↓ Skip to main content

General Didactics and Instructional Design: eyes like twins A transatlantic dialogue about similarities and differences, about the past and the future of two sciences of learning and teaching

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
Title
General Didactics and Instructional Design: eyes like twins A transatlantic dialogue about similarities and differences, about the past and the future of two sciences of learning and teaching
Published in
SpringerPlus, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-1-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Klaus Zierer, Norbert M Seel

Abstract

Although General Didactics (GD) and Instructional Design (ID) have not shown many points of contact in the past, there are some obvious parellels from the perspective of their historical development. This will be examined in detail in this article. More specifically, we speak about model building, which has characterized General Didactics and Instructional Design for some decades. However, the models of General Didactics and Instructional Design are not problem-free with regard to the continuity and advancement of both disciplines. First, we will describe the historical roots of both disciplines and examine which elements of theory are of central importance. Second, we will try to answer the question of which kind of model building could be considered as predominant and what problems result from this predominance. In order to do this, we will describe empirical studies on the use of instructional models and discuss these studies from the perspective of the philosophy of science. Third, we will draw inferences for future processes of model building in order to prevent the same problems that happened in the past from happening again. Finally, we will discuss the issue of what General Didactics can learn from Instructional Design and vice versa.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Mauritius 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 119 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Lecturer 6 5%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 45 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 28 23%
Computer Science 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 28 23%
Unknown 46 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2020.
All research outputs
#14,094,155
of 24,294,766 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#670
of 1,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,064
of 171,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,294,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,859 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 171,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.