Bibliothek

@article{Luebber2025b,

title = {Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line},

author = {Finn Luebber and Sören Krach and Frieder M. Paulus and Lena Rademacher and Rima-Maria Rahal},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-65660-9},

doi = {10.1038/s41467-025-65660-9},

issn = {2041-1723},

year  = {2025},

date = {2025-12-00},

urldate = {2025-12-00},

journal = {Nature Communications},

volume = {16},

number = {1},

publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},

abstract = {Research funding is a key determinant of scientific progress. However, current allocation procedures for third-party funding are criticized due to high costs and biases in the selection. Here, we present data from a large German funding organization on an implementation of a lottery-first approach followed by peer review to allocate funding. We examine the changes in submissions and funded projects of female applicants after implementation, estimate the costs of the overall allocation process, and report on the attitudes and satisfaction of researchers and reviewers. The data show an increase of 10% in submissions and a 23% increase in funded projects from female applicants with the lottery-first approach compared to a previously used procedure. Additionally, the lottery-first approach was estimated to have 68% lower economic costs compared to a conventional single-stage peer review approach. Satisfaction with this funding approach was high and around half of applicants preferred an initial lottery followed by peer review over a conventional approach. Thus, the lottery-first approach is a promising addition to allocation procedures.},

keywords = {A, funding, lottery},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {KI-Planspiel zur Themendisposition: ChatGPT als Assistent zur Themenfindung für wissenschaftliche Arbeiten},

author = {Rita Stampfl and Michael Prodinger},

url = {https://doi.org/10.53349/resource.2024.i4.a1345},

doi = {10.53349/resource.2024.i4.a1345},

issn = {2313-1640},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-10-15},

journal = {R&E-SOURCE},

volume = {11},

issue = {4},

pages = {119–130},

abstract = {Der Artikel untersucht den Einsatz von ChatGPT in der akademischen Lehre zur Unterstützung der Themenfindung für wissenschaftliche Arbeiten. Angesichts des Digitalen Wandels in der Bildung wird aufgezeigt, wie die Integration von KI die Motivation und das Engagement der Studierenden steigern kann. Durch den Einsatz von ChatGPT in einem strukturierten, iterativen Frage-Antwort-Prozess werden die Studierenden dazu angeleitet, kritisch über ihre vorgeschlagenen Themen nachzudenken und diese gründlich zu prüfen. Der Artikel betont die Wichtigkeit von kritischem Denken sowie Problemlösungsfähigkeiten und zeigt, dass diese Methode nicht nur die Relevanz und Konsistenz der wissenschaftlichen Themen sicherstellt, sondern auch die Entwicklung von Schlüsselkompetenzen fördert. Der Einsatz von künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) wird als effektives Mittel dargestellt, um eine qualitativ hochwertige und nachhaltige Hochschulbildung zu gewährleisten, die die Studierenden auf die Anforderungen des zukünftigen Arbeitsmarktes vorbereitet. Gleichzeitig wird auf die Notwendigkeit hingewiesen, die mit dem Einsatz von KI verbundenen Risiken zu managen.},

keywords = {A, ChatGPT, digitale Lehre, Künstliche Intelligenz, Planspiele},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Sun2023,

title = {Beware the myth: learning styles affect parents’, children’s, and teachers’ thinking about children’s academic potential},

author = {Xin Sun and Owen Norton and Shaylene E. Nancekivell},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00190-x},

doi = {10.1038/s41539-023-00190-x},

issn = {2056-7936},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-10-17},

journal = {npj Science of Learning},

number = {46},

issue = {8},

abstract = {Three experiments examine how providing learning style information (a student learns hands-on or visually) might influence thinking about that student’s academic potential. Samples were American and predominately white and middle-class. In Experiment 1, parents (N = 94) and children (N = 73, 6–12 years) judged students who learn visually as more intelligent than hands-on learners. Experiment 2 replicated this pattern with parents and teachers (N = 172). In Experiment 3 (pre-registered), parents and teachers (N = 200) predicted that visual learners are more skilled than hands-on learners at “core” school subjects (math/language/social sciences, except science), whereas, hands-on learners were skilled at non-core subjects (gym/music/art). Together, these studies show that learning style descriptions, resultant of a myth, impact thinking about children’s intellectual aptitudes.},

keywords = {A, Lerntypen, Mythen, neuromyth},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Eickhoff2023,

title = {Didaktische Gestaltung von MOOCs: Forschungsstand und Empfehlungen},

author = {Verena Eickhoff},

editor = {Martin Ebner and Thomas Staubitz and Markus Koschutnig-Ebner and Sebastian Serth},

url = {https://doi.org/10.3217/zfhe-18-01/04},

doi = {10.3217/zfhe-18-01/04},

issn = {2219-6994},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-03-01},

journal = {Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung (ZFHE)},

volume = {18},

issue = {1},

pages = {57–75},

abstract = {Vor dem Hintergrund der steigenden Bedeutung digitaler Lehre und dem Bedarf nach Good Practice und Gestaltungsempfehlungen fragt der Beitrag nach der didaktischen Qualität von MOOCs sowie didaktischen Prinzipien und Maßnahmen, die erfolgreiches Lernen in MOOCs fördern. Unter Bezug auf aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse wird gezeigt, dass die didaktische Qualität von MOOCs als unzureichend zu bewerten ist. Anschließend werden mehrere didaktische Prinzipien auf ihre Eignung zur didaktischen Gestaltung von MOOCs geprüft und danach Maßnahmen vorgestellt, die sich als geeignet erwiesen haben, um das für den Lernerfolg in MOOCs wichtige selbstregulierte Lernen zu fördern.},

keywords = {A, didaktische Prinzipien, Instruktionsdesign, massive open online course (MOOC), Online-Lernen, Selbstgesteuertes Lernen, selbstreguliertes Lernen},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {MOOCs in der Hochschullehre – Motive und Erwartungen von Lehrenden und Studierenden},

author = {Carolin Flerlage and Andrea Bernholt and Ilka Parchmann},

editor = {Martin Ebner and Thomas Staubitz and Markus Koschutnig-Ebner and Sebastian Serth},

url = {https://doi.org/10.3217/zfhe-18-01/10},

doi = {10.3217/zfhe-18-01/10},

issn = {2219-6994},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-03-01},

journal = {Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung},

volume = {18},

issue = {1},

pages = {171–191},

abstract = {Lehrende spielen im Diskurs um Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in der Hochschullehre als potenzielle Nutzer:innen und Entwickler:innen eine wichtige Rolle. Auch die Passung mit den Erwartungen der Studierenden ist entscheidend für eine breite Verankerung von MOOCs in der Lehre. In einer Fragebogenstudie mit 445 Lehrenden und 1644 Studierenden aus Schleswig-Holstein zeigt sich, dass Lehrende mit und ohne MOOC-Erfahrung ähnliche Motivationsstrukturen und Einstellungen zu digitalen Bildungsangeboten haben. Im Unterschied zu Studierenden sprechen sich Lehrende für kollaborative, seminarähnliche Formate aus. Für Studierende sind sowohl klare Strukturen als auch Wahlmöglichkeiten wichtig.},

keywords = {A, Einstellung, Hochschullehrende, massive open online courses (MOOCs), motivation, Studierende},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Limburg2022,

title = {Plagiarismus in Zeiten Künstlicher Intelligenz},

author = {Anika Limburg and Peter Salden and Margret Mundorf and Doris Weßels},

editor = {Ines Langemeyer and Ernst Schraube and Peter Tremp},

url = {https://doi.org/10.3217/zfhe-17-03/06},

doi = {10.3217/zfhe-17-03/06},

issn = {2219-6994},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-10-01},

journal = {Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung (ZFHE)},

volume = {17},

issue = {3},

pages = {91–106},

abstract = {Software auf Basis Künstlicher Intelligenz aus dem Bereich des Natural Language Processing hat das Potenzial,  wissenschaftliches Schreiben grundlegend zu verändern.  Entsprechende Tools können bereits erstaunlich kohärente  Texte in wissenschaftlichem Ton produzieren. Dies führt zu  fundamentalen Fragen guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis und  akademischer Kultur. Wir diskutieren diese Entwicklung vor  dem Hintergrund einer Befragung deutscher  Schreibdidaktiker:innen und arbeiten Fragen heraus, die im  Zusammenhang mit KI-Schreibtools zukünftig von  zentraler Bedeutung sein werden. Abschließend schlagen  wir einen Passus für eine Selbstständigkeitserklärung vor,  der den Entwicklungen Rechnung trägt.},

keywords = {A, AI, artificial intelligence, gute wissenschaftliche Praxis, KI, Künstliche Intelligenz, Natural Language Processing, plagiarism, Plagiarismus, reflective science, Schreibdidaktik, writing tools},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Brandenburger2022,

title = {A multidimensional and analytical perspective on Open Educational Practices in the 21st century},

author = {Bonny Brandenburger},

editor = {Ana Luísa Rodrigues},

url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.990675},

doi = {10.3389/feduc.2022.990675},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-09-26},

journal = {Frontiers in Education},

volume = {7},

abstract = {Participatory approaches to teaching and learning are experiencing a new lease on life in the 21st century as a result of the rapid technology development. Knowledge, practices, and tools can be shared across spatial and temporal boundaries in higher education by means of Open Educational Resources, Massive Open Online Courses, and open-source technologies. In this context, the Open Education Movement calls for new didactic approaches that encourage greater learner participation in formal higher education. Based on a representative literature review and focus group research, in this study an analytical framework was developed that enables researchers and practitioners to assess the form of participation in formal, collaborative teaching and learning practices. The analytical framework is focused on the micro-level of higher education, in particular on the interaction between students and lecturers when organizing the curriculum. For this purpose, the research reflects anew on the concept of participation, taking into account existing stage models for participation in the educational context. These are then brought together with the dimensions of teaching and learning processes, such as methods, objectives and content, etc. This paper aims to make a valuable contribution to the opening up of learning and teaching, and expands the discourse around possibilities for interpreting Open Educational Practices.},

keywords = {A, OEP, Open Educational Practices},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Ebner2022,

title = {OER Impact Assessment: A framework for higher education institutions and beyond. Approaches to assess the impact of Open Educational Resources},

author = {Martin Ebner and Dominic Orr and Sandra Schön},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2022-0018},

doi = {10.1515/edu-2022-0018},

issn = {2544-7831},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-07-28},

journal = { Open Education Studies},

volume = {4},

issue = {1},

pages = {296–309},

abstract = {The  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to  provide  an  overview   of   approaches   to   and   insights   for   impact   assessment on open educational resources (OER) in higher education and building on this to sketch a framework for university focussed OER impact assessment. The authors describe  the  literature  on  impact  assessment  in  the  OER  context  and  the  existing  contributions  to  OER  impact  assessment in higher education. Findings of the analysis are that there are few contributions on the effects of OER in general or of specific OER initiatives. Four contributions are presented in more detail. From these examples and the literature  analysis,  derivations,  and  challenges  for  OER  impact assessment are drawn, such as the large diversity in  OER  purposes  and  the  invisibility  of  the  re-usage  of  OER.  The  contribution  sketches  a  framework  model  for  describing  OER-relevant  results,  outcomes,  and  impact,  and more specifically demonstrates how this can be done for  exemplary  OER-related  objectives.  This  contribution  is  thus  of  relevance  to  funding  bodies  and  institutions  working  in  the  context  of  higher  education  that  wish  to  systematically evaluate and monitor statements about the effectiveness  of  OER  activities  according  to  the  UNESCO  (2019) OER recommendation.},

keywords = {A, higher education, impact analysis, impact assessment, open educational ressources (OER), strategy},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Jordan2022,

title = {JIME Virtual Special Collection – 2012 to 2022: The Decade of the MOOC},

author = {Katy Jordan and Fereshte Goshtasbpour},

url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.757},

doi = {10.5334/jime.757},

issn = {1365-893X},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-05-25},

journal = {Journal of Interactive Media in Education},

volume = {2022},

issue = {1},

abstract = {In a New York Times article, Pappano (2012) declared 2012 as ‘the year of the MOOC’. It was a year which saw a surge in interest in this new, open form of online higher education. While the initial hype around Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) subsided and their form has changed significantly from the first large-scale courses, more learners than ever are registered with the platforms, which have attracted substantial levels of investment. In this special collection, we bring together articles published in the Journal of Interactive Media in Education over the past ten years, which have focused upon MOOCs from a diverse range of research perspectives. First, we provide an overview of major events and trends in relation to MOOCs over the past ten years. We then take a closer look at the 25 papers published in JIME and included in the virtual special collection, arranged in relation to four main themes, including: situating MOOCs; learning design and roles; MOOCs and languages; and accessibility and inclusion.},

keywords = {A, massive open online course (MOOC), massive open online courses (MOOCs), open education},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Otto2021b,

title = {Offen gemacht: Der Stand der internationalen evidenzbasierten Forschung zu Open Educational Resources (OER)},

author = {Daniel Otto and Nadine Schröder and Daniel Diekmann and Pia Sander},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-021-01043-2},

doi = {10.1007/s11618-021-01043-2},

issn = {1862-5215},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-10-00},

urldate = {2021-10-00},

journal = {Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft},

volume = {24},

number = {5},

pages = {1061–1085},

publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC},

abstract = {Open Educational Resources (OER) bilden ein wichtiges Element im Diskurs über eine Digitalisierung von Bildung. Der Beitrag erhebt den Stand der internationalen empirischen Forschung zu OER, um dadurch Desiderate für eine zukünftige Forschungsagenda aufzuzeigen. Mittels eines systematischen Mapping-Ansatzes wird dafür die empirische, englischsprachige Forschungslandschaft kartiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Forschung vor allem im Hochschulbereich betrieben wird und wenige Studien für den Bereich Schule vorliegen. Forschungsmethodisch sind quantitative Studien prävalent, die vorwiegend umfragebasiert durchgeführt werden. Das primäre Forschungsinteresse der Studien konzentriert sich auf Wahrnehmungsfaktoren von OER sowie auf deren Übernahme und Nutzung in der Bildungspraxis. Ein weiteres Forschungsfeld sind Offene Textbücher und deren komparative Kostenvorteile oder qualitative Vergleichbarkeit mit kostenpflichtigem Bildungsmaterial. Forschungsdesiderate liegen im Feld der Usability respektive Benutzerfreundlichkeit von OER-Repositorien. Forschung hierzu könnte die zahlreichen Bundesländerinitiativen zur Etablierung von OER-Landesportalen unterstützen. Weitere Forschungslücken finden sich bei den Effekten der Nutzung von OER auf das pädagogische Handeln und die Veränderungen etablierter Bildungspraktiken.},

keywords = {A, Empirische Bildungsforschung, Internationale empirische Forschung, OER, open educational ressources (OER), Systematic Mapping},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Venable2021,

title = {Gender Differences in Online Learning: Insights from recent graduates},

author = {Melissa Venable},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3473344.3460821

https://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=3460821&doi=10.1145%2F3473344.3460821},

doi = {10.1145/3473344.3460821},

issn = {1535-394X},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-07-30},

journal = {eLearn},

volume = {2021},

number = {6},

abstract = {How might the online learning experience, and the support required for success, differ for men and women? New survey research captures insights from 505 participants, including 295 women, who graduated from online programs between 2015 and 2020. This article provides an overview of the characteristics of online students, highlighting the challenges female students face and considerations for supporting their success. Differences in demographic characteristics across gender were found in the areas of degree level and academic major, income, age, and ethnic diversity. More men chose computer and information sciences majors, while more women were in healthcare and education. Female students were also younger and at lower income levels than their male counterparts when they were enrolled in their online programs. And while the majority of study participants were White, women represented more ethnic diversity than men. Recommendations include the review and revision of curricula and support programs with specific learner characteristics in mind, addressing potential biases with culturally responsive strategies leading to greater representation. Future research should continue to track trends related to online student needs and perspectives and expand descriptions of gender beyond binary categories.},

keywords = {A, Diversity, Gender, online learning, online studying},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Sinha2021,

title = {When Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Works: Evidence for Productive Failure},

author = {Tanmay Sinha and Manu Kapur},

url = {https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019105},

doi = {10.3102/00346543211019105},

issn = {1935-1046},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-06-18},

urldate = {2021-06-18},

journal = {Review of Educational Research},

volume = {91},

issue = {5},

pages = {761–798},

abstract = {When learning a new concept, should students engage in problem solving followed by instruction (PS-I) or instruction followed by problem solving (I-PS)? Noting that there is a passionate debate about the design of initial learning, we report evidence from a meta-analysis of 53 studies with 166 comparisons that compared PS-I with I-PS design. Our results showed a significant, moderate effect in favor of PS-I (Hedge’s g 0.36 [95% confidence interval 0.20; 0.51]). The effects were even stronger (Hedge’s g ranging between 0.37 and 0.58) when PS-I was implemented with high fidelity to the principles of Productive Failure (PF), a subset variant of PS-I design. Students’ grade level, intervention time span, and its (quasi-)experimental nature contributed to the efficacy of PS-I over I-PS designs. Contrasting trends were, however, observed for younger age learners (second to fifth graders) and for the learning of domain-general skills, for which effect sizes favored I-PS. Overall, an estimation of true effect sizes after accounting for publication bias suggested a strong effect size favoring PS-I (Hedge’s g 0.87).},

keywords = {A, direct instruction, learning through problem solvint, preparation for future learning, productive failure},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Toth2021,

title = {Lernkulturen und Persönlichkeit: Warum MOOCs doch nicht die Bildungsungleichheit auflösen konnten},

author = {Christian Toth},

url = {https://www.medienpaed.com/article/view/1074

https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/42/2021.04.08.X},

doi = {10.21240/mpaed/42/2021.04.08.X},

isbn = {1424-3636},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-04-01},

journal = {MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung},

volume = {42},

number = {Optimierung},

pages = {134–151},

abstract = {Digitale Medien sind in der modernen Bildungslandschaft stetiger Hoffnungsträger für die Aufhebung der Bildungsungleichheit. Im Fokus der 2010er Jahre standen Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), die spätestens seit dem grossen MOOC-Hype 2012 kontinuierlich und in stetig wechselnder Gestalt als Optimierungen der Hochschulbildung gehandelt werden und selbst in den vergangenen sieben Jahren zahlreiche Veränderungen durchlaufen haben. MOOCs haben in der deutschen Hochschulbildung zu kontroversen Diskussionen geführt, bisweilen nehmen MOOCs an deutschen Hochschulen jedoch keinen besonderen Stellenwert ein. Dabei gäbees durchaus Potenziale zur Weiterentwicklung (und damit auch Optimierung) der Hochschullehre, wenn man an internationale Entwicklungen der MOOC-Forschung anknüpfen würde. Dieser Beitrag bilanziert, ob MOOCs den Ansprüchen der Digitalisierung in Hochschulen und den gesellschaftlichen Erwartungen, der Bildungsungleichheit entgegenzuwirken, gerecht werden und stützt sich in der kritischen Einschätzung auf die Ergebnisse einer gross angelegten (N > 1000) und abgeschlossenen quantitativen Studie über vier internationale MOOCs. Die Forschungsergebnisse begründen, warum MOOCs in ihrer traditionellen Form nicht zwingend zu einer Optimierung der Hochschulbildung führen, geben jedoch Hinweise darauf, wie dies nach wie vor gelingen könnte.},

keywords = {A, massive open online course (MOOC), Optimierung},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Reinmann2021,

title = {Hybride Lehre – Ein Begriff und seine Zukunft für Forschung und Praxis},

author = {Gabi Reinmann},

url = {https://gabi-reinmann.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Impact_Free_35.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-02-01},

journal = {Impact Free: Journal für freie Bildungswissenschaftler},

volume = {35},

keywords = {A, Begriffsfindung, Blended Learning, Corona, hybride Lehre},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Haddaway2020,

title = {Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them},

author = {Neal R. Haddaway and Alison Bethel and Lynn V. Dicks and Julia Koricheva and Biljana Macura and Gillian Petrokofsky and Andrew S. Pullin and Sini Savilaakso and Gavin B. Stewart},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x},

doi = {10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x},

issn = {2397-334X},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-10-12},

journal = {Nature Ecology & Evolution},

volume = {4},

pages = {1582–1589},

abstract = {Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a ‘critical friend’ role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the ‘systematic review’ label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.},

keywords = {A, literature review},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Schmölz2020,

title = {Digitale Kluft: Teilhabebarrieren für Studierende durch universitäres home learning?},

author = {Alexander Schmölz and Corinna Geppert and Alessandro Barberi},

url = {https://doi.org/10.21243/mi-02-20-31

https://journals.univie.ac.at/index.php/mp/article/view/3644},

doi = {10.21243/mi-02-20-31},

issn = {2307-3187},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-06-20},

journal = {Medienimpulse},

volume = {58},

number = {2},

pages = {26},

abstract = {Die Nutzung von digitalen Medien zur Teilhabe an gesellschaftlichen und wirtschaftlichen Prozessen sowie die Teilhabebarrieren und die digitale Kluft sind seit dem Aufkommen der Computertechnologie ein zentrales Phänomen sozialer (Un-)Gleichheit. Dieser Artikel gilt der Untersuchung der digitalen Kluft im Zuge der Umstellung des Studienbetriebs auf „home-learning“ an den österreichischen Universitäten Anfang März 2020. Diese notwendige Umstellung der Lehre zielte auf die Verminderung der Kontaktmöglichkeiten und damit auf die Reduzierung der Ansteckungsgefahr mit COVID-19 ab. Dieser Artikel beleuchtet – auch im Sinne partizipatorischer Fragestellungen – die Herausforderungen, denen sich Studierende in Zeiten des „home-learning“ gegenübersahen, um an der digitalen Lehre teilhaben zu können. Im Rahmen der zugrundeliegenden Studie wurde untersucht, inwieweit die universitären Maßnahmen bezüglich „home-learning“ sowie weitere (nationale) Regelungen zu Teilhabebarrieren für Studierende wurden. Im Folgenden werden die Ergebnisse dieser Befragung (n=412) unter Studierenden der Bildungswissenschaft der Universität Wien zusammengefasst. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass nicht so sehr der technische Zugang zu Computer und Internet hinderlich ist, sondern vielmehr die Kompetenzanforderungen bestimmter Technologien, die Organisation von Tages- und Wochenabläufen sowie des eigenen Lernens und der Umgang der Lehrenden mit der Situation. Auch steigende Kursanforderungen, der Zugang zur Bibliothek, zunehmende Betreuungspflichten und der (drohende) Verlust des Arbeitsplatzes haben die Teilnahme am „home-learning“ erheblich beeinträchtigt.},

keywords = {A, Corona, Digitale Kluft, Digitale Medien, distance learning},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Frick2020,

title = {Publikationskosten für Zeitschriftenartikel abseits von Open-Access-Publikationsfonds – Lost in Transformation?},

author = {Claudia Frick and Christian Kaier},

url = {https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/5586},

doi = {10.5282/o-bib/5586},

issn = {2363-9814},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-05-05},

urldate = {2020-05-28},

journal = {O-Bib. Das Offene Bibliotheksjournal},

volume = {7},

number = {2},

pages = {1–15},

organization = {VDB},

abstract = {Mit der Etablierung von Open Access als Standardmodell des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens verlagert sich der Fokus von Subskriptions- auf Publikationskosten. Die zuverlässige und vollständige Erfassung dieser Kosten stellt eine große Herausforderung für Bibliotheken und Institutionen dar. Gründe dafür sind dezentrale Rechnungsworkflows, unterschiedliche Kostenmodelle, Nebengebühren, ein Nebeneinander von Einzel- und Pauschalgebühren und die Vermischung von Subskriptions- und Publikationskosten. Der vorliegende Beitrag analysiert zunächst die Vielfalt der unterschiedlichen Ausgaben für Artikel in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften. Im Anschluss zeigt er zwei Ansätze der Erfassung von dezentralen Publikationskosten auf, die zu einer besseren Steuerung und mehr Transparenz der Ausgaben für das Publizieren beitragen.},

keywords = {A, Buchhaltung, Controlling, Monitoring, open access, Publikationsgebühren, Publikationskosten},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Aufenager2020,

title = {Handschriftliche versus digitale Mitschriften in akademischen Vorlesungen},

author = {Stefan Aufenanger and Jasmin Bastian},

editor = {Sandra Hofhues and Mandy Schiefner-Rohs and Sandra Aßmann and Taiga Brahm},

url = {https://zfhe.at/index.php/zfhe/article/view/1324},

isbn = {2219-6994},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-03-01},

journal = {Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung},

volume = {15},

number = {1},

pages = {103–125},

abstract = {Die Diskussion um das Mitschreiben in Vorlesungen wurde durch einen Aufsatz von MUELLER & OPPENHEIMER (2014) besonders aufgeheizt. Darin geben die Autoren auf der Grundlage dreier eigener Experimente der handschriftlichen Mitschrift den Vorrang für das Lernen. In einer eigenen Studie überprüfen die Autorin und der Autor das Ergebnis. Eine Onlineerhebung bei Studierenden der Bildungswissenschaften zeigt auf, dass die Art und Weise der Mitschriften sowie die Gründe dafür recht unterschiedlich sind. In einer weiteren Studie wurde die Qualität der Mitschriften – handschriftlich und digital – untersucht, wobei Unterschiede in ausgewählten Bereichen deutlich werden. Die Autorin und der Autor diskutieren abschließend die Ergebnisse und geben Empfehlungen für Hochschulen ab.},

keywords = {A, Computer, Handschrift, Hochschule, Mitschrift, Vorlesung},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Aikina2020,

title = {Moodle-Based Learning: Motivating and Demotivating Factors},

author = {Tatiana Yurievna Aikina and Liudmila Mikhailovna Bolsunovskaya},

url = {https://online-journals.org/index.php/i-jet/article/view/11297},

issn = {1863-0383},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-01-01},

journal = {International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)},

volume = {15},

number = {02},

pages = {239–248},

abstract = {Over the past 10 years, a lot of universities worldwide have designed different online courses available to their students. The emergence of online courses makes Higher Education a more flexible and elastic concept. The present paper documents a qualitative study that examines motivating and demotivating factors in using Moodle for English language learning in higher schools. The survey encompasses data collected from 137 students and 20 teachers in a higher technical school (Russia) with a focus on students’ and teachers’ perception of Moodle-based learning. Analysis of the obtained data reveals a set of factors concerning pedagogical, technical, management approaches towards Moodle implementation. The results suggest further development of positive experiences and minimizing demotivating factors in online learning environment.},

keywords = {A, collaborative learning, e-learning, English language learning, innovative approach, Moodle},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Bellinger2019,

title = {Nach wie vor glücklich trotz Prekariat? Eine Umfragen-Neuauflage zur Lage von Qualifikandinnen und Qualifikanden in der Medienpädagogik},

author = {Franziska Bellinger and Ricarda Bolten and Nina Grünberger and Wolfgang B. Ruge},

url = {https://www.medienpaed.com/article/view/826

https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/00/2019.12.23.X},

doi = {10.21240/mpaed/00/2019.12.23.X},

issn = {1424-3636},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-12-23},

journal = {MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung},

volume = {2019},

number = {Occasional Papers},

pages = {174–192},

abstract = {Die im Jahr 2016 von Dander et al. publizierten Ergebnisse zur Situation des wissenschaftlichen «Nachwuchses» sensibilisierten für eine zunehmende Prekarisierung der Beschäftigungsverhältnisse von Qualifikandinnen und Qualifikanden in der deutschsprachigen Medienpädagogik, die sich auch auf den privaten Kontext ausweitet. Die Kolleginnen und Kollegen wiesen damit auf Problemlagen von Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler in Qualifikationsphasen hin, um so eine kritische Diskussion und Reflexion in der eigenen Disziplin anzuregen. Knapp vier Jahre nach der ersten Erhebung wurde eine erneute Fragebogenuntersuchung zur Lage der Qualifikandinnen und Qualifikanden in der Medienpädagogik durchgeführt, die eine Vergleichsbasis zur Umfrage aus 2014 bieten soll. Neben den thematischen Schwerpunkten zur a) Zufriedenheit mit den Arbeits- und Beschäftigungsbedingungen, b) Zufriedenheit mit der Betreuungssituation und c) der Work-Life-Balance wird hierin auch den Aspekten d) Internationalisierung und Vernetzung Beachtung geschenkt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Zufriedenheit im Vergleich zu von vor vier Jahren leicht abgenommen hat, obwohl der Arbeit an den Qualifikationsarbeiten auf den Stellen tendenziell mehr Zeit eingeräumt wird. Die mangelnde Planbarkeit der Karriere und oftmals fehlende berufliche Sicherheit zählt nach wie vor zu den problematischsten Aspekten für die Qualifikandinnen und Qualifikanden in der deutschsprachigen Medienpädagogik.},

keywords = {A, Germany, higher education, phd},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Cromley2019,

title = {Drawing-to-Learn: Does Meta-Analysis Show Differences Between Technology-Based Drawing and Paper-and-Pencil Drawing?},

author = {Jennifer G. Cromley and Yang Du and Aygul Parpucu Dane},

editor = {Drawing-to-Learn: Does Meta-Analysis Show Differences Between Technology-Based Drawing and Paper-and-Pencil Drawing?},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09807-6},

doi = {10.1007/s10956-019-09807-6},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-12-21},

journal = {Journal of Science Education and Technology},

volume = {29},

pages = {216–229},

abstract = {Drawing-to-learn is a specific learning/reading strategy studied across many domains. In response to gaps in our knowledge about drawing-to-learn, we conducted a systematic meta-analysis of the literature published since the influential 2005 Van Meter and Garner literature review. We analyzed the benefits of directed learner-generated visual representations such as sketching, drawing, or computer-assisted creation of a full or partial static image. Forty-one peer-reviewed articles were screened in, together with 9 dissertations and 2 other documents; published from 2005 to 2018, these included 53 studies and 166 effects based on 8111 participants. The overall effect of drawing-to-learn across all dependent variable types (factual, inferential, and transfer) and both types of effects—comparing different types of drawing and comparing drawing to non-drawing conditions—was a significant g = 0.69. The overall effect was significant but differed across outcomes (g = 0.85 for factual, g = 0.44 for inferential, and g = 0.22 for transfer). Analyses across 6 moderators are presented. Not only does the literature continue to show that drawing-to-learn is better than the status quo, but directed drawing improves factual as well as inferential and transfer learning. Finally, researchers have found ways to improve drawing-to-learn instruction so that it can be even more effective than the simple directive to make a drawing.},

keywords = {A, drawing to learn, mental models, STEM, strategies, visual representation},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Maciejewski2019,

title = {Let Your Students Cheat on Exams},

author = {Wes Maciejewski},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2019.1705450},

doi = {10.1080/10511970.2019.1705450},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-12-17},

journal = {PRIMUS},

pages = {1–13},

publisher = {Taylor & Francis},

abstract = {What if your students could access any resource during a test? How would they react? How would you react? This paper presents some results from a trial of allowing students access to notes, calculators, and any device connected to the internet, which occurred during a midterm in a second-year ordinary differential equations university course. This was generally well-received by the students and feedback informed a subsequent use of this approach in a mathematical reasoning course. I argue that this open-resource exam protocol affords the opportunity for less routine and possibly more conceptual engagement with mathematics.},

keywords = {A, differential equations education, digital resources, summative assessment, technology, undergraduate mathematics},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Schaefer2019,

title = {Open-label placebos reduce test anxiety and improve self-management skills: A randomized-controlled trial},

author = {Michael Schaefer and Claudia Denke and Rebecca Harke and Nina Olk and Merve Erkovan and Sören Enge},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49466-6},

doi = {10.1038/s41598-019-49466-6},

issn = {2045-2322},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-09-16},

urldate = {2019-12-18},

journal = {Nature Scientific Reports},

volume = {9},

number = {13317},

abstract = {Test anxiety is a condition in which people experience extreme distress and anxiety before and in test situations. It affects up to 40 percent of all students. Conventional treatment includes both medication and psychotherapy, but studies also demonstrated that placebos affect anxiety symptoms. Although in the traditional understanding placebos need to be administered in a concealed way, intriguing new studies report that open-label placebos can be effective. Since prescription of fake pills involves ethical problems, open-label placebos may provide important new treatment possibilities. Here we report results of a pilot study examining whether open-label placebos may reduce test anxiety and improve self-management skills. 58 students participated in a two-group randomized controlled trial. Two weeks before an exam at the university participants received open-label placebos or no pills (control group). Participant – provider relationship and amount of contact time was held similar for all groups. After two weeks we found that test anxiety and self-management abilities (skills and resources) of the open-label placebo group were more improved than in the control group. Thus, our results seems to indicate that open-label placebos may reduce test anxiety and enhance self-management skills in students.},

keywords = {A, open label placebo, placebo effect, test anxiety},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Hilton2019,

title = {Open educational resources, student efficacy, and user perceptions: a synthesis of research published between 2015 and 2018},

author = {John Hilton},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09700-4},

doi = {10.1007/s11423-019-09700-4},

issn = {1556-6501},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-08-06},

journal = {Educational Technology Research and Development},

abstract = {Although textbooks are a traditional component in many higher education contexts, their increasing price have led many students to forgo purchasing them and some faculty to seek substitutes. One such alternative is open educational resources (OER). This present study synthesizes results from sixteen efficacy and twenty perceptions studies involving 121,168 students or faculty that examine either (1) OER and student efficacy in higher education settings or (2) the perceptions of college students and/or instructors who have used OER. Results across these studies suggest students achieve the same or better learning outcomes when using OER while saving significant amounts of money. The results also indicate that the majority of faculty and students who have used OER had a positive experience and would do so again.},

keywords = {A, Computers in education, Financing education, O, OER, open educational resources},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Bellinger_Mayrberger_2019,

title = {Systematic Literature Review zu Open Educational Practices (OEP) in der Hochschule im europäischen Forschungskontext},

author = {Franziska Bellinger and Kerstin Mayrberger},

url = {https://www.medienpaed.com/article/view/664},

doi = {10.21240/mpaed/34/2019.02.18.X},

issn = {1424-3636},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-02-01},

urldate = {2019-02-01},

journal = {MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung},

volume = {34},

number = {Research and OER},

pages = {19–46},

abstract = {Open Educational Practices (OEP) erscheinen in der Debatte um Openness im Bildungskontext und in Verbindung mit Open Educational Resources (OER) trotz einer nachweislichen Verbindung als noch relativ unterrepräsentiert. So wird hier der Annahme gefolgt, dass es aus theoretischer, empirischer wie diskursiver Perspektive notwendig erscheint für eine Kultur des Teilens und weiter eine offene Bildung im Sinne von Open Education und Open Pedagogy, die sich in Variationen von OEP manifestieren, zu sensibilisieren. Auf Grund der Bedeutung von OEP für den derzeitigen Transformationsprozess im Hochschulkontext unter den Bedingungen der Digitalisierung liefert der Beitrag einen systematischen Überblick zu Forschungsarbeiten zu OEP. Dabei findet eine Orientierung entlang der übergreifenden Fragestellung, in welchen Zusammenhängen und unter welchen Fragestellungen OEP im Kontext Hochschule erforscht werden und mit welchem Begriffsverständnis gearbeitet wird, statt. Das Ergebnis des Literature Reviews zeigt, dass in den Forschungsarbeiten ein variantenreiches Verständnis von OEP thematisiert wird. In Abhängigkeit dessen wie das Verhältnis der Praktiken der Subjekte und die Praxis jeweils gefasst werden, lassen sich vier Dimensionen einer OEP im Kontext von Openness identifizieren. Der Beitrag plädiert daher für eine begriffliche Schärfung von OEP im jeweils spezifischen Verwendungszusammenhang. Die Autorinnen forcieren dabei eine praxistheoretische Perspektive. Es wird argumentiert, dass ein praxistheoretischer Zugang es ermöglicht, offene Bildungspraktiken für den Hochschulkontext theoretisch zu fundieren und empirisch zu untersuchen, um damit einen Beitrag zur zeitgemässen Mediendidaktik respektive Medienpädagogik leisten zu können.},

keywords = {A, Hochschule, Literaturanalyse, literature review, Open Educational Practices},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Lemke2019,

title = {“When You Use Social Media You Are Not Working”: Barriers for the Use of Metrics in Social Sciences},

author = {Steffen Lemke and Maryam Mehrazar and Athanasios Mazarakis and Isabella Peters},

url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00039},

doi = {10.3389/frma.2018.00039},

issn = {2504–0537},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-08},

journal = {Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics},

volume = {3},

pages = {39},

abstract = {The Social Sciences have long been struggling with quantitative forms of research assessment – insufficient coverage in prominent citation indices and overall lower citation counts than in STM subject areas have led to a widespread weariness regarding bibliometric evaluations among social scientists. Fueled by the rise of the social web, new hope is often placed on alternative metrics that measure the attention scholarly publications receive online, in particular on social media. But almost a decade after the coining of the term altmetrics for this new group of indicators, the uptake of the concept in the Social Sciences still seems to be low. Just like with traditional bibliometric indicators, one central problem hindering the applicability of altmetrics for the Social Sciences is the low coverage of social science publications on the respective data sources – which in the case of altmetrics are the various social media platforms on which interactions with scientific outputs can be measured. Another reason is that social scientists have strong opinions about the usefulness of metrics for research evaluation which may hinder broad acceptance of altmetrics too. 

We conducted qualitative interviews and online surveys with researchers to identify the concerns which inhibit the use of social media and the utilization of metrics for research evaluation in the Social Sciences. By analyzing the response data from the interviews in conjunction with the response data from the surveys, we identify the key concerns that inhibit social scientists from (1) applying social media for professional purposes and (2) making use of the wide array of metrics available. 

Our findings show that aspects of time consumption, privacy, dealing with information overload, and prevalent styles of communication are predominant concerns inhibiting Social Science researchers from using social media platforms for their work. Regarding indicators for research impact we identify a widespread lack of knowledge about existing metrics, their methodologies and meanings as a major hindrance for their uptake through social scientists. The results have implications for future developments of scholarly online tools and show that researchers could benefit considerably from additional formal training regarding the correct application and interpretation of metrics.},

keywords = {A, altmetrics, bibliometrics, concerns, interviews, online survey, research assessment, social media usage},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}