Hamburg model (didactic model)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Hamburg model of didactic lesson planning was further developed by Wolfgang Schulz from the Berlin model and introduced in 1980. The aim of the Hamburg model is to present a general didactic model that encompasses all teaching planning levels. Aligned with the “leading interests”, a distinction is made between “perspective planning”, “outline planning”, “process planning” and “planning correction”.

The origin / development of the Hamburg model

The teaching theory approach has undergone many changes in history and has developed from the simple empiricism of the “Berlin School” to one of the dominant scientific conceptions at the beginning of the 1970s to a form that is close to the subject (in some aspects even quasi-therapeutic), which ultimately as learning theory approach is understood. This development is shown below.

Naming and basic idea

Wolfgang Schulz was an employee and academic student of Paul Heimann , on whom the Berlin model of learning theory goes back. Since the late 1960s he has been increasingly concerned with a new version of Berlin didactics, with the collaboration of his colleague Gunter Otto , because he considered it to be in need of revision and tried to remedy the deficits of the concept. His main points of criticism related to the technological character of the existing model. In 1980 he finally published his revised version in his book "Lesson Planning". Paul Heimann died in 1967, which is why Wolfgang Schulz had to continue the new model without him. The name change from “Berliner Modell” to “Hamburger Modell” resulted from Schulz moving to the University of Hamburg in the meantime. The colleague Gunter Otto was also active at this university.

There are significant differences between the two models. The learning theory approach of the Hamburg model avoids the one-sided teacher-centeredness of its predecessor and distances itself from the decision-making model, which only sees the teacher as the only point of reference for didactic theories. The new model, on the other hand, should have the character of an action model, which not only includes the teachers but also all other participants (e.g. students) and aims at a student-oriented teaching. Schulz also renounces the freedom from values ​​postulate of Heimann's Berlin model and instead develops a political-emancipatory educational program.

External influences

The social repressive function of the schools, which was criticized by the student movements , represented a not inconsiderable factor in the development of the model. The necessary criteria for a successful promotion of skills were set. There is talk of both the promotion of emancipation and the promotion of solidarity , which must be included in the classroom so that skills (i.e. knowledge and ability) can be promoted.

Reformulation of the conditions

The new elaboration also showed serious differences in the division of the condition and decision fields. Thus , in contrast to the Berlin model, intentions and topics were also included under teaching objectives. There were also reformulations of the anthropogenic and socio-cultural conditions. To this end, Schulz used the political and economic terms of Karl Marx. Prerequisites in the sense of "relations of production and domination", which spanned the framework for institutional conditions, were included in the model.

Development of the teaching theory approach

Another point that illustrates the quasi-therapeutic side of the model (as a contrast to the learning theory approach of the Berlin model) is the form of communication between teachers and students proposed by Schulz. In doing so, it relates to advice, assessment and lesson planning, as well as their implementation. His suggestion is that the professional teacher should first initiate communication and then only support other forms of interaction. These forms of interaction can include learning groups, for example. In this way, the students can then gather social and emotional experiences. This in turn promotes the development of solidarity , competence and autonomy . Here Schulz refers to the topic-centered interaction dealt with by Ruth Cohn . The resulting group dynamics should then enable and facilitate the addressing of latent group conflicts, so that the students' feelings of emotional stress are no longer strained. In later publications he speaks of "meta-teaching".

At the time of the concept development, many parallels were made to the "critical-constructive didactics" designed by Wolfgang Klafki . Schulz himself did not make any comparisons with his "Didactics as Critical Teaching Science".

Another term that Schulz is including in his new model is “commitment”. First he states that commitment is necessary in order to develop didactic theory in a meaningful way. In the course of his publications and further developments of the concept, engagement finally becomes part of formal theory building. Schulz speaks of a "critical, humanitarian, committed didactics". This commitment should play an important role, especially when dealing with underprivileged children, and ultimately shows itself as a form of care.

During the 1970s, Schulz further developed this critical aspect of his learning theory approach until he finally presented his concept and learning theory didactics in 1980 as the “science of emancipatory relevant, professional educational action in class and school”.

Structure and principles

According to Schulz, didactic activity aims at communication between teachers and students, who should also communicate with one another. The core topics they are supposed to communicate about are the four structural elements of the field of action: the teaching objectives, the starting position of the teaching-learning group, the communication variables (including methods and media, for example) and the success controls. This student-teacher communication about the lesson itself is the core of Schulz's didactic model of action, it corresponds to the concept of emancipation presented by Schulz: “The degree to which the teachers, as professional didactic agents, succeed in planning a lesson unit To make part of lesson-related interaction is for me more and more an indicator of the emancipatory relevance of lessons, for the replacement of the division of labor between arranging and executing. "(Schulz 1981, p. 65 f; highlighted in the original)

The possibilities of this understanding are, however, limited by the institutional framework. Teachers are thus limited in their teaching activities, for example by the respective school regulations, the state and federal school law, the curriculum, the core curriculum and the local, material and spatial possibilities of the schools. Nevertheless, the framework allows for some pedagogical freedoms that result from the scope for action, since teaching is a matter of discretion.

On the other hand, the pupils' scope of action is limited by the respective school regulations and, above all, by the educational measures and requirements of parents and teachers. Likewise, socialization, i.e. integration into the social environment of peers, significantly influences the behavior and options for action of the learner.

Political economic determinism

If one were to assume that the framework conditions are entirely decisive for the teaching, that is to say prescribe it in its entirety, any didactic theory of action would immediately prove to be superfluous. Because then the school would become a place of social reproduction and teaching would ultimately be subject to the rule of social culture. To describe this view, Schulz resorts to Fend, who calls it “political-economic determinism”.

Idealistic indeterminism

Schulz calls the opposing position of political and economic determinism "idealistic indeterminism". The given freedoms are concisely placed in the foreground. Restrictions, on the other hand, are either ignored or not even perceived as such.

Schulz's position

“It seems to me that the everyday experience of the most varied school effects under the same conditions speak against the overestimation of determination, and the weakness of idealistic indeterminism seems to me to be that it encourages the teachers to make excessive demands on themselves, which quickly adhere to reality worked through to resignation. "

Schulz speaks out against both extreme positions. An inevitable setting of the framework for action is not given and everyday experience shows the freedoms of teachers. Even idealistic indeterminism does not prove itself in reality. Teachers want to make the best possible use of the scope for action and exercise educational freedom. However, these goals can meet limits and their feasibility is no longer given. According to Schulz, these restrictions become so massive that efforts to use the free space will succumb.

Principles of lesson planning

Schulz interprets the field of action, i.e. the teaching, in the attitude of skeptical reformism. Possibilities for school education (e.g. bringing about emancipation) are viewed with skepticism, but the existing room for maneuver can be used to the extent that dealing with the situation is an important task. The resulting didactic activities are analyzing, planning and realizing lessons; Advising students; Assess their learning progress; Administration of the institution and corporate action. All actions are subject to four main considerations:

  1. The knowledge, skills and attitudes required for individual and social reproduction can only be implemented if they also promote self-determination. Self-determination must not, however, be directed against the autonomy and competence striving of others, i.e. restrict their free development. Another point to be mentioned is solidarity.
  2. The main focus of the lessons is imparting factual experience, whereby this can also be the shaping of social relationships when dealing with the matter. This means that even the social form can convey competence, autonomy and solidarity. Qualification thus induces socialization and socialization induces qualification.
  3. Only the merging of the first two premises is expedient, since the intentions (1.) are achieved on the basis of objects (2.) and objects (2.) only become topics through intentions (1.).
  4. The way in which lessons are analyzed, planned and implemented determines the lessons as a functionalization of the pupils or an aid to emancipation. The professionalism of the teachers plays a decisive role here, as it either contributes to the objectification of the learners or causes the critical consideration of the institutional framework as a task of classroom interaction.

Topic-centered interaction

The topic-centered interaction , developed by Ruth Cohn, is a model of lesson design that considers and includes the thing , the I and the we with all interrelations. If all focal points and dependencies are in balance, the topic emerges. The actual lesson only emerges from a subject lesson or an educational group as soon as the needs and support of the individual and the group are agreed with the requirements of the material and all aspects are given the same attention as possible.

Analogous to the “topic-centered interaction”, the relationship between the demands of the matter , the topic and the individual demands of the teachers and learners would be balanced in this interaction . Thus, in addition to the factual experience, the emotional and social experience are also brought into focus. These result in particular from the mode of teaching-learning work.

A classroom interaction of this kind creates the opportunity to impart competence, autonomy and solidarity.

The Hamburg model

Perspective planning

In contrast to the three other planning levels, perspective planning is designed for the long term. In relation to a single subject, Schulz (2006, p. 45) speaks of a semester or a year. It expands the time frame and the technical framework so that the perspective planning can also be applied to a subject group through all years and even to the curriculum structure as a whole.

For this very broad field, Schulz (2006, pp. 41–42) describes two different areas that he contrasts. The intentions or goals (according to Arnold and Müller, 2016, p. 141) include competence, autonomy and solidarity. The competence here describes the qualifications to be acquired and the knowledge to be acquired. Autonomy refers to independence, a release from being tied to living conditions. The students should be given the opportunity to support one another and to show solidarity towards one another. The three terms are mutually dependent and determine one another: “Competence not without self-determination, self-determination not without competence; Solidarity as responsibility for the self-determination of the other, no self-determination without solidarity and no solidarity at the expense of imparting skills ”(Schulz, 2006, p. 42). The imparting of knowledge and skills in a school context is only legitimate if these intentions and their interactions are taken into account and taken into account.

In contrast to Heimann's Berlin model, in which goals and content are considered separately, Schulz sees a clear connection between the two aspects in didactics. Without content, goals cannot be achieved or cannot be formulated. The second area therefore relates to the content or topics that Schulz describes as aspects of experience. These include the terms factual experience, emotional experience and social experience. In the classroom, the focus is on imparting practical experience. The pupils should learn to deal with new knowledge competently, autonomously and in solidarity. The factual experience is always accompanied by the emotional experience. Every approach to new things triggers different feelings in students. In the case of gender-specific tasks, the pupils can consciously or unconsciously develop norms and role behavior and thus a certain degree of socialization (Schulz, 2006, p. 42). Students' social experience can also be influenced by the social form of teaching.

Schulz compares these two areas in the table. With the individual combinations, indicative goals can be formulated, on which the perspective planning should be based.

Heuristic matrix for the determination of guideline goals, emancipatory relevant, professional didactic action, Schulz, 2006, p. 42

Own examples for indicative goals :

Competence / factual experience : transfer knowledge . The students learn a procedure in mathematics and can apply this to a problem outside of school or in another subject. Competent handling of factual experience.

Competence / emotional experience : The pupils learn to deal with and interpret their feelings in the event of setbacks. Competent handling of emotional experience.

Competence / social experience: The students learn to find their way around society. They learn in social situations such as B. behave appropriately with the teacher and classmates. Competent handling of social experience.

Autonomy / factual experience : The students deal independently with the knowledge to be learned. The teacher works with the students. He gives few guidelines. Autonomous handling of factual experience.

Autonomy / emotional experience : The students learn to develop their own feelings. They do not take on the feelings standardized and prescribed by society. Self-determined handling of feelings.

Autonomy / social experience: Students learn to question society's norms. They create their own image of society. You decide for yourself which social experiences you want to have.

Solidarity / factual experience : The students with more acquired knowledge in a subject show solidarity with the other students and support them in learning. Solidarity in dealing with factual experience.

Solidarity / emotional experience : The students support each other with positive feelings, triggered by passing the exam, and with negative feelings, caused by incomprehension of an activity of a classmate. Solidarity with emotional experience.

Solidarity / social experience : Students respect each other regardless of social origin, gender or religion. Solidarity with social experience.

In connection with perspective planning, Schulz also describes the emancipatory relevance of lessons. If the stated goals are worked on: autonomy, solidarity and competence in connection with social, factual and emotional experience, the learners can increase their self-ability through lessons. Objectives and content (in the experience table) become so-called “indicative objectives” (Arnold and Müller, 2016, p. 141). These guidelines should be taken into account in the lesson planning so that the learners can be empowered to develop by themselves. In order to enable emancipatory relevant teaching in the first place, the connection between the three goals is particularly emphasized in the Hamburg model. This is one of the main differences between the Berlin model (Heimann) and the Hamburg model according to Schulz. The acquisition of a goal alone can therefore not lead to lessons relevant to emancipation. The acquisition of competence can be seen as an example. If competence is viewed as knowledge of content or ability, the mere acquisition of competence as a teaching objective does not yet result in emancipation for the learner. In connection with autonomy and solidarity, however, content is given certain options for action, which can be relativized depending on the situation and individually. Emancipation can therefore only take place as soon as autonomy, competence and solidarity are worked together with one another.

Schulz goes one step further so that teaching can fully enable emancipation. Not only the pursuit of target goals, but also the involvement of the learners themselves in the planning process is a logical consequence of the pursuit of emancipatory relevant teaching. Only when students can independently plan their own learning process can they enable themselves to fully dispose of themselves and to promote this ability.

Outline planning

The aim of outline planning is to structure teaching units and arrange them into units of meaning. (See Jank, W. / Meyer, H., 2008, p. 283).

According to Schulz, there are four factors that have to be taken into account when planning individual teaching units. These are the lesson planning, the initial situation, the communication variables and the success control.

These four factors are listed and examined in more detail below.

Lesson goals

To plan the outline of a lesson, it is first necessary to keep the lesson objectives in mind.

The aim of the lesson can not only be to convey facts, but there are many different aims of the lesson. These can be in the range of cognitive, affective and psychomotor learning goals. (See Schulz, 2006, p. 49).

In detail these are:

  • Factual experience / cognitive learning goals (knowledge, cognition, conviction)
  • Emotional experience / affective learning goals (autonomy: impression, experience, attitude)
  • Social experience / psychomotor learning goals (solidarity; ability, skill, habit)

However, the individual forms of learning objectives are not to be viewed in isolation; it is more about setting a focus. The thematic horizon should be differentiated so far that not only factual experiences, but also social experiences are recognized. (See Schulz, 2006, p. 49.)

When planning the lesson goals, however, the starting position of the learners must not be disregarded. It is possible that by analyzing the initial situation, the planning of the lesson objectives must also be corrected. (See Schulz, 2007, p. 47.)

Teaching goals and the recording of the initial situation are therefore indispensable; because only through precise planning of the goals can the initial situation be analyzed with regard to the preconditions necessary for this lesson.

Starting position

As already mentioned, the initial situation must also be taken into account when planning the outline.

The term starting position is not only to be understood as the starting situation of the learner, but also that of the teacher, because Schulz's model is largely about the learner being the teacher's partner in lesson planning. (See Jank, W. / Meyer, H., 2008, p. 284.)

The learning expectations of the students must therefore be taken into account. It must be clarified whether these expectations cannot be met or not fully met for whatever reason. Furthermore, it must be taken into account which material is available to achieve the goals and expectations and, above all, how much time is available for the teaching unit. From our point of view, the expectations of the students should be addressed again in order to check whether these can be met in the given time with the given material. On this basis, pupils and teachers have to agree on remaining learning expectations and set priorities by the majority, whereby still existing, justified minority wishes can be taken into account.

Switching variables

Furthermore, when planning the outline of a teaching unit, the different school teaching variables must be taken into account, with the help of which the teaching objectives can be implemented. Some of these switching variables are listed and described in more detail below.

  • Methods : Methods are procedures with which learning can be influenced. By selecting a method that is suitable from a pedagogical and didactic point of view, the teacher can therefore specifically support the learning process of the students. It is important not always to use the same method, but to use the variety of methods in order to reach and address as many learners as possible.
  • Phasing of the teaching process : The teaching is in most cases divided into four phases. The first phase is the entry. Here the interest of the students should be aroused and they should be prepared thematically for the lesson. A successful start is essential for the success of a lesson. The second phase is the elaboration. In this phase the learning object is developed (in the best case by the students). In addition to professional skills, social skills can also be promoted here. At this point, depending on the learning group, the first results can be saved. The third phase of a lesson can be a deepening of the subject matter. The fourth phase is to secure the results. In this phase, the developed content is presented, compared and saved. This phase is very important, especially in the lower grades, to give the students security and to ensure at the end of the lesson that all students have gained added value from the lesson.
  • Social forms of the teaching process : "Social forms of teaching describe the external relationship between teachers and students when processing learning content." There are different social forms that can contribute to the design of the lesson. Four central social forms are presented here. Plenary lessons, group lessons, tandem and individual work. Plenary lessons include lessons that take place in the entire study group together with the teacher. This includes, for example, the teacher-student conversation. In the form of group lessons, the learning group is divided into several small groups in which content is worked out. Tandem is the partner work in which the students work in groups of two. Individual work means that the students deal with and edit content alone.
  • Modes of action : Students can become active or act in a class in different ways. Every action by the teacher is followed by a reaction by the learner. In a teacher's lecture, for example, the learner should absorb information; in a development phase, the learner should do something independently.
  • Media as aids : The term media is used to describe "all means of communication that are used in an educational context to design teaching and learning processes." The use of media in the classroom is very useful and indispensable, as it can help the teacher with planning, as the learning material can be presented in a meaningful way. In addition, the use of media creates a more intensive examination of the learning objects among the learners. The use of digital media is becoming increasingly important. It can have a positive effect on the concentration of the students and can encourage them to participate more in the classroom.

Success control

The success control should take place both on the part of the student and on the part of the teacher. In the case of pupils, success monitoring should already take place during a teaching unit through constant self-monitoring. Here the learners can find out for themselves what they have already learned without being exposed to increased pressure to perform. Through constant self-monitoring by the learners, they are also well prepared for success checks by the teacher. Such success checks can take place, for example, through class work or oral exams. These are also necessary for the teacher's own success control, because they can assess whether the students have achieved the planned learning goal. This enables an analysis of the course of the lesson that takes into account both the teacher's methods and the successes of the learners. The resulting reflection on the implementation of teaching and learning processes can enable planning improvements and the adaptation of lessons to the individual needs of teachers and learners.

Process planning

The concrete process planning is the transformation and transfer of the options for action from the outline planning into a plan, the implementation of which is to be tried first. Even more concrete and precise considerations may be necessary. The initially roughly formulated teaching objective is broken down into sub-learning objectives and the procedures and means necessary to achieve them are assigned.

Planning correction

Corrections to the planning are necessary if the answer to unforeseen planning effects becomes evident during implementation. This is particularly important when concretising the process planning. After that, new and adapted decisions may have to be made and measures initiated during implementation.

emancipation

The concept of emancipation plays a role in the Hamburg model in that every didactic model should already have an emancipatory character through the definition of didactics. Schulz describes didactics as the theory of emancipatory, relevant, professional educational action (Schulz, quoted from Peterßen 2001, p. 59). This means that good school lessons should also have an emancipatory effect. Because the learning process of the student is the focus of the present model, the emancipatory component is very important. The theory that is conveyed to the teacher is suitable to offer the practical needs of the teacher options for action. According to Schulz, scientific practice and everyday practice refer to the same "similar, mutually related fields of action" (Schulz 1980, p. 46). The goal of both is: both practices (let) ultimately be guided by the pedagogical interest in promoting all people at their disposal. (ibid. p. 46). Didactic theory and didactic practice differ in which focus the problem is approached. However, no extreme conception of critical-emancipatory science should flow into didactics. The theory of emancipatory relevant action should ideally not only be subject to the point of desirability, but also the feasibility of didactic action. The concept of feasibility plays an important role in the model, because this model of action is very pragmatic. Thus, no unrealizable demands should be made of the school as an institution, but at the same time "not to allow merely technical glare in school and teaching." (Peterßen 2001, p. 60)

Schulz divides the concept of emancipation into two parts:

  1. The state is understood as the control of individuals or people over themselves.
  2. The process is to be understood as promoting this disposition, which at the same time also involves the dismantling of contrary structures and circumstances.

Schulz further describes the term as follows: “Emancipation as liberation from superfluous rule and as far as possible for everyone to dispose of themselves.” (Schulz 1980, p. 81). So emancipation is necessary because in every society, including ours, there are individuals who are not able to dispose of themselves. The conclusion from this is that there are social circumstances or inequalities from which these individuals should be led out.

A question that now arises in the following is what contribution the teaching can make to this concept of emancipation.

Here Schulz rejects most of the ideas of colleagues, because for Schulz the school is not a place of immediate changes in society. Because, in his opinion, schools are hardly involved in shaping current society. Is it still possible that schools can have an emancipatory effect?

"And if, with the help of the teacher, the uncritical internalization of existing conditions is relativized and the ability to question the circumstances, to play through alternative answers is given and remains, then that and only that, in my opinion, makes the emancipatory relevance of lessons." (1980 a, p. 81) According to Schulz, this means that school is not emancipated, but in the best case is emancipatory. But it also has to be so that the students can be able to emancipate themselves. The didactic theory therefore also has more of a normative aspect, since in this case it specifies and specifies the goals of society. Thus, it does not provide a program of action, but rather offers a model of possible action. So didactic theory can only refer to students and not to society.

Finally, it should be noted that the didactic model of action is only to be understood in the context of social systems that are democratic. “This can only be achieved in free, democratic and social democracies”. (Schulz 1980, p. 80).


literature

  • Wolfgang Schulz: The theoretical didactics . In: Herbert Gudjons (Ed.): Didactic Theories . Bergmann + Helbig, Hamburg 1997, ISBN 3-925836-35-7 , pp. 35-56 .
  • Wolfgang Schulz: Lesson planning . Urban & Schwarzenberg, Munich 1980, ISBN 978-3-541-40902-0 .
  • Wilhelm H. Peterssen: Textbook General Didactics . Ehrenwirth, Munich 1989, ISBN 978-3-431-02561-3 .
  • Wolfgang Schulz: The learning theory didactics . In: Herbert Gudjons, R. Winkel (Ed.): Didaktische Theorien . Bergmann + Helbig, Hamburg 2006, ISBN 978-3-925836-35-0 , pp. 35-56 .
  • Wilhelm H. Peterssen: Didactics. Textbook general didactics. 6th edition . Oldenbourg Schulbuchverlag, Munich, ISBN 3-486-02561-9 , p. 58-70 .
  • K.-H. Arnold and C. Lindner-Müller: The learning and teaching theory didactics . In: Raphaela Porsch (Hrsg.): Introduction to general didactics . Waxmann utb, Münster 2016, ISBN 978-3-8252-4565-8 .
  • P. Köck: Dictionary for education and instruction. The proven specialist lexicon for studies and practice. Brigg Pädagogik Verlag, Augsburg 2008.
  • D. Heckt: Media in the classroom. In: RW Keck, U. Sandfuchs and B. Feige (eds.): Dictionary school pedagogy. 2nd edition, Klinkhardt, Bad Heilbrunn 2004.
  • Jank, W. & Meyer, H. (2008): Didactic models. 8th edition. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.
  • Schulz, W. (2007) The teaching theory didactics. Or: Didactic activity in the school field. Model sketch of a professional activity. In: H. Gudjons & R. Winkel (Ed.): Didactic Theories. Hamburg: Bergmann + Helbig.
  • Hinz, R. / Radhoff, M. / Wieckert, S. (2016): Basic concepts of didactics. In: Porsch, R. (Ed.): Introduction to General Didactics. Regensburg: Waxmann Verlag.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Peterssen, WH (2001). Didactics. Textbook general didactics. 6th edition. Munich u. a .: Oldenbourg Schulbuchverlag, p. 58; Jank, W. & Meyer, H. (2008). Didactic models. 8th edition. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. P. 282
  2. ↑ Herbert Gudjons, Wolfgang Klafki, Rainer Winkel: Didaktische Theorien . Bergmann + Helbig, 2006, ISBN 3-925836-35-7 . ; Peterssen, WH (2001). Didactics. Textbook general didactics. 6th edition. Munich u. a .: Oldenbourg Schulbuchverlag, pp. 62–64.
  3. ^ Arnold, K.-H. and Lindner-Müller, C. (2016). The learning and teaching theory didactics. In Raphaela Porsch (ed.): Introduction to General Didactics. Münster: Waxmann, utb. P. 140
  4. ^ Arnold, K.-H. and Lindner-Müller, C. (2016). The learning and teaching theory didactics. In Raphaela Porsch (ed.): Introduction to General Didactics. Münster: Waxmann, utb. P. 140
  5. ↑ Eckard König, Norbert Schier, Ul, Arnold, K.-H. and Lindner-Müller, C. (2016). The learning and teaching theory didactics. In Raphaela Porsch (ed.): Introduction to General Didactics. Münster: Waxmann, utb. P. 140-142rich Vohland, Hans-Karl Beckmann: Discussion of lesson preparation : Procedures and models . Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Munich 1980, ISBN 3-7705-1861-6 , p. 45-77 .
  6. ^ Arnold, K.-H. and Lindner-Müller, C. (2016). The learning and teaching theory didactics. In Raphaela Porsch (ed.): Introduction to General Didactics. Münster: Waxmann, utb. P. 142
  7. ↑ Jank, W. & Meyer, H. (2008). Didactic models. 8th edition. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. P. 283
  8. ^ Arnold, K.-H. and Lindner-Müller, C. (2016). The learning and teaching theory didactics. In Raphaela Porsch (ed.): Introduction to General Didactics. Münster: Waxmann, utb. P. 142
  9. ↑ Peterssen, WH (2001). Didactics. Textbook general didactics. 6th edition. Munich u. a .: Oldenbourg Schulbuchverlag, p. 59
  10. ↑ Peterssen, WH (2001). Didactics. Textbook general didactics. 6th edition. Munich u. a .: Oldenbourg Schulbuchverlag, p. 59
  11. ↑ Peterssen, WH (2001). Didactics. Textbook general didactics. 6th edition. Munich u. a .: Oldenbourg Schulbuchverlag, p. 59
  12. ↑ Wolfgang Schulz: The Hamburg model of learning theory didactics . In: W. Jank, H. Meyer (Ed.): Didaktische Modelle . 8th edition. Cornelsen Scriptor, Berlin 2008, p. 282-284 .
  13. ↑ Wolfgang Schulz: The teaching theory didactics. Or: Didactic activity in the school field. Model sketch of a professional activity. In: H. Gudjons, R. Winkel (Ed.): Didactic Theories . Bergmann + Helbig, Hamburg 2007, p. 40 f .
  14. ↑ Schulz, W. (2007) The teaching theory didactics. Or: Didactic activity in the school field. Model sketch of a professional activity. In: H. Gudjons & R. Winkel (Ed.): Didactic Theories. Hamburg: Bergmann + Helbig, p. 48.
  15. ↑ Hinz, R. / Radhoff, M. / Wieckert, S. (2016): Basic concepts of didactics. In: Porsch, R. (Ed.): Introduction to General Didactics. Regensburg: Waxmann Verlag, p. 36.
  16. ^ P. Köck: Dictionary for education and instruction. The proven specialist lexicon for studies and practice. Brigg Pädagogik Verlag, Augsburg 2008, p. 468
  17. ↑ D. Heckt: Media in class. In: RW Keck, U. Sandfuchs and B. Feige (eds.): Dictionary school pedagogy. 2nd edition, Klinkhardt, Bad Heilbrunn 2004, p. 306
  18. ↑ Hinz, R. / Radhoff, M. / Wieckert, S. (2016): Basic concepts of didactics. In: Porsch, R. (Ed.): Introduction to General Didactics. Regensburg: Waxmann Verlag, pp. 39-40
  19. ↑ cf. K.-H. Arnold and C. Lindner-Müller (2016): The learning and teaching theory didactics. In: Raphaela Porsch (ed.): Introduction to General Didactics. Waxmann utb, Münster, pp. 145-150.
  20. ↑ a b Peterssen, Wilhelm H .: Textbook general didactics . Oldenbourg, 2001, ISBN 3-486-02561-9 .
  21. ^ A b c d e Eckard König, Norbert Schier, Ulrich Vohland, Hans-Karl Beckmann .: Discussion of lesson preparation : Procedures and models . Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Munich 1980, ISBN 3-7705-1861-6 .