↓ Skip to main content

Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching

Overview of attention for article published in Educational Psychologist, June 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 489)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
1641 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
pinterest
1 Pinner
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
3347 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9395 Mendeley
citeulike
20 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching
Published in
Educational Psychologist, June 2006
DOI 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Authors

Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller, Richard E. Clark

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,641 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9,395 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 231 2%
United Kingdom 63 <1%
Spain 29 <1%
Malaysia 28 <1%
Canada 24 <1%
Netherlands 23 <1%
Indonesia 20 <1%
Australia 20 <1%
Germany 19 <1%
Other 219 2%
Unknown 8719 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1998 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1518 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 898 10%
Student > Bachelor 839 9%
Student > Postgraduate 825 9%
Other 2678 29%
Unknown 639 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6030 64%
Psychology 416 4%
Computer Science 308 3%
Arts and Humanities 263 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 222 2%
Other 1321 14%
Unknown 835 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1282. 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 28 June 2022.
All research outputs
#7,447
of 21,448,133 outputs
Outputs from Educational Psychologist
#2
of 489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13
of 247,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Educational Psychologist
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,448,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 489 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 247,801 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them