Teaching Assumptions and the Didactic Model
Why assumptions matter
Two competing models of education sit behind teaching practice:
- Didactic: knowledge is content to be delivered
- Critical: knowledge is constructed through thinking
A teacher’s assumptions about which model is true shape what they do day to day.
Old assumptions (didactic model)
| Assumption | What it produces |
|---|---|
| Students learn how to think when they know what to think | Memorisation over reasoning |
| Knowledge can be given directly without students thinking it through | Passive reception |
| Education is storing content in the head like data in a computer | Surface learning |
| Quiet classes show learning | No talk = no thinking |
| Students gain knowledge without seeking or valuing it | No motivation |
| Material should be presented from the point of view of the one who knows | Teacher-centred delivery |
| Superficial learning can be deepened later | Foundation never laid |
| Coverage is more important than depth | Syllabus over understanding |
| Correct answers, definitions, and formulae demonstrate understanding | Mistaking performance for understanding |
| Students learn best by working alone | No collaborative learning |
A teacher’s assumptions about what education is for, and how it works, shape every classroom decision. The didactic model treats education as content delivery. The critical model treats education as the development of disciplined thinking. The article works through why these assumptions matter and walks through the old didactic ones in detail.
Why assumptions matter
The reflective practitioner can understand why a focus on basic concepts and depth is essential to higher-order learning only if they clearly understand the profound differences between two models of education.
The first model, the didactic model, confuses acquiring knowledge with memorisation. Knowledge is treated as content that can be delivered.
The second model, the critical model of education, recognises that acquiring knowledge intrinsically and necessarily depends on higher-order critical thought. Knowledge is treated as something the learner constructs through thinking.
The two models are not subtle variations on one approach. They are different theories of what education is for and how it works. A teacher who holds the first set of assumptions will find it difficult to teach for higher-order thinking, because the techniques for higher-order learning rest on the second set. A teacher who has shifted to the second set has the conceptual ground for the new methods to work.
A teacher may hold a mix of assumptions from both sets at the same time. The mix is what reflective practice helps to surface and gradually move toward consistency.
What lies behind uncritically held assumptions
The old assumptions are widespread and often unexamined. Naming them helps a reflective practitioner notice them in their own teaching.
Students learn how to think when they know what to think. This is a content-first assumption. Tell students the content and they will figure out how to use it. The result is students who can repeat content but cannot use it.
Knowledge can be given directly to students without their having to think it through. Knowledge is treated as a transferable substance, like water poured from one container to another. The result is students who hold information without understanding it.
The process of education is the process of storing content in the head like data in a computer. This assumption flattens the human mind into a storage device. The result is teaching focused on what gets stored rather than on what gets connected.
Quiet classes with little student talk are evidence of student learning. The assumption equates orderly silence with learning. The result is classrooms designed to suppress the conversation that thinking requires.
Students gain significant knowledge without seeking or valuing it. The assumption is that motivation is irrelevant; just deliver the content. The result is students who comply but do not engage.
Material should be presented from the point of view of the one who knows. This is teacher-centred delivery. The result is presentations that make sense to the expert but not to the learner.
Superficial learning can later be deepened. The assumption is that surface coverage now and depth later is acceptable. The result is depth that never comes, because the surface coverage never settled and there is always more new content arriving.
Coverage is more important than depth. The syllabus must be finished. The result is a list of topics nominally covered and few actually understood.
Students who correctly answer questions, provide definitions, and apply formulae demonstrate substantial understanding. The mistake here is taking surface performance for deep understanding. Schoenfeld, whose work on higher-order thinking was discussed in an earlier article in this chapter, identified this assumption directly. The result is graduates who appear competent in tests and fail in unfamiliar applications.
Students learn best by working alone. Learning is treated as a private activity. The result is classrooms that discourage the collaboration that thinking requires.
A teacher who reads this list and recognises three or four of the assumptions in their own teaching has done useful work. The first step in changing assumptions is noticing them.
Why these assumptions persist
The didactic assumptions are not random. They are produced by a long history of how schools were organised. Classrooms with one teacher and many students naturally encourage lecture. Time pressure encourages coverage. Tests that reward recall encourage memorisation. The assumptions match the system that produced them.
This is part of why changing them is hard. The assumptions feel like common sense because the system reinforces them daily. A teacher who tries to teach differently inside an unchanged system feels the resistance immediately.
A reflective practitioner who recognises the old assumptions in their own work is still in the right starting place. The shift is gradual. Awareness is the first step, and the rest of the work follows over time.
Didactic treats knowledge as content to be delivered. Critical treats knowledge as something the learner constructs through thinking.
The didactic teacher tries to transmit content; the critical teacher organises conditions for the student to think. The two models produce different classrooms even when the surface activities look similar.
How was this article?