What Changes in a Child’s World When the Lesson Ends?

On Didaktik, Bildung, and Teachers’ Pedagogical Autonomy

When preparing a lesson plan, we often think about what we will teach, which methods we will use, and how we will assess learning. But how often do we consider what the knowledge we teach will actually mean in a student’s world? In one of our doctoral courses, reading and discussing Rüzgar and Bümen’s (2022) article, The Didaktik Tradition and Its Possible Implications for Turkish Education, encouraged me to look at the teaching profession, which I thought I had understood for years, from a different perspective. By comparing the Didaktik tradition developed in Continental Europe with the Anglo-American Curriculum tradition, the study led me to question not only how curricula are developed, but also how much room they leave teachers to think and make professional decisions.

Although Didaktik is sometimes associated with teaching methods and techniques in Türkiye, it carries a much broader meaning in German and Northern European educational thought. Within this tradition, the questions concern not only how a particular subject should be taught, but also why it is worth teaching and what educational significance it holds for students. As Hopmann (2007) emphasizes, the content to be taught and the meaning that content holds for students are not the same thing. The inclusion of particular knowledge in a curriculum does not necessarily mean that it will become the same educational experience for every student.

This is where the concept of Bildung, closely associated with Didaktik, becomes particularly important. Finding an exact Turkish equivalent is difficult; terms such as education, upbringing, formation, and self-development capture only certain aspects of the concept. Bildung involves more than acquiring knowledge and skills. It also concerns individuals developing themselves through their relationship with the world, learning to think independently, and growing into responsible individuals capable of making their own judgments. From this perspective, while Didaktik questions the content of teaching and its pedagogical justification, Bildung brings to the forefront the question of how education can contribute to individuals’ understanding of themselves and the world. In Klafki’s (1995) approach to Didaktik analysis, instructional content is also examined in terms of its educational significance for students’ present and future lives.

We can illustrate this with a simple example from primary education. A student may be able to explain the water cycle, evaporation, and condensation in scientifically accurate terms. But can that same student also question why water resources are limited, how drought affects people’s lives, or why the equitable use of water matters? In the first case, scientific knowledge has been acquired; in the second, that knowledge has begun to broaden the student’s understanding of the world. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive outcomes. Learning scientific knowledge accurately is important. However, when we reduce education to the acquisition of concepts alone, we risk overlooking the broader opportunities for thinking and understanding that such knowledge can offer students.

We can also understand this relationship through the analogy of a journey. The Curriculum tradition can be compared to a map that identifies the destination, outlines the route to be followed, and establishes how we will assess whether the destination has been reached. Didaktik, however, looks at the same map and asks different questions: Why are we taking this route? How will this journey help students make sense of the world they live in? From the perspective of Bildung, reaching a predetermined destination is not the only concern. What also matters is the development of a person who begins to see their surroundings through different eyes, questions what they encounter, and gradually becomes capable of choosing their own direction. The teacher’s role, in this sense, is not to walk the path on behalf of the student, but to create opportunities for the educational encounters that may help the student find their own way. Of course, the same journey will not have the same effect on every student. For this reason, I regard these three perspectives not as alternatives, but as complementary ways of thinking about curriculum planning, the educational meaning of teaching, and human development.

This distinction also makes the discussion between the Curriculum and Didaktik traditions particularly meaningful. The Anglo-American Curriculum tradition, especially through its objectives-based approaches, has developed a substantial body of knowledge concerning curriculum planning, the identification of learning objectives, and the evaluation of outcomes. Didaktik, by contrast, places greater emphasis on teachers’ pedagogical judgment and the educational meaning of instructional content. Nevertheless, it would be misleading to regard these two traditions as entirely opposed to one another. Both encompass diverse intellectual perspectives. What matters to me is how we can bring together the systematic nature of curriculum development and teachers’ responsibility for making pedagogical decisions.

After all, a classroom is not a place where everything anticipated in a curriculum unfolds exactly as planned. Two classes studying the same topic may have very different learning needs. Even within a single classroom, students differ in their previous experiences, interests, and ways of learning. Teachers sometimes need to modify a planned activity, choose different examples, or find a new approach to help a particular student understand a concept. This is precisely where teachers’ professional autonomy becomes meaningful. Autonomy does not mean that teachers are free to do whatever they wish. Rather, it means being able to make informed and justifiable decisions while considering students’ needs, curriculum objectives, and professional responsibilities.

I also find this discussion relevant to the TYMM (Türkiye Century Education Model). The model’s emphasis on holistic development, skills, values, and individual differences contains elements that can be related to Bildung. In particular, school-based planning and teacher reflections are intended to provide teachers with a certain degree of scope for pedagogical decision-making (Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, 2025). However, this does not amount to unlimited individual autonomy. In school-based planning, decisions are shaped by the framework established by the curriculum and the collaborative planning undertaken by subject- or grade-level teacher committees. We therefore need to question the extent to which this flexibility actually supports teachers’ professional judgment in the classroom.

Furthermore, similarities between certain concepts do not mean that the Türkiye Century Education Model and Bildung are grounded in the same theoretical understanding. Can teachers adapt their instruction to meet their students’ needs? Are their pedagogical decisions supported by schools and the wider education system? Can they bring their classroom experiences into curriculum development processes? We cannot find the answers to these questions in curriculum documents alone. We also need to examine actual classroom conditions, teachers’ experiences, and evidence gathered from educational practice.

One reason I find Rüzgar and Bümen’s (2022) study particularly valuable is that it reminds us that curriculum development is not merely a technical undertaking. Every curriculum, explicitly or implicitly, reflects a particular understanding of the kind of person education seeks to develop. For this reason, we cannot limit teachers’ responsibilities to implementing the curriculum and achieving predetermined learning outcomes. Teachers must also consider how the knowledge they teach might become meaningful in their students’ lives.

These readings have brought one idea into sharper focus in my understanding of curriculum: A good curriculum is not simply a document that specifies what should be taught and how learning should be assessed. It should also allow teachers to think, question, and make pedagogical decisions in response to their students’ needs. Perhaps, when discussing curricula, we should pay more attention not only to which learning outcomes students achieve, but also to how those outcomes contribute to the development of their thinking.

A curriculum may tell us what should be taught, but considering how that knowledge might become meaningful in a child’s world remains an essential pedagogical responsibility of the teacher.

References

Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.109

Klafki, W. (1995). Didactic analysis as the core of preparation of instruction (Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung). Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027950270103

Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2025). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli: Öğretim programları ortak metni. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/brosur/ortak_metin.pdf

Rüzgar, M. E., & Bümen, N. T. (2022). Didaktik geleneği ve Türk eğitimine olası yansımaları: Eğitim programları geleneği ile karşılaştırmalı bir çözümleme. e-Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(3), 1213–1244. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.1089482