Discussing the curriculum-Didaktik dichotomy and comparative conceptualisations of the teaching profession

Figures & data

Table 1. Different governance regimes (c.f. Wermke & Höstfält, 2014).

	Output control governance	Input control governance
The profession as institution	- Externally (i.e. not by teachers) regulated standards and measurement - Teacher accountability through external control and incentive regimes - Legitimation of good practise through efficiency in standards achievement - Principal as part of an admin-istrational, managerial profession, not of the teaching profession	- Externally (i.e. not by teachers) and centralised regulated applications of resources and content of schooling and instruction, and teacher education (e.g. state exams for teachers and also principals)
The profession in service	- More local (or decentralised) choice over content of instruction, applications of resources - Rather more external standard testing of student performances that must built in instruction	Rather little external standard testing (or testing with no consequences) - Teachers are responsible for defining how students learn and how this is measured - Legitimation through teacher owned professional educational system of reason (Didaktik)
Means of control	- Student achievement (evidence of performance and performance improvement)	- Trust in teachers’ professional responsibility, code of ethics and professional (Didaktik) reasoning.

Figure 1. The strategic sample on a Didaktik-curriculum continuum.

Table 2. Sample sizes and years of the cases in our aggregated sample.

	Germany	Austria	Norway	Finland	Sweden	England	Ireland	USA
Year of study	2009	2008	2013	2013	2013	2013	2008	2013
N Teachers	3734	4265	2981	2739	3319	2496	2227	1926

Figure 2. Teachers’ reports on output-related feedback.

(Percentage of lower secondary education teachers who agree or strongly agree with the following statements about teacher appraisal and feedback systems in their schools).

Figure 3. Teachers’ reports on input or process related feedback.

(Percentage of lower secondary education teachers who agree or strongly agree with the following statements about teacher appraisal and feedback systems in their schools)

Figure 4. Teachers’ experiences with soft incentives.

(Percentage of lower secondary education teachers who agree or strongly agree with the following statements about teacher appraisal and feedback systems in their schools).

Figure 5. Teachers’ experiences with hard incentives.

(Percentage of lower secondary education teachers who agree or strongly agree with the following statements about teacher appraisal and feedback systems in their schools).

Figure 6. Teachers’ experiences with sanctions.

(Percentage of lower secondary education teachers who agree or strongly agree with the following statements about teacher appraisal and feedback systems in their schools).

Figure 7. National teaching professions in relation to civil society and state.

Wermke, W., & Höstfält, G. (2014). Contextualising teacher autonomy in time and space. A model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 58–80.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar