The discipline of pedagogy and subject teacher education:

The compulsory schoolmaster course, 1907–1968

Abstract

From 1907 to 1968, the university degree for subject teachers (secondary school teachers) included a course covering psychology and the theory and history of pedagogy. This course was compulsory for all students and, according to the regulations, should last no longer than one semester. The establishment of the course was closely intertwined with the establishment of pedagogy as a discipline in the Swedish university system. Future teachers who took this course comprised the largest student group in the subject of pedagogy. For many of these students, this compulsory course was their only encounter with the discipline of pedagogy. Given the large proportion of pedagogy students who took the course, it is surprising how relatively hidden it has been in previous research on the disciplinary history of pedagogy. This article follows the course over time, and analyses the role of the course in subject teacher education and in the disciplinary education. Thereby, this article sheds light on the relationship between subject teacher education and pedagogy as a scientific discipline.

The aim of the course was to provide subject teacher students with basic theoretical pedagogical knowledge. It did not include any practical pedagogical training. Instead, all practical elements formed part of the trial year that the students had to undergo after they had graduated to be eligible for permanent teacher positions. However, the course was also eventually used as a propaedeutic course for those students who did not intend to become teachers but studied pedagogy as a separate university subject. This meant that the course had to fulfil both professional preparation requirements and scientific internal requirements.

During much of its 60 years, the course was fringed with criticism from students, as well as representatives of schools and authorities. The fact that the course remained almost unchanged can be explained by time-bound circumstances. The criticism was primarily directed at how the course was integrated into the structure of subject teacher training, but also at the scope and content of the course. The article concludes that the criticism was largely about conflicting expectations from different student groups and stakeholders. The benefit of the course for the teacher students was associated with the professional practice of teaching in school, while the benefit for the students of disciplinary pedagogy was of an academic kind whereby the course would prepare them for more in-depth study of the discipline of pedagogy. Furthermore, the criticism can be understood in relation to the boundary between theory and practice. The article shows that the course was perceived by some as being part of the theoretical side of education, alongside other theoretical university subjects, while others saw it as part of the practical pedagogical side of education.

Both conflicting expectations and the boundary between theory and practice reflect the relationship between subject teacher education and pedagogy as a scientific discipline. The establishment of this compulsory pedagogy course in subject teacher training was a requisite for the establishment of pedagogy as a discipline at universities. Subsequently, the nature of this relationship changed. The article highlights two parallel but mutually influencing development processes. On the one hand, when pedagogy as a discipline developed, this sphere of knowledge was given an increasingly clear and recognised demarcation and was gradually understood as being more self-evident at its core. On the other hand, there were ongoing negotiations about the place different spheres of knowledge should have in subject teacher education. Although the question of how theoretical and practical studies should be harmonised can be challenging in any vocational education, the dual purpose of the course towards both academic and professionally oriented learning might have contributed to a negative view of the discipline of pedagogy and its relevance. The ambition of this article has been to understand such battles and tensions in light of different logics and traditions of knowledge, which carry different approaches to and values of theory and practice. This can hopefully serve as a base for an increased understanding of the knowledge-organizational balance that subject teacher training must still address today.