Hvorfra min verden går: et Luhmann-inspireret bidrag til didaktikken

Translated title of the contribution: Whence my World begins: A Contribution to Theoretical Didaktik inspired by Nikals Luhmann

Tina Bering Keiding

    Research output: PhD thesis

    16253 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    The guiding problem for the thesis is: How will fundamental concepts in theoretical didaktik turn out when regarded from the perspective of Niklas Luhmanns systems theory? How can these concepts contribute to development of the theoretical didaktik, including the question about which elements there seem to be crucial in com-munication that attends to produce change in other systems and the question about if and then how functionally closed systems can understand one an-other? The thesis falls from here in four parts • Theoretical perspective • Contributions to theoretical didaktik • Application of formulated contributions • Conclusion and perspectives The second part of the thesis deals with formulating what seem to be subjects, where the theoretical frame offers relevant contributions to development of theo-retical didaktik. The section partly deals with re-descriptions of well-known con-cepts; partly offers new perspectives to theoretical didaktik. Learning is understood as structural changes within a system. Within the frame of the educational system it mainly refers to changes in psychic systems, but might be used on social systems for example organisations as well. According to the as-sumptions of psychic and social systems operating functionally closed to one an-other, teaching as a social system cannot directly observe the ongoing changes in the participants psychic systems. When teaching and education observes learning, it therefore is based on observations of changes in communications; changes that subsequently are attributed to the participants psychic systems, saying that changes in communication correspond to changes in the psychic system. Hence learning can be considered as a semantic construction allowing an observer to as-sume parallelism between changes in communication and changes in conscious-ness. The function of such a semantic construction is to reduce complexity for the observing system, and to leave free capacity to deal with whether the message corresponds to the intended and therefore indicating ‘learning’ or whether it does not herby indicating ‘not-learning’. Learning not brought into the communication will not be regarded as learning. Correspondingly messages which are not under-stood as information about intended changes will not make ‘learning’ topical, irre-spective of what the informant thinks about this. According to learning second-order observations allow an observer not only to observe what seems to be learned, but also through which differences the actual knowledge seems to be constructed. Educations and teaching can be described as social systems that intend to influ-ence on systems in their surroundings. Due to the principles in the autopoietic op-eration form it becomes clear that they never can do what they intend to, as noth-ing from the outside of an autopoietic system can determine the operations in the system. The outer world can destroy the system, but never determine its opera-tions. Education and teaching are therefore left to operate under conditions of a ‘technology deficit’, which means that the relation between teaching and learning not can be understood as simple causalities (if…then…). At the same time the occurrence of a specific type of system is related to the func-tion of the system, which means that the fact, that teaching and educations takes place, indicates that it might be possible to observe an effect of teaching. The question is where this effect is observed. The second contribution the theoretical didaktik therefore is a re-description of how causality in teaching and education may be understood within the concepts of Luhmanns systems theory. In order to do this it seems relevant to distinguish between to dimensions of cau-sality: general and specific causality. The general aspect deals with elements that can be described as necessary, but not sufficient conditions for changes. Such conditions may be formulated in the scientific system in the light of research and in the educational system in the light of experiences. The specific aspect of cau-sality deals with factors that contribute to the actual interaction system. The dif-ference between the two dimensions can be described with the fact that a teaching method in general seems suitable to support the students to fulfil a given objec-tive, but it may be unsuitable in relation a specific class or a specific student. The specific dimension of causality therefore is related to planning and undertaking of teaching as interaction, and the general dimension to planning in the educational system and to theoretical didaktik. Causality in teaching does not imply causalities between teaching and the partici-pating psychic systems, but must within the frame of autopoietic system be ob-served within the actual system. When teaching is described or describes itself as a system based on causalities, such a description comes through the basis of con-struction of causal relations between the elements within the system. Relations saying that a single element, for example an utterance, is considered as result of a previous question, and not for example as the result of a sudden brainwave, or that a correct answer is caused by the teaching process, not regardless teaching. Hence teaching constitutes itself a an causal system by organizing the single ele-ments in a specific order, that makes it possible to describe the events as relevant to fulfil the teaching objectives. Causality therefore appears as attributed causality and – as does learning – reduces complexity for the observing system allowing teaching to deal with content and structure in communication, without ongoing considerations about the fact, that it does not know what is going on in the stu-dents psychic systems, or whether it enhances or complicates learning. Structural coupling The observation of the possibility for teaching to influence on the participants – or more precisely for communication to influence on psychic systems – is dependent on the occurrence of a mechanism that can link together the two different types of autopoietic systems. Such a mechanism is named structural coupling. Regarding the coupling between social and psychic systems, this coupling to a large extend is made possible through language. Messages as well as thoughts can be given a verbal form making is possible for psychic systems to observe social systems and for social systems to observes linguistic forms of thoughts. The structural cou-pling in other words allows autopoietic systems to share topics, but does not inter-vene in the autopoietic operations in the systems. Hence the structural coupling does not enable teaching to give an input to partici-pating psychic systems, but makes it possible that the psychic systems can ob-serve teaching and subsequently use these observations as an element in their own operations, or omit to do so. Regarding teaching, or in general com-munications that intends to influence on other systems (study guides, organisa-tional rules, law texts and so on) it seems relevant to address the question whether the informant can enhance the probability for that the participants choose under-standing in agreement with the information. In the thesis I put forward the point of view, that in relation to this two elements seem to be fundamental: Reduction of complexity and surplus of complexity. These elements are not to be seen as contradictions to one another. Reduction of complexity stresses that the information is put forward in a way that reduces the possibilities for several more likely understandings. Surplus of complexity stress that intended understanding is enhanced when the messages can be understood in the same way from different perspectives. Surplus of complexity may be ensured by putting forwards the information in a form where addressees are offered sev-eral differences for describing the same topic. Concept of understanding As it is the addressee’s selection of understanding that determines the actual state of a social system, the concept of understanding is assigned a fundamental posi-tion in all kinds of communication that intends to intervene in other systems. Luhmanns concept of understanding differs from everyday-use of the word. Un-derstanding in Luhmanns term is a selection in communication, not an event in psychic systems or a name for some sort of inter-subjectivity or mutual under-standing between systems. On the other hand Luhmanns concept of understanding neither implies that systems must be observed and treated as black boxes, just that the conditions for and the form of understanding have changed, choosing the theo-retical point of view. Understanding is a selection, which means that it is based on the use of differ-ences. In the thesis is formulated a distinction between two forms for understand-ing: simple and complex understanding. Simple understanding is the ongoing se-lection, where the addressee selects how the information is understood. In this perspective simple understanding is a first-order observation. In the complex un-derstanding the addressee subsequently observes, which difference that may have been used in putting forward the information. Here one must remind one-self that information is always understood information, that is: the addressee constructs a hypothetical difference for the information based on his/hers understanding. This hypothetical difference the addressee subsequently attributes to the informant, tak-ing it as an expression of the informants self-reference and understands the infor-mant on the basis of this attributed difference: She says so, because she observes using this – and not another – difference. The complex form of understanding seems to contribute to enhanced sensitivity in a system’s observations, as it addresses not only understanding of what the infor-mant tells, but also how the informant may have observed in putting forward the message. Reality herby appears as a construction, brought forward by the use of differences, and therefore as referring to the observing system, and not to the ob-served. The last contribution to theoretical didaktik is a systematism for production of complex understanding. The systematism formulated addresses complex understanding in non-interactive communication. This focus is chosen because my opening problem dealt with the education as context for teaching and leaning. TIn the third part of the thesis the systematism is used on the study guide for the School of Basic Studies in Engineering and Sciences. The aim is to bring forward information that may contribute to confirm or disconfirm the assumption saying that complex understanding as formulated in the systematism can enhance sensi-tivity and reflexivity in understanding. Using the systematism in these few exam-ples indicates that it contributes to sensitivity in understanding of the education as informant. In the last section of the thesis the subject ‘didaktik in engineering education’, which was the overall perspective for the thesis, is taken up again, in order to see whether the work has contributed with further perspectives to the understanding of this subject in addition to what is included in ‘teaching methods in engineering education’, which to seems to be the general use of the term in the School of Ba-sic Studies in Engineering and Sciences as well as in the Section for Engineering Didaktik and Organizational Learning. The conclusion is that the profession ‘Engineer’ may be considered as a frame conditioning the selection about objectives, content and form in the education, in-dicating that a discipline for example as mathematics will appear in a different form in engineering education than in science or in teacher education.
    Translated title of the contributionWhence my World begins: A Contribution to Theoretical Didaktik inspired by Nikals Luhmann
    Original languageDanish
    Place of PublicationAalborg
    Edition2.
    Publisher
    Electronic ISBNs8791543010
    Publication statusPublished - 2005

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Whence my World begins: A Contribution to Theoretical Didaktik inspired by Nikals Luhmann'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this