Talk:Didacticism

Untitled

"types of art that are instructional or informative. It does not merely entertain."

Everything under the sun is instructional or informative, and nothing "merely entertains". Didacticism is simply a term applied to types of instruction or information that is not commonly held.

Can I amend that? Obviously texts can contain information and instruction that is commonly held. The use of preceived wisdom in texts is normally not described as being didactic. This term is usually used to highlight the negative aspects of a text, information or instructions that diverge from commonly held views.

This article is pretty slim.

Personally I find this article very wordy, to the point where it obscures the meaning. It needs to be written in more simple encyclopedic language, Wikipedia is meant to explain topics to a layman, not to be a forum for experts.--Evilbred 13:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This article looses credibility by virtue of the biblical reference. Future authors should be wary of using non-secular references to make intellectual points, for the two topics are mutually exclusive.

I agree that the specific reference to the Christian Bible as the leading example sets a non-factual tone. If one were to re-order the first and second examples and delete the portion of the Bible reference which speaks of defying God's will, I believe the tone and objectivity of this article would be restored.

I don't think that objectivity has been restored yet. "the Bible is didactic because it offers guidance in moral, religious, and ethical matters." is not a NPOV phrase. With few exceptions, the Bible rarely spells the morals of its myths--that's why there are so many fundementally different factions of Christians that all use (basically) the same text. With few exceptions (e.g. the ten commandments), the Old Testament simply doesn't use didacticism--it uses example and allegory. I suppose Jesus probably used didacticism, but he used parable and aphorism more frequently.

This is ignoring the fact that the majority of the Bible doesn't have any discernible moral message whatsoever, just a "historical" account of events--which is admittedly still didactism, but it's dishonest to characterize the entire Bible as "moral, religious, and ethical" didactism. If it were, it would read like: "And doing X is bad, because of Y and Z" without a lot of irrelevant back-story.

Though one could make the case for the Bible being using "historical" didactic, I think that there is too much subjective bias regarding its true "intent." There are better, much more clear-cut examples out there. --Lode Runner 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely it depends on the book. Leviticus strikes me as pretty didactic...andycjp (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya bu didactic ne tam bilen yok mu?

Music

A good example of didactism in music is the chant Ut queant laxis, which was used by Guido of Arezzo to teach solfege syllables: "Ut" (modern-day "Do") through "La". Shall I include it?

Merge

This should be merged with didactics.

I disagree! I think it's just fine having this article on didacticism in literature and art. It should certainly be expanded though. --Midnightdreary 23:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples

It seems the examples given for this article are not broad enough to be useful to every reader. Perhaps adding references from a more varied sample of pop culture (e.g. The Matrix films) would prove beneficial to a wider audience.

Is this correct, that "The Raven" is considered didactic literature, albeit not intentional on the part of Poe?Sea Wolf (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't really see how "The Raven" would be considered didactic by anybody, especially given Poe's distaste for didacticism. Jeff Silvers (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I've removed the example; if anyone can find a scholarly article or other such source offering opinions to the contrary, feel free to restore it (with citation, of course).4.226.222.165 (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Didactic historically follows dialectic

I think a case can easily be made to show that the argumentative dialectic as it came from Plato's Academy and was refined by Aristotle's Lyceum (with Syllogism) was replaced with the more efficient dialectic because as Europe progressed there were many more students and the dialectic was inefficient -- great source.

Behavioral (vs cognitive)

• Didactic teaching relies on lectures, books, and homework -- and in the end, a grade. That is how the "argument" is made, with a postitive behaviorial punishment (for not grokking the teachers' world-views).
• Dialectic is cognitive because it leverages directly working with the students' thoughts and sill exists in seminar-type instruction for upper levels (and better didactic students). But, in the end, if the student says something that is not in alignment w/ the teachers' world-views, it will result in the punishment of a poorer grade or evaluation showing the behavioral relationship between didactic and dialectic.

In psych it is CBT, Cognitive Behavior Therapy, or in one case Dialectic-behavioral.--John Bessa (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

New writing (to insert soon)

Hello all, as weak as the article is, I think it does well to bring up "experience" because the phenomenological approach could explain the phenomena of instructional and seminar(al) learning across different and separate civilizations--where I think the article should go to show its importance especially with its respect to multiculturalism. I read all this material recently but neglected to not citations, but I can find the quickly and are all available through "google books." Needless to say--critical comments invited.

Didacticism, along with the Dialectic, comprises the vast majority of instructional education. While the "Socratic" Dialect was the foundation of instruction teaching, and its most common format(for most of the "civilized epoch"), the didactic started to become more common about the time of the [Reformation] as universities became commonplace and their students more numerous. Didactic instruction was found to be far more efficient for teaching larger numbers as it consists (in its modern format) of uni-direction lectures, textbook assignments, and examination evaluation. Thus, Didacticism could be considered more important than the Dialectic simply by virtue of the quantity (rather than quality) of modern instruction. The Dialectic, however, remains the instructional method of choice for higher-level (and hence higher-value) students such as in the form of seminars and thus remains popular in education as well as other disciplines such as psychology (as, for instance, in Dialectical Behavioral Therapy). Therefore, it is beneficial to consider Didactic and Dialectical methods (or processes) together.

While the Didactic teaching method replaced the Dialectical process in later centuries of Western Civilization, the Didactic method is as ancient as the Dialectic as can been guessed by its Greek etymology. A recognizable more-recent version of its ancient use of is in the Christian "morality play," which is instructional in it's intent, but popular in delivery. Ancient Greek didactic plays were performed (and poems recited) for similar purposes, that is to disseminate moral or ethical lessons, and even to instruct the population about legal compliance.

--John Bessa (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)