ABSTRACT
Preparation for instruction focuses on the preparation of individual lessons. This is a fact, no matter what the theorists might wish. Preparing for instruction normally means shaping individual lessons or a series of lessons, instructional units, as we call them. Proof of this can be found in the relevant literature: Klafki’s (1965) Didaktik analysis concludes with such examples; Heimann, Otto, and Schulz’s (1965) Unterricht: Analyse und Planung [Instruction: Analysis and Planning] is comprised to a large extent of “lesson charts”—I have used them myself (see Hiller 1970); and even Meyer’s (1981) concept aims at “lesson plans.” 1 That this approach is taken for granted may be disturbing, but it is not without explanation, because syllabi apply to school subjects. These subjects are mainly taught, or were taught until recently, using the format of a lesson (Lektion), and the straight jacket of school organization imposes the primitive routine of 45-minute periods. Given these facts, the institutions that train teachers can evidently do no more than react. Following the dictates of tradition, the introduction to school practice, and thus the introduction to instructional preparation, presents the teacher’s future career as an endless chain of plannable 45-minute appearances. The chain simply breaks off when the teacher retires. During training the sole emphasis is on the optimization of the beginners’ stage-management abilities, adapted as appropriate to suit Didaktik tastes.
