has maintained the traditional focus on the system and the use of the instruments and practices of the traditional curriculum theory &emdash; although with a firmer and more comprehensive sense of the "system" than is found in the older tradition (see, for example, Goertz et al., 1996). We see in this continuing preoccupation an instantiation of the assumptions which have always circled around American schooling with its central awareness that classroom curricula aggregate to create collective and institutional phenomena and effects.

 

Airasian, P. (1994) The impact of the Taxonomy on testing and evaluation. In L. W. Anderson and L. A. Sosniak (eds), Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty-year Retrospective. 93rd Yearbook, Part 2, of the National Society for the Study of Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 82-102.

Clandinin, D. J. and Connelly, M. F. (1992) Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum (New York: Macmillan), 363-401.

Doyle, W. (1992) Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum (New York: Macmillan), 486-516.

Doyle, W. (1993) Curriculum theory in the preparation of teachers. Paper presented to the seminar "Didaktik meets Curriculum," Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften, Kiel (College of Education, University of Arizona).

Doyle, W. and Westbury, I. (1992) Die Rückbesinnung auf den Unterrichtsinhalt in der Curriculum- and Bildungsforschung in den USA. Bildung und Erziehung, 45 (2) 137-157.

Dumont, L. (1994) German Ideology: From France to Germany and Back (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Goertz, M. E., Floden, R. E. and O’Day, J. (1996) Systemic Reform Publication No. ORAD 96-1322 (Washington, DC: , Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education).

Grafton, A. (1983) Polyhistor into Philolog: Notes on the transformation of German classical scholarship, 1780-1850. In C. Schmitt (ed.), History of Universities, Vol. 3 (Amersham: Avebury), 159-192.

Haft, H. and Hopmann, S. (1990) Curriculum administration as symbolic action. In H. Haft and S. Hopmann (eds), Case Studies in Curriculum Administration History ( London: Falmer), 159-173.

Hlebowitsh, P. S. (1992) Amid behavioral and behavioristic objectives: Reappraising appraisals of the Tyler Rationale. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24 (6): 533-547.

Hopmann, S. (1988) Lehrplanarbeit als Verwaltungshandeln. Doctoral dissertation, Christian-Albrechts Universität, Kiel.

Hopmann, S. (1990) The monitorial movement and the rise of curriculum administration: A comparative view. In H. Haft and S. Hopmann (eds), Case Studies in Curriculum Administration History ( London: Falmer), 13-30.

Hopmann, S. and Gundem, B. B. (1998) Didaktik meets curriculum: Towards a new agenda. In Bjørg B. Gundem and Stefan Hopmann (eds), Didaktik and/or Curriculum: An International Dialogue (New York: Peter Lang), 331-353.

Hopmann, S. and Haft, H. (1990 a) Systems in formation and transition: Curriculum administration for Schleswig and Holstein. In H. Haft and S. Hopmann (eds), Case Studies in Curriculum Administration History (London: Falmer), 64-80.

Hopmann, S. and Haft, H. (1990 b) Introduction: Comparative curriculum administration history: Concepts and methods. In H. Haft and S. Hopmann (eds), Case Studies in Curriculum Administration History (London: Falmer), 1-12.

Hopmann, S. and Riquarts, K. (1995) Didaktik and/or curriculum: Basic problems of comparative Didaktik. In S. Hopmann and K. Riquarts (eds), Didaktik and/or Curriculum IPN 147 (Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften an der Universität Kiel), 9-40.

Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1969) The Limits of State Action, ed. J. W. Burrow (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Jarausch, K. H. (1990 a) The German professions in history and theory. In G. Cocks and K. H. Jarausch (eds), German Professions, 1800-1950 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 9-26.

Jarausch, K. H. (1990 b) "Bildungsideale," society and politics: Some critical considerations. In W. Nijhof (ed.), Values in Higher Education: "Bildungsideale" in Historical and Contemporary Perspective (Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente, Department of Education), 60-70.

Jarausch, K. H. (1990 c) The Unfree Professions: German Lawyers, Teachers, and Engineers, 1900-1950 (New York: Oxford University Press).

Kaestle, C. F. (1973 a) The Evolution of an Urban School System: New York City, 1750-1850 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Kaestle, C. F. (1973 b) Joseph Lancaster and the Monitorial Movement: A Documentary History. Classics in Education, No. 47 (New York: Teachers College Press).

Klafki, W. (1995) On the problem of teaching and learning contents from the standpoint of critical-constructive Didaktik. In S. Hopmann and K. Riquarts (eds), Curriculum and/or Didaktik IPN 147 (Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften), 187-200.

La Vopa, A. J. (1988) Grace, Talent, and Merit: Poor Students, Clerical Careers, and Professional Ideology in Eighteenth Century Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Lindenfeld, D. F. (1997) The Practical Imagination: The German Sciences of the State in the 19th Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Pyenson, L. (1983) Neohumanism and the Persistence of Pure Mathematics in Wilhelmian Germany Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 150 (Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society).

Reid, W. A. (1998) Systems and structures or myths and fables? A cross-cultural perspective on curriculum content. In Bjørg B. Gundem and Stefan Hopmann (eds), Didaktik and/or Curriculum: An International Dialogue (New York: Peter Lang).

Ringer, F. (1990) "Bildung" and its implications in the German Tradition, 1890-1930. In W. Nijhof (ed.), Values in Higher Education: "Bildungsideale" in Historical and Contemporary Perspective (Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente, Department of Education), 1-22.

Tyler, R. W. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Vierhaus, R. (1972) Bildung. In Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, and Reinhart Koselleck (eds), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, Band 1 (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag), 508-551.

Wallin, E. (1998) Changing paradigms of curriculum and/or Didaktik. In Bjørg B. Gundem and Stefan Hopmann (eds), Didaktik and/or Curriculum: An International Dialogue (New York: Peter Lang).

Westbury, I. (1979) The curriculum: What is it and how should we think about it? In M. Bloomer and K. E. Shaw (eds), The Challenge of Educational Change: Limitations and Possibilities (Oxford: Pergamon Press), 129-158.

Westbury, I. (1992) Curriculum studies in the United States: Reflections on a conversation with Ulf Lundgren. In D. Broady (ed.), Education in the Late 20th Century: Essays Presented to Ulf P. Lundgren on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday (Stockholm: Stockholm Institute of Education Press), 117-140.

Westbury, I. (1994) Deliberation and the improvement of schooling. In J. T. Dillon (ed.), Deliberation in Education and Society (Norwood, NJ: Ablex), 37-65.