Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Brisker Do Research – Two Strategies for Improving Innovation Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2014 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

How to Prepare Academic Staff for Their New Role as University Teachers? Welcome to the Seminar “Academic Teaching”

verfasst von : Meike Bücker, Esther Borowski, René Vossen, Sabina Jeschke

Erschienen in: Automation, Communication and Cybernetics in Science and Engineering 2013/2014

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The basic university teacher training at RWTH Aachen University is the 2-day seminar “Academic Teaching” which addresses the qualification needs of (mainly) doctoral students who are short on teaching experience. The target of the training is to set a starting point for the development of the participants’ teaching competence. The orientation on a five-stage development model of teaching competence serves as the content structure of the seminar, suggesting that different topics are important for the participants at different stages of their teaching competence development. The didactical method to convey these contents is the constructivist ExAcT training model based on current findings of pedagogical psychology and neuroscience. In the following sections it will be described how the goal of teaching competence development for new university teachers is attained by considering development stages of teaching competence through the content structure and by using the training model as didactical method in the seminar “Academic Teaching”.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel A Training Model for University Teaching Staff
Nächstes Kapitel Intensifying Learner’s Experience by Incorporating the Virtual Theatre into Engineering Education
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
The Federal Republic of Germany consists of 16 federal states, the so called “Länder”.
 
2
For further information visit the project website: www.​exact.​rwth-aachen.​de.
 
3
The ZLW heads various central projects and institutions for teaching and further education: It coordinates the Centre for Further Education with the aim to develop excellent and highly qualified teaching staff. Together with its partners from the Technical University Dortmund and the Ruhr-University Bochum the ZLW runs a national Competence and Service Center for Teaching and Learning in Engineering Sciences called “TeachIng.LearnIng.EU”. Also the student laboratories of the RWTH, RWTH Education Labs, are located at the ZLW und are organized jointly with partners from university and industry. In the context of E-Learning, the ZLW ran the projects BlendXL and Role. Other notable projects are KISSWIN, CSP or HTBP. For further information visit the ZLW-website: http://​www.​ima-zlw-ifu.​rwth-aachen.​de/​en/​institute_​cluster/​institutes/​zlw.​html.
 
4
As far as personal designation in the content is only given in male form, it equally refers to women and men.
 
6
Academic competence relates to the accomplishment of academic performance requirements.
 
7
Teachers should be able to position themselves with their own profile and their role as university teacher.
 
8
The teachers hast to see themselves as a facilitators of student learning through transparent learning and competence goals orientated towards the Learning Outcome.
 
9
A paper on the development of the ExAcT competence model is contemporary in progress.
 
10
The presented development models do not explicitly regard the development of the construct teaching competence, but the parallels are clear since they regard the (further) development of university teachers.
 
11
It has to be acknowledged that the development of teaching competence is not necessarily connected with time. Some university teachers do not develop teaching competence at all or do not teach accordingly though they would have the competences to do so.
 
12
Some of activities - like the introduction to the seminar, the getting acquainted, activating games as well as the feedbacks are not included in this description. They are not specific for Academic Teaching, but for all trainings.
 
13
Learning goals are important for the evaluation, because evaluation is concerned with the achievement of the defined learning goals.
 
14
Didactics is a term describing the study of the relationship between learners, teachers and educational subject knowledge.
 
15
Problem-based learning is special case, because it is rather a mixture of task-related and cooperative teaching.
 
16
Surface learning “[…] indicates the use of routine memorisation to reproduce those aspects of the subject matter expected to be assessed” [26, p. 595]. In contrast, the deep approach describes “active engagement with the content, leading to extensive elaboration of the learning material while seeking personal understanding” [26].
 
17
It has to be acknowledged that neurodidactics are criticized for its oversimplification of findings from neuro-science [30, 31]. Despite this critic, several prominent researchers from neuroscience and education believe that bridging the gaps is possible, leading to a fruitful mutual interaction, i.e. synergy [30‐34].
 
18
Empirical findings have shown that some group of persons have different learning preferences, e. g. Eschner [43] states that technically orientated individuals tend to favor grasping theoretical knowledge before going to practice.
 
19
Most instructional design models differentiate between summative and formative evaluation. The primary purpose of formative evaluation is to ameliorate the quality of the program being developed in the ongoing process to assure the objectives for which it was designed will be achieved. In contrast, summative evaluation depicts efforts that assess the effectiveness of completed interventions in order to provide suggestions about their future use [45, p. 952].
 
Literatur
1.
Webler, W. D. 2003. Lehrkompetenz – Über eine komplexe Kombination aus Wissen, Ethik, Handlungsfähigkeit und Praxisentwicklung. In Hochschuldidaktische Aus-, Fort- und Weiterbildung, ed. U. Welbers, 55–83. Bielefeld: UVW, Univ.-Verlag Webler.
2.
Jastrzebski, Anna. 2012. Anforderungen an hochschuldidaktische Kompetenzen. In Kompetenz. Fragen an eine (berufs-) pädagogische Kategorie, ed. K. Barre and C. Hahn, 53–72.AQ3
3.
Nickel, S. 2011. Zwischen Kritik und Empirie – Wie wirksam ist der Bologna-Prozess? In Der Bologna-Prozess aus Sicht der Hochschulforschung. Analysen und Impulse für die Praxis, ed. S. Nickel. CHE Arbeitspapier, vol. 148, 4–19.
4.
5.
6.
Schimank, Uwe. 2010. Humboldt in Bologna – falscher Mann am falschen Ort? In Perspektive Studienqualität. Themen, ‚ Studienqualität‛', ed. Hochschulinformationssystem (HIS), 44–61. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
7.
Esdar, W., J. Gorges, K. Kloke, G. Krücken, and E. Wild. Lehre unter den Forschungshut bringen … – Empirische Befunde zu multipler Zielverfolgung und Zielkonflikten aus Sicht von Hochschulleitungen und Nachwuchswissenschaftler(inne)n. In Der Bologna-Prozess aus Sicht der Hochschulforschung Analysen und Impulse für die Praxis, ed. S. Nickel. CHE Arbeitspapier, vol. 148, 192–204.
8.
Sadler, D. Royce. 2013. Making competent judgments of competence. In Modeling and measuring competencies in higher education: Tasks and challenges, ed. Sigrid Blömeke, Olga Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, Christiane Kuhn, and Judith Sriraman. Professional and Vet Learning, 1 vol., 13–27. Rotterdam: Sense.
9.
Parry, S. B. 1996. The quest for competences: Competency studies can help you make HR decision, but the results are only as good as the study. Training 33:48–56.
10.
Webler, Wolff-Dietrich. 2004. Professionelle Ausbildung zum Hochschullehrer. Modularisierter Auf- und Ausbau der Forschungs- und Lehrkompetenz sowie des Wissenschaftsmanagements in einem Curriculum. Das Hochschulwesen 52 (2): 66–74.
11.
Wildt, Johannes. 2004. Welche Schlüsselkompetenzen braucht ein Hochschullehrer? – Einige Anmerkungen aus hochschuldidaktischer Sicht. In Schlüsselkompetenzen und Beschäftigungsf&00E4#;higkeit. Konzepte für die Vermittlung überfachlicher Qualifikationen an Hochschulen, ed. Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, 22–24. Essen.
12.
Schulmeister, Rolf. 2005. Der Studiengang ‚Master of Higher Education‛. Ein Curriculum in Hochschuldidaktik für den Hochschullehrernachwuchs. In Hochschuldidaktische Qualifizierung. Strategien und Konzepte im internationalen Vergleich. Blickpunkt Hochschuldidaktik, vol. 115, 123-134. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
13.
Brendel, S., P. Eggensperger, and A. Glathe. 2006. Das Kompetenzprofil von HochschullehrerInnen – Eine Analyse des Bedarfs aus Sicht von Lehrenden und Veranstaltenden. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung (ZfHD), (1. Jg., Heft 2/2006), Wien.
14.
Chur, Dietmar. 2002. Bausteine einer zeitgemäßen Konzeption von Beratung; Entwicklungslinien der Studierendenberatung: Von der traditionellen Studienberatung zum Competence-Center für (Aus-)Bildungsqualit&00E4#;t. In Die Zukunft der Beratung, ed. F. Nestmann and F. Engel, 95–296. Tübingen: Dgvt.
15.
Chur, Dietmar. 2005. Didaktische Qualifizierung im Rahmen des Heidelberger Modells der (Aus-)Bildungsqualit&00E4#;t. In Strategien und Konzepte hochschuldidaktischer Qualifizierung im internationalen Vergleich, ed. Sabine Brendel, et al., 179–195. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
16.
Higher Education Academy. 2011. The UK professional standards framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education, Typoskript, Newcastle. http://​www.​heacademy.​ac.​uk. Accessed 3 Aug 2013.
17.
Brall, Stefan. 2009. Überfachliche Kompetenzanforderungen in den Ingenieurwissenschaften. Eine Literaturanalyse. Aachen.
18.
Böss-Ostendorf, Andreas, and Holger Senft. 2010. Einführung in die Hochschullehre. Ein Didaktik-Coach. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
19.
Winteler, Adi. 2004. Professionell lehren und lernen. Ein Praxisbuch. Darmstadt: WBG-Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
20.
Nyquist, Jody D., and Jo Sprague. 1998. Thinking developmentally about TAs. In The professional development of graduate teaching assistants, ed. M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, and F. Stout, 61–88. Bolton: Anker.
21.
Gibbs, Graham, and Martin Coffey. 2004. The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education 5 (1): 87–100.CrossRef
22.
Bloom, Benjamin S., Thomas J. Hastings, and Georges F. Madaus. 1971. Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
Blum, Patrick. 2007. Grundlagen Lernziele.
24.
Möller, Christine. 1973. Technik der Lernplanung. Methoden und Probleme der Lernzielerstellung. Weinheim: Beltz.
25.
Gerrig, R., and P. Zimbardo. Psychologie. 18th ed. München: Pearson.
26.
27.
Kolb, Alice Y., and David A. Kolb. 2009. Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development, ed. S. J. Armstrong and C. V. Fukami, 42–68. London: Sage.
28.
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. 1 vol. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
29.
Bücker, M., L. Müller, E. Borowski, R. Vossen, and S. Jeschke. 2013. A Training Model for University Teaching Staff. Paper presented on the International Conference on Education and New Developments 2013, Lisbon.
30.
Della Salla, S. 2009. Editorial. The use and misuse of neuroscience in education. Cortex 45:44–3.CrossRef
31.
Goswami, Usha. 2006. Neuroscience and education: From research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7 (5): 406–413.CrossRefMathSciNet
32.
Ruiter, Dirk J., Marlieke T. R. van Kesteren, and Guillen Fernandez. 2012. How to achieve synergy between medical education and cognitive neuroscience? An exercise on prior knowledge in understanding. Advances in Health Sciences Education 17 (2): 225–240.CrossRef
33.
Perkins, David. 2009. On grandmother neurons and grandfather clocks. Mind, Brain, and Education 3:170–175.CrossRef
34.
Varma, Sashank, Bruce D. McCandliss, and Daniel L. Schwartz. 2008. Scientific and pragmatic challenges for bridging education and neuroscience. Educational Researcher 37 (3): 140–152.CrossRef
35.
Moss, Connie M., and Susan M. Brookhart. 2012. Learning targets: Helping students aim for understanding in today’s lesson. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum (ASCD).
36.
Smith, Michelle K., and Katherine K. Perkins. 2010. “At the end of my course, students should be able to … ”: The benefits of creating and using effective learning goals. Microbiology Australia 31:32–34.
37.
Ausubel, David P. 1968. Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York/New York: Grune & Stratton/Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
38.
Hailikari, Telle, Nina Katajavuori, and Sari Lindblom-Ylanne. 2008. The relevance of prior knowledge in learning and instructional design. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 72 (5): 1–8.CrossRef
39.
40.
Schirp, Heinz. 2009. Wie “lernt” unser Gehirn? Fünf neurobiologische Modellvorstellungen zur Arbeitsweise unseres Gehirns. NeuroPsychoEconomics Conference, Bonn.
41.
Michael, Joel. 2006. Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education 30 (4): 159–167.CrossRef
42.
Silva, Dante L., Lilibeth D. Sabino, Edgar M. Adina, Dionisia M. Lanuza, and Odilon C. Baluyot. 2011. Transforming Diverse Learners through a Brain-based 4MAT Cycle of Learning. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2011, vol. 1, WCECS 2011, 19–21 Oct 2011, San Francisco, USA.
43.
Eschner, Anke. 2009. Brauchen Ingenieure eine spezielle Didaktik? Ingenieure ticken anders. DiNa 05/2009 Didaktik für Ingenieure, vol. 05. Ingolstadt: Zentrum für Hochschuldidaktik der bayerischen Fachhochschulen.
44.
Issurin, Vladimir B. 2013. Training transfer: Scientific background and insights for practical application. Sports Medicine 43 (8): 675–694. (Published online 30 April 2013).CrossRef
45.
Brown, Kenneth G., and Megan W. Gerhardt 2002. Formative evaluation: An integrative practice model and case study. Personnel Psychology 55 (4): 951–983.CrossRef
46.
Reichmann, Gerhard. 2008. Welche Kompetenzen sollten gute Universitätslehrer aus der Sicht von Studierenden aufweisen? Ergebnisse einer Conjointanalyse. Das Hochschulwesen 56 (2): 52–57.
Metadaten
Titel
How to Prepare Academic Staff for Their New Role as University Teachers? Welcome to the Seminar “Academic Teaching”
verfasst von
Meike Bücker
Esther Borowski
René Vossen
Sabina Jeschke
Copyright-Jahr
2014
Buch
Automation, Communication and Cybernetics in Science and Engineering 2013/2014

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08815-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-08816-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2014

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08816-7_19

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise