Introduction:

Pre-service teachers articulating their learning about meaningful physical education

“…In this paper, we examined how the pedagogical principles of LAMPE created a shared language through which a longitudinal sample of 90 pre-service teachers from two countries could articulate their learning, whereby meaningful experiences served as their filter for pedagogical decisions and thinking. Using a didactical research framework (Hudson and Meyer, 2011; Quennerstedt and Larsson, 2015), we sought to understand ways in which LAMPE helped participants identify and articulate a coherent approach to physical education by reimagining and recreating its philosophies and practices. By connecting and enabling the articulation of the why, what, and how of meaningful physical education, the shared language of LAMPE may provide one direction for reducing the theory–practice gap and for focusing the purposes of PETE (Badia and Becerril, 2016; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Quennerstedt and Larsson, 2015).…”

“…Loughran (2010: 48) supports the value in generating a shared professional language of teaching and learning because it:…allows sharing of understanding in ways that can commonly be used within the profession and shift the intention of sharing from an over-reliance on activities that work to more informed examination of the pedagogical intent underpinning practice…[It] allows us to discuss what we know and how we know it in meaningful ways which, inevitably, are embedded in understandings of practice at a much deeper level.The reasons for generating a shared language of teaching and learning described by Loughran (2010) are argued for in a similar way by those who draw from the European tradition of didactical approaches to teaching and learning (Hudson and Meyer, 2011; Quennerstedt and Larsson, 2015), where there is an emphasis on understanding and connecting the why , what , and how of teaching. In this view of didactics (also didactique or didaktik) the why, what, and how of teaching are considered to reside in knowledge of the relationships between teachers, pupils, and subject matter, which must also take into account contextual considerations at the individual, school, and societal levels (Hudson and Meyer, 2011; Klafki, 2006). A shared language of teaching and learning may then be generated by thoughtful examination, integration, and articulation of the why, what, and how of teaching practice and the different contexts in which teaching practice occurs (Loughran, 2010).…”

General Didactics and Instructional Design: eyes like twins A transatlantic dialogue about similarities and differences, about the past and the future of two sciences of learning and teaching

“…The didactic triangle can be seen to offer tools that help sharpen the focus for planning and analyzing instruction (cf. Hudson and Meyer 2011). There is no doubt that the didactic triangle is so central for General Didactics that you can find it in all other didactic theories and models – for instance in critical-constructive didactics, the Berlin model, the Hamburg model, systemic didactics, or psychological didactics, to name only a few.…”

“…In this case it is surprising that even very famous researchers do not know the roots of this approach (cf. Hudson and Meyer 2011), which already can be found in the ancient world: Aristotle developed the idea of a rhetorical triangle, composed of an orator, an audience, and a theme. This idea of a triangle was then taken up by Cicero in his work De Oratore and Quintilian in his work Institutio Oratoria and brought into a pedagogical and didactic context because both Cicero and Quintilian wrote about the education of an orator and thus expanded the rhetorical triangle into a didactic triangle.…”

Analysing the continuity of teaching and learning in classroom actions: When the joint action framework in didactics meets the pragmatist approach to classroom discourses

“…The ongoing construction of a broad community for educational research has generated interest in starting a dialogue between traditions of didactic research and how they contribute to expanding the understanding of relationships between learning, teaching and the related content at stake (Hudson and Meyer, 2011; Hudson and Schneuwly, 2007). However, the relationships between theories still need to be examined through empirical examples in order to produce comprehensive frameworks.…”