









































International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 2 / Issue 3/ 2015 

 

 

7 

 

Adapting and integrating alternative didactics in the 

teaching-learning-assessment system in relation to the 

concept of “disciplinary field” 
 

 

EŞI Marius-Costel   

“Stefan cel Mare” University of Suceava, Romania 

E-mail: mariusesi@yahoo.com 

 

Received 13.01.2014; Accepted 13.02. 2014 

 

 

Abstract 

In the current education system the importance and role of didactics (general didactics/ speciality 

didactics) and the didactic methodology of the teaching-learning-assessment process are well 

known. Therefore, beside several defining features that indicate the didactic dimension, in the 

sphere of education we note a number of issues that require a multidimensional approach to the 

learning contents. In other words, given the "scientification" of the contents, in the current 

education system they can no longer be taught / assimilated from the perspective of a single 

didactics. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explain, on the one hand, the idea of alternative 

didactics and, on the other hand, its role in the teaching-learning-assessment system. 

 

Keywords:  alternative didactics, teaching-learning-assessment system, educational pragmatism, 

learning contents, dynamic education 

 

 

1. Introduction 

In today's society the fact that the knowledge process develops as a consequence of the disciplinary 

and methodological connections has become increasingly obvious. If at first the knowledge process 

developed in relation to the multidisciplinary paradigm (the dimension where knowledge was 

concentrated in one direction, in a disparate manner - Eşi, 2014, 44), nowadays it only proves its 

legitimacy based on interdisciplinary, pluridisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. However, 

one shall see if such approaches are sufficient arguments for validating the process of “educational” 

knowledge. 

 

Educational knowledge is that form of knowledge achieved in relation to the educational theories 

and methodologies. Although the concept of “knowledge” is pretentious in terms of what it 

expresses, in this context we shall use it as a notional and disciplinary reference point for assuming 

the idea of educational knowledge. In this context, we note that such “educational knowledge” 

acquires validity exactly by relating the contents it expresses to the inter-, pluri- and 

transdisciplinary approaches (where experiences are expressed through competencies (Niculescu, 

2010, 181)). 

  



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 2 / Issue 3/ 2015 

 

 

8 

 

Specific literature provides a number of sometimes contradictory explanations (Nicolescu, 1999, 

53) regarding these approaches, which somehow underlie the system of scientific knowledge. 

Moreover, in our opinion, analysing the educational theory from the perspective of an 

epistemological basis cannot but support the need for the relationship between epistemological 

didactics and intuitive didactics in the context of dynamic education (Eşi, 2014, 31-36). However, a 

normal evolution of scientific knowledge can be explained in terms that are becoming increasingly 

relevant in the contemporary education. 

 

Of course, by this assumption we must not understand that the dimension of traditional didactics 

must absolutely be abandoned. Alternatively, we are taking into account the idea of improving the 

educational system (which is, in our opinion, an open system). Or, in such circumstances, as it is 

well-known, explaining a new paradigm by using epistemological terms can be justified to the 

extent that the (conceptual/methodological) scientific analysis is also judicious. Examples of such 

concepts are the following: “disciplinary field” (in relation to the concept of “tesseract”), “intuitive 

didactics” (we particularly refer to the concept of “intuition”), "complementary didactics" (the 

approach that refers to the perspective of disunification of didactics). 

 

2.  Pragmatic illustrations of the concept of "disciplinary field" required for the process of 

understanding the idea of alternative didactics 

As a relevant vector regarding the implementation of alternative didactics, dynamic education 

promotes and should promote scientific tolerance (the constructive, "positive" meaning of the 

word). In this sense, the activities initiated in regard to a theory on alternative didactics are 

translated into a multi-level dimension of scientific knowledge. Moreover, we cannot talk about a 

unique form of knowledge regarding alternative didactics, nor about more forms of knowledge (in 

the sense that a certain form of knowledge differs from another form, like, for instance, implicit 

knowledge is different from explicit knowledge); we should rather admit the existence of 

knowledge itself at n-dimensional level. 

 

This assumption leads to the idea that alternative didactics must take into account the relationship 

between epistemological didactics and intuitive didactics and something more, namely something 

that adds extra knowledge through the quantitative/qualitative transition from a certain state to 

another. Perhaps in order to have a better understanding of such an idea, the best illustration would 

be provided by the concept of “disciplinary field”, (explained in relation to the concept of 

“tesseract”). Therefore, going somewhat beyond the multi-, pluri- and transdisciplinary perspectives 

and taking into consideration the idea of n-dimension, we could make a first step in justifying the 

education system of alternative didactics. 

 

An argument that supports this idea is that the current didactics cannot entirely satisfy the level of 

understanding and applicability of the scientific contents. Thus, there are contents that need to be 

related to other concepts/specific terminologies/totally different specializations in order to be 

explained and understood. Interdisciplinary approaches are the most convincing example in this 

respect (where the conceptual and methodological transfer is accomplished). 

 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 2 / Issue 3/ 2015 

 

 

9 

 

Therefore, the starting point for justifying our approach is the concept of “disciplinary field”, which 

refers to the area where the disciplines overlap based on the correlation between methodologies, 

concepts and applications. In our opinion, the disciplinary field is the result of inter-, pluri- and 

transdisciplinary approaches and their applicability at different levels of correlation. An 

approximate illustration of this concept can be seen in Figure 1. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 – Illustration of the concept of “disciplinary field”  

Source: author’s own elaboration 

 

In Figure 1, the arrows represent the directions corresponding to the  n disciplinary dimensions. The 

common parts (that form the disciplinary field) are formed by the intersections of all the 

disciplinary fields, and also by the junction between the fields, no matter how far away from each 

other they are in the spatial illustration. The common and defining element that could allow the 

development of a disciplinary field is represented by the inter-, pluri- and transdisciplinary 

approaches/explanations themselves. 

 

However, please note that in such an illustration of the disciplinary dimensions we can identify 

several disciplinary fields. The field with the strongest “magnetism” is the one that manages to 

generate the most powerful form of knowledge. In other words, we note the existence of the law of 

duality (also found in the logic of the terms/concepts); according to it, the more powerful is the 

intension, the less powerful becomes the extension. Therefore, the more numerous and powerful are 

the characteristics of a disciplinary field, the more intersections and unifications are there between 

the disciplinary dimensions. Of course, there may be disciplinary fields formed from fewer such 

unifications and intersections, with powerful intension. This is an issue that we shall analyse within 

a future rigorous research paper. 

 

Therefore, our perspective regarding the understanding of these dimensions should go beyond the 

two-dimensional and three-dimensional frames (Figure 2). We could take as a starting point the four 

dimensional universe, which could be illustrated by relieving the concept of “tesseract” (“four 

dimensional hypercube” - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hypercubecubes.svg), as well as 

its coordinates (Ramirez; Pérez -Aguila, 2002, 1-8). 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 2 / Issue 3/ 2015 

 

 

10 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 – Illustration of the concept of “disciplinary field” in relation to the concept of 

“tesseract” 

 

Source: adapted after 

 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hypercubecubes.svg  

[accessed 22.01.2015] 

 

The idea can be put into practice in a range of disciplinary dimensions (Pérez -Aguila, 2006, 1-13) 

or scientific applications (Sarma; Maccherone; Wagstrom; Herbsleb, 2009). Thus, in the 

educational process, an important role belongs to the forms of illustrating the disciplinary 

dimensions in relation to the idea of “disciplinary field”. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 – Form of integrating and adapting the concept of “disciplinary field” to the 

educational dimension in relation to the idea of alternative didactics  

Source: author’s own elaboration 

  

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hypercubecubes.svg


International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 2 / Issue 3/ 2015 

 

 

11 

 

2. The pragmatic dimension of alternative didactics 

The process of disunification of the disciplinary fields requires a purely scientific and intuitive 

approach. In other words, we believe that epistemological didactics and intuitive didactics can 

contribute to the implementation of alternative didactics. In this context, the educational reality is 

made on the one hand of epistemological-intuitive structures through which different meanings and 

significances are pragmatically correlated and on the other hand of teaching-learning-assessment 

contents. Therefore, in our opinion, such a didactic situation requires a rational application of the 

scientific contents, which can be correlated with methodological strategies of assuming the future 

explanations that are specific to alternative didactics. 

These explanations become judicious given that the interpersonal interaction expresses specific 

communicational behaviours in terms of the didactic activity. Thus, assessing and reassessing the 

didactic concepts requires assuming new educational activities. Of course, the conceptual layering 

of the didactic process does not fully solve the methodological problem. Therefore, the application 

of the educational valences that are specific to the dimension of alternative didactics reflects the 

need for an open systemic approach that enables the understanding and application of the new 

contents. 

The need for alternative didactics in the contemporary education system is justified to the extent 

that the necessity of social utility synchronically translates the very idea of education. In other 

words, the correlation between society, education and didactics/pedagogy reveals the pragmatic 

nature of today’s form of implementing the educational strategy. Thus, the criteria for valorising the 

optimization sequences regarding the learning-teaching-assessment process are subordinated to the 

moral/social dimension, which is specific to dynamic education. 

Thus, the value system represents a specific level of organization through which the strategies 

acquire educational legitimacy. In this context, the role of alternative didactics becomes relevant 

and such an educational/didactic reality should be understood to the extent that the process of 

didactic materialization of the objectives assumed by the educational decision makers (teachers / 

trainers) is completed. Moreover, a proper understanding of the role and place of the 

methodological/conceptual/theoretical connections within the disciplinary field supports the 

implementation/development of alternative didactics. Assuming such a strategy enables the didactic 

process, while allowing the scientific contents to be approached from the perspective of a new 

methodology of the new didactics from the educational system. 

 

 

3. Conclusions and suggestions 

Regarding the disunification of the fields, we should guard against the principle according to which 

any form of connection is possible in any "possible world". We suggest seeing if a specific 

connection (from the category “anything can be possible”) can prove its validity as a disciplinary 

field of the educational sciences. Moreover, our concerns as didacticians should be focused mainly 

on the pragmatic nature of such a disciplinary field. 

  

The axiological conditionings resulting from the process of implementing alternative didactics call 

for the methodological reassessment of the scientific contents. This is, in fact, a whole process of 

reassessing the programs that underlie the presentation/assimilation of the scientific contents. 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 2 / Issue 3/ 2015 

 

 

12 

 

Therefore, the utility of alternative didactics is fully justified given that the teaching-learning-

assessment process is assumed by all educational/social actors. 

  

 

References: 

1.Eşi, M. C. (2014). Didactica specialităţii. Curs universitar pentru programele de licenţă 

(Speciality didactics. University course for undergraduate programs), Didactic and Pedagogic 

Publishing House, Bucharest. 

 

2.Eşi, M.C. (2014). Problematici actuale ale didacticii de specialitate în contextul unei educaţii 

dinamice (Current issues of speciality didactics in the context of dynamic education). In Eşi Marius 

& Clipa Otilia (coordinators), Incursiuni didactice în dinamica educaţională (Didactic insights into 

educational dynamics), Didactic and Pedagogic Publishing House, Bucharest, 31-36. 

 

3.Nicolescu, B. (1999). Transdisciplinaritatea (Transdisciplinarity), Polirom Publishing House Iaşi. 

 

4.Niculescu, R. M. (2010). Curriculum între continuitate şi provocare (Curriculum between 

continuity and challenge), Publishing House of “Transilvania” University of Brasov 

 

5.Pérez -Aguila, R. (2006). Dimensional analogies: a methodology for introducing the study of 

higher dimensional spaces to computer science students. In IEEE Computational Intelligence 

Society - Chapter Mexico, 2(2), 1-13. 

 
6.Ramirez, A. A. and Pérez-Aguila, R. (2002).  A Method for Obtaining the Tesseract by 

Unravelling the 4D Hypercube. WSCG,  1-8. 

 

7.Sarma, A.; Maccherone, L.; Wagstrom, P. and Herbsleb J. (2009). Tesseract: Interactive Visual 

Exploration of Socio-Technical Relationships in Software Development, Conference: Software 

Engineering - Companion Volume, 2009. ICSE-Companion 2009. 31st International Conference on 
Source: IEEE Xplore 

Website: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hypercubecubes.svg [accessed 22.01.2015]. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Ram%C3%ADrez
http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/P%C3%A9rez-Aguila
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5071034
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hypercubecubes.svg

