ESREA 7th European Research Conference 4-7 September 2013 ...€¦ · ESREA 7th European Research...
Transcript of ESREA 7th European Research Conference 4-7 September 2013 ...€¦ · ESREA 7th European Research...
1
ESREA
7th European Research Conference
4-7 September 2013, Humboldt-University Berlin
Keywords: academic learning, research-oriented teaching, theoretical experiences of students,
Abstract
Whilst converting “Diplom”-courses to Bachelor’s and Master’s courses at German universities, conditions of adult education on an academic level have changed tremendously. Thus, development towards a new culture of learning and teaching is at a crossroads. Teaching has become a strategic element of the university’s development and its international reputation. However, there is generally a mismatch between the teaching capacities and the provision of classes, lectures, seminars etc. needed for students’ intellectual growth. Furthermore, it is still an open question how teaching quality in universities can be enhanced and ensured in a sustainable manner. Although there has been severe criticism against the current enforcement of school-like forms of teaching in Bachelor’s and Master’s courses, the adaptation of a new curriculum system can also be seen as a chance to explore and develop new solutions to shape the university of the future. Against the background of a research project “Lehre hoch Forschung” (literally “teaching to the power of research”) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (financed by the German Ministry for Education and Research, 2012-2016), we investigate the significance of a more traditional humanistic approach under new conditions: the approach of research-oriented learning. In this paper, we scrutinise empirically which approaches of research-oriented, research-led and research-based learning and teaching at the KIT are used in classes and lectures, why teacher find them useful and how they judge these practices more generally. Before we present the empirical data, we would like to clarify that the presentation cannot be received as a report of a completed research-project. It should be considered as the beginning of a research process to which the presented data is only a piece of a puzzle. The gained insights shall help to develop the instrument and the methods used.
Ines Langemeyer, Ines Rohrdantz-Herrmann
New Challenges for Teaching and Learning in
German University Education
Having transformed “diploma” into Bachelor’s and Master’s courses at German universities,
conditions of adult education on an academic level have changed tremendously. This has
often been described pejoratively as the tendency to make teaching in university courses
continue along the lines of school instruction. Due to an increased formalised workload and
the shortened length of studies to obtain the B.A./M.A. degree, negative effects of school-like
teaching have been emphasised in terms of a loss of the students’ specific disciplinary
competence, of their personality development and their capacity of independent scientific
thinking (e.g. Kühl 2011; Euler 2013). Against this background, we are currently observing a
revival of research-led, research-based, and research-oriented methods of teaching and
learning. One example is the research project “Lehre hoch Forschung” (literally “teaching to
the power of research”) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, which is financed under the
2
“Qualitätspakt Lehre” of the German Ministry of Education and Research with around 8 ½
million Euros from 2012 to 2016 .
In this paper, the ways of research-oriented, research-led, and research-based learning and
teaching at universities being used in classes, the reasons, and the limits of use are explored
empirically. Against the background of our own experience gained from the research project
at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, we explore the significance of theoretical experience
as a possible outcome of research-oriented learning. Before we present the empirical data, we
would like to point out that this presentation is no report of a completed research project. It
should be considered the beginning of a research process, in which the data presented only is
a piece of a puzzle. The gained insights shall help to develop the instrument and the methods
used.
One problem – the problem of discontinuity – shall be mentioned: the changing of workplaces
by Ines Langemeyer when she obtained a professorship at the University of Tübingen in
April.
Survey on research-oriented elements in teaching and learning at the KIT
When I (Ines Langemeyer) began working as an interim professor at the KIT to set up the
research on teaching and learning, I found it important to gain insights into the acceptance and
the use of research-oriented elements in teaching and learning at the KIT. In co-operation with
the staff of the university’s office for quality management, we developed an online survey for
the teaching staff that was released in January2013.
The online survey was sent to the university lecturers in charge and omitted the student
assistants supporting the lessons. The estimated number of teaching staff is approximately
around 2500 and 3000.
Although the turnout of n=265 was not a controlled representative sample, it covered the
range of departments with Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Geo and
Environmental Sciences, Business Administration and Economics, and Physics being
overrepresented, while the Humanities and Social Sciences, Architecture, and Informatics
were underrepresented.
3
Figure 1: Affiliation of university teachers to departments
The survey did not favour among a variety of didactical approaches a particular one and
therefore listed as generally ‘research-oriented’ elements the following items: “The
introduction of a new theme to cover a problem of scientific research”; “students are
independently researching with regard to a certain theme”; “students contribute with their
research activities to a bigger research project at the institute/chair”; “students develop
independently research questions”; “students exercise independently experiments”; “students
summarise independently the state of research in one area”; “students develop and plan their
own research project”; “students present correlations of scientific knowledge and research”.
4,2%
14,0%
9,8%
4,5%
6,8%
7,2%
12,1%
14,7%
3,4%
9,1%
11,7%
0,8%
0,4%
1,5%
6,7%
12,1%
8,8%
4,5%
6,7%
11,4%
13,1%
10,8%
3,6%
7,6%
9,4%
2,5%
3,0%
0,0%
Architecture
Civil Engineering, Geo and EnvironmentalSciences
Chemistry and Biological Sciences
Chemical Engineering and ProcessEngineering
Electrical Engineering and InformationTechnology
Humanities and Social Sciences
Informatics
Mechanical Engineering
Mathematics
Physics
Business Administration and Economics
House of Competence
Centre of Cultural Studies and GeneralStudies
other
population of teaching staff insurvey
population of teaching staff
4
Figure 2: The use of research-oriented elements
As the figure above shows, most teachers seem to introduce themes according to a scientific
problem. This result was expected to be a common method in academia. Other outcomes,
however, seem to be specific of the academic landscape of KIT, i.e. a large number of courses
in engineering sciences and natural sciences, since these subjects traditionally require more
laboratory experiments and offer to a higher degree the possibility to participate in the
extensive work in a bigger research project. Here, it is important to mention that the KIT has
also obtained the financing for Big Science. Laboratory work and participation in research
projects of the university give students a flavour of real research and enable them to practice
some routines and methods, but are not necessarily combined with the challenge to develop
independently a research question or the issue at stake on a theoretical level.
Moreover, the uneven affinity towards different elements of research-oriented teaching is an
outcome that indicates a discrepancy. While the teachers questioned tend to involve students
into real research projects (average = 3.67; 1=very seldom, 5=very often) and let them
3,43
2,98
3,67
2,49
3,29
2,83
1,99
2,26
2,67
1
2
3
4
5
'research-oriented' elements in the teaching at the KIT
rare
ly
freq
uen
tly
5
exercise independently experiments (3.29), they do not use as much the opportunities by
which students develop independently research questions (2.49) and develop, plan (1.99), and
conduct (2.26) a research project on their own. We do not judge these differences from a
moral or dogmatic point of view – suggesting that there would be ‘one best way’ of teaching
or that there would not be any good reasons to favour the first two options rather than the
latter. But given the salient difference between merely involving students into research and
challenging them to think independently, we conclude hypothetically that teachers either have
different forms of awareness with regard to the didactical use and the advantage of these
independent research and learning activities or that they have (good) reasons not to favour
them without restrictions.
Correlations between different methods used
Our hypothesis must be specified by further analyses of the data. It is paramount to see that
participation in research projects at an institute or the conduct of experiments are not used
alternatively to the self-dependent development of research questions and research projects on
their own. If teachers apply one research-oriented method, they also tend to use others. For
example: There is a correlation between the items “students contribute with their research
activities to a bigger research project at the institute/chair” and “students conduct a research
project on their own” by .336**. Similarly, there is a correlation between “students conduct
independently experiments” and “students develop and plan their own research project” is
.442** and a correlation of .542** between “students summarise independently the state of
research in one area” and “students conduct a research project on their own”. The least
significant but still significant correlations are with the independent variable “introduction of
a new theme according to a problem of scientific research” and other methods, e.g. “students
conduct a research project on their own” (.157*). The factor analysis of these items shows that
that we can find two factors behind the choice of different research-oriented elements.
Factor analysis of research-oriented elements used
Rotierte Komponentenmatrixa
Komponente
1 2
Studierende führen eigene Forschungsprojekte durch.
(students conduct a research project on their own.)
,887
Studierende entwickeln und planen eigene Forschungsprojekte.
(students develop and plan a research project on their own.)
,858
Studierende erarbeiten sich selbständig einen Forschungsstand auf einem Gebiet.
(students summarise independently the state of research in one area.)
,693
Studierende entwickeln selbständig wissenschaftliche Forschungsfragen.
(students develop independently scientific research questions.)
,689
Studierende führen selbständig Experimente durch.
(students conduct independently experiments.)
,573
6
Die Einführung eines neuen Themas erfolgt anhand einer Problemstellung aus der
Forschung.
(The introduction of a new theme is according to a problem of scientific research.)
,741
Studierende recherchieren selbständig zu einem Thema.
(students are researching independently a certain theme.)
,733
Studierende präsentieren Forschungszusammenhänge in Lehrveranstaltungen.
(students present interrelations/ linkages in seminars/lectures.)
,600
Studierende arbeiten in Teilprojekten eines Forschungsprojektes am Institut/Lehrstuhl
mit.
(students participate in the work of research projects at the institute/chair.)
,594
Extraction method: main component analysis.
Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.
a. Rotation converges in three iterations.
(Explained variation: 46,9% = Factor 1; 12,7 = Factor 2)
Table 1: Factor analysis of the use of research-oriented elements
The two factors can be distinguished with regard to self-dependent forms of learning. Items
that load in the first factor are components of a didactical design which focus on highly self-
organised forms of learning while items that load in the second factor show that teaching is
not as much oriented towards self-dependency but rather towards guided forms of learning.
We can also resume the three definitions to distinguish didactical approaches:
a) Research-led teaching which is a form of teaching based on the ‘information transmission’
model, that follows a curriculum structured around subject content, and which focusses on
understanding research findings;
b) Research-oriented teaching which favours a curriculum structured around research processes
as well as subject content, which focusses on understanding research processes, inquiry skills
and ‘research ethos’;
c) Research-based teaching that is based on a curriculum designed around inquiry-based
activities; its focus is on learning through inquiry and thus aims at minimising the teacher-
student division. If we consider these three forms of teaching, we can interpret the two extracted factors cover
in the first case (factor 1) research-based elements while they include in the second case
(factor 2) both, research-oriented and research-led elements. This reduction can be
underscored by strengthening that the distinction between a) and b) is quite small – both
include the criteria “structured around subject content” – and the distinctions between a) and
c) as well as b) and c) is rather big. Consequently, we drop the distinction of “research-
oriented teaching” as a third version beyond “research-led” and “research-based” and use this
term as we have already done as a generic term.1
Although we do not aim at prioritising research-based over research-led teaching in general,
we argue that students cannot develop their capacity of independent scientific thinking
without practicing it. According to this thesis, it is impossible to make considerable judgments
on a scientific plane, if one is unable to pose relevant theoretical questions and apply self-
1 A systematic matching of didactical approaches and items was missing and should be undertaken in a follow-up study.
7
dependently relevant criteria to it (cf. Langemeyer 2013). The premise to identify what is
relevant in science is to identify what must be taken into account as the most advanced status
of research.
The factor analysis with regard to teachers’ judgments and attitudes on the use of research-
oriented elements is therefore illuminating and again depicts a bifurcation like the analysis
above.
Factor analysis of judgments and attitudes on research-oriented elements
Rotierte Komponentenmatrixa
Komponente
1 2
Der Einsatz forschungsorientierter Elemente in meinen Lehrveranstaltungen ist mit der
Menge des Stoffs gut zu vereinbaren.
(The implementation of research-oriented elements is compatible with the quantity of
learning contents.)
,827
Für forschungsorientierte Elemente ist die Zeit in meinen Lehrveranstaltungen ausreichend.
(Time is sufficient for research-oriented elements in my classes.)
,772
Der Einsatz forschungsorientierter Elemente ist nach meiner Lehrerfahrung für
Veranstaltungen mit einer großen Teilnehmerzahl geeignet.
(According to my teaching experience, use of research-oriented elements is suited for
classes with a large number of participants.)
,678
Meine Beurteilungskriterien lassen sich gut auf offene Lernformen anwenden
(My evaluation criteria can be applied well to open forms of learning.)
,665
Forschungsorientierte Elemente eignen sich dazu, Studierende in der
Studieneingangsphase (1.-2. Semester) an wissenschaftliches Arbeiten heranzuführen.
(Research-oriented elements are suited to introduce students in their first year of study to
scientific work.)
,572 ,414
Die meisten Studierenden sind mit forschungsorientierten Elementen in der Lehre
überfordert.
(Most students are overstrained by research-oriented elements.)
,755
Wenn ich forschungsorientierte Elemente einbaue, komme ich in einen Konflikt mit dem
Anspruch an eine gerechte Leistungsprüfung.
(If I apply research-oriented elements, I get into a conflict with my own ideas of a fair
form of testing.)
,514
Wenn Studierende selbständig an Forschungsfragen arbeiten, werden wissenschaftliche
Standards genau eingehalten.
(If students work independently on research questions, they comply exactly with scientific
standards.)
-,477
Extraction method: main component analysis.
Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.
a. Rotation converges in three iterations.
(Explained variation: 46,9% = Factor 1; 12,7 = Factor 2)
8
Table 2: Factor analysis of judgments and attitudes about the use of research-oriented elements
According to these two factors, teachers’ judgment and attitude either conveys that research-
oriented methods are found useful without restrictions or that they are seen as well as a
challenge to both, students and teachers. Nevertheless, there is an intersection of both factors
in the item “Research-oriented elements are suited to introduce students in their first year of
study to scientific work.” We therefore assume that despite of the awareness about problems
arising with research-oriented elements, there is still a positive attitude towards the idea of
research-oriented teaching and learning.
There is also a differentiation between reasonable periods of time within the courses.
Figure 3: Reasonable periods of time for the introduction of research-oriented elements
Among those who answered that students should learn by means of research-oriented
elements already at the beginning of their studies, some supplied us with additional
explanations: “Each knowledge transfer should include aspects of research”; “In general,
teaching on an academic level should be based on and correspond with the newest proven
results of scientific research”; and “students should experience from the beginning what
scientific research is about and should have the time to find out whether they want to continue
working in this area after their studies”. This issue cannot be answered in a general manner. It
is important to be aware of the specific challenges included in research-oriented elements.
21,4%
29,7%
26,3%
19,2%
3,4%
0,0%
5,0%
10,0%
15,0%
20,0%
25,0%
30,0%
35,0%
1./2.semester
3./4.semester
5./6.semester
masterstudies
conferral of adoctorate
9
Reasons for using research-oriented elements
Figure 4: Reasons for using research-oriented elements
A majority of lecturers identify research-oriented elements with heightening the significance
of learning matters (74.5%) and to raise student’s enthusiasm for scientific issues and
problems (66.7%) but only 52.1 per cent believe that students would become more
independent in their own ways of thinking. Moreover, only 22.8 per cent saw an advantage of
research-oriented elements with regard to students’ capacity to discriminate between a
relevant and an irrelevant matter in relation to certain scientific problems. In sum, reasons for
research oriented elements were provided that highlight the potential to raise their motivation
for studying, creative thinking, scientific curiosity and to comply with the standards of
scientific methods. This result underscores the hypothesis that a number of lecturers
questioned are either not fully aware of the significance of independent thinking for scientific
research or have (good) reasons not to believe that research-oriented elements necessarily
foster it.
We shall therefore present some more analytical outcomes. With regard to judgments about
the use of research-oriented elements, several reasons correlate with the first factor:
3,0%
3,7%
4,5%
7,1%
22,8%
34,1%
44,6%
48,3%
52,1%
54,7%
55,4%
59,6%
61,4%
65,2%
66,7%
74,5%
0,0% 50,0% 100,0%
research-oriented elements help to progress the subject matters morequickly
research-oriented elements are an external interference
research-oriented elements support my lecturing
research-oriented elements support the preparation and follow-up of mylectures
research-oriented elements raise students' capacity to discriminate betweena relevant and an irrelevant matter in relation to certain scientific problems
research-oriented elements support students in cooperating
research-oriented elements help students to transfer learning matters
the output of the students due to research-oriented elements supports meand my own research projects
research-oriented elements help students to become more self-independentin their own working methods
research-oriented elements help students to develop analytical skills
research-oriented elements motivate students to discuss among the group
research-oriented elements make lectures more understandible
research-oriented elements motivate students for the tasks to fulfill duringthe lectures
research-oriented elements help students to develop a deeperunderstanding for contextual matters
research-oriented elements raise student's enthusiasm for scientificproblems
research-oriented elements heighten the significance of learning matters
10
Factor 1: Positive judgments/attitudes about the use of research-oriented elements in correlation with reasons why they are implemented
Ich kann mich bei der Vor- und Nachbereitung der Veranstaltungen entlasten. (I can relieve myself with regard to preparation and the follow-up.)
-,346**
Studierende entwickeln ein tieferes Verständnis für Zusammenhänge. (Students develop a deeper understanding for interrelations/context matters.)
,284**
Studierende können Gelerntes besser transferieren. (Students can transfer better what they have learnt.)
,298**
Studierende können zwischen Wesentlichem und Unwesentlichem besser unterscheiden. (Students can distinguish better between what is essential and what is not essential.)
,245**
Table 3: Correlation between reasons for using research-oriented elements and factor 1 on judgments and attitudes
Factor 2 on judgments and attitudes (a problem-centred view on the use of research-oriented
elements) do not correlate in any significant manner with reasons.
Factor 1 on the implementation of different research-oriented elements (the research-based
form of teaching) correlate significantly with the following reasons:
Factor 1: Use of research-based elements in correlation with reasons for applying these elements
Studierende entwickeln ein tieferes Verständnis für Zusammenhänge. (Students develop a deeper understanding for interrelations/contextual matters.)
,197**
Studierende entwickeln analytische Fähigkeiten. (Students develop analytical capacities.)
,286**
Studierende werden in ihrer Arbeitsweise selbständiger (Students become more independent in their way of working.)
,178*
Die Arbeit von Studierenden ist für mich bzw. für meine Arbeit nützlich. (The work of students is useful for me/my work.)
,285**
Table 4: Use of different research-oriented elements in correlation with reasons for
applying these elements
Factor 2 on the implementation of different research-oriented elements (the research-led form
of teaching) correlates significantly with these reasons:
Factor 2: Use of research-led elements in correlation with reasons for applying these elements
Der Stoff wird dadurch anschaulicher. (Research-oriented elements make lectures more understandable.)
,198**
Der Stoff wird für die Studierenden bedeutsamer. (Research-oriented elements heighten the significance of the subject matter.)
,155*
Studierende entwickeln ein tieferes Verständnis für Zusammenhänge. (Students develop a deeper understanding for interrelations/contextual matters.)
,198**
Studierende können Gelerntes besser transferieren. (Students can transfer better what they have learnt.)
,166*
Studierende lassen sich für das Thema meiner Veranstaltung begeistern. (Research-oriented elements help to raise students‘ enthusiasm for the theme of my lecture).
,156*
Studierende werden in ihrer Arbeitsweise selbständiger: ,175*
11
(Students become more self-dependent in their way of working.)
Studierende lernen zusammen zu arbeiten. (Students learn to cooperate.)
,205**
Table 5: Use of different research-oriented elements in correlation with reasons for
applying these elements
We conclude from these analyses that the four factors stand for orientations that cannot be
depicted simply on a linear correlation with gradual differences in reasons. Arguments for and
against using research-oriented elements may rather be a combination of different reasons,
attitudes and forms of application.
Regression analyses on the four factors and years of experience
Teaching experience2 itself has an impact on whether teachers use research-oriented elements
or not. The following diagram shows the differences between the groups in relation to the sum
score for a first orientation.
Figure 5: “How many years are you already giving lectures in a scientific environment?” in relation to the sum score of research-oriented elements used.
2 To avoid problems with data security, the questionnaire did not include the item „age“. “Years of experience” was used instead.
12
The t-test comparing group 1 (0-3years) and group 4 (16 and more years) is significant with
respect to factor 2 on judgments (problem-centred view) with averages of 0,207 (0-3 years)
and -0,398 (16 and more years): t = 2,159; df = 46; p = 0,036 (Sig. 2-seitig) (variances are
even). That means, that teachers with 16 and more years of experience respond significantly
less to a problem-centred view than those with only 0-3 years of experience. The t-tests for a
comparison of groups 2 (4-8 years) and group 3 (9-15years) with group 4 are however not
significant.
Another significant difference consists between group 1 (0-3 years) and group 4 (16 and more
years) with respect to factor 2 on the use of research-oriented elements (research-led
teaching). Averages are -.151 for 0-3 years and .387 for 16 and more years: t = -2.246; df =
79; p = 0.027 (variances are even). Similarly, the t-test for a comparison between group 2 (4-8
years) and group 4 on factor 2 (research-led teaching) has a significant outcome with averages
of -0.078 (4-8 years) and 0.387 (16 and more years): t = -2.168; df = 89; p = 0.033 (variances
are even). There are no significant outcomes for comparisons between groups 1 and 2, 2 and 3
as well as 3 and 4. This means that teachers with 16 and more years of experience respond
significantly more to research-led teaching than teachers with 0 to 8 years of experience.
Finally, there is a significant difference between group (3) (9-15 years) and group 4 (16 and
more years) with respect to factor 1 on the use of research-oriented elements (research-based
teaching). Averages are 0,324 for 9-15 years and -0,294 for 16 and more years: t = 2,613; df =
72,819; p = ,011 (variances are not even). That means that teachers with 9-15 years of
experience respond significantly more to research-based methods than teachers with 16 and
more years of experience.
What we may infer from these analyses is that teaching experience matters with regard to
identifying and solving problems that occur with research-oriented elements as teaching or
learning methods. This could shape the grounds why these lecturers favour research-led
teaching over research-based teaching. With regard to the comparison between group 3 and 4
on research-based teaching we can assume that this difference is not only a matter of
gradually gaining more teaching experience but maybe also a matter of a generational
difference.
This thesis can be supported by the following analysis. By means of regression analyses, we
can see that the positive view has in general a significant effect on the response to research-
based teaching (factor 1 on the use of research-oriented elements) (b1 = .275.; R² = .073; p =
.012) as well a significant positive effect on the response to research-led teaching (factor 2 on
the use of research-oriented elements) (b1 = .447; R² = .231; p= .000). A problem-centred
view (factor 2 on judgments) has in general no considerable effect on the response to
research-based teaching (factor 1 on the use of research-oriented elements) (b1 = -.082; R²=
.006) and similarly no considerable effect on response to research-led teaching (b1= -.046;
R²= .002). In relation to years of experience, the picture is more differentiated.
13
The following table gives an overview of effects in consideration of the years of teaching.
Years of teaching Independent variable: Positive view (factor 1 on judgments/attitudes) on the use of research-oriented elements
Independent variable: Problematic view (factor 2 on judgments/attitudes) on the use of research-oriented elements
0-3 Research-based: b1 = .387 (p=.057) R² = .143
Research-based: b1 = -.194 R² = .033
Research-led: b1 = .508* (p=.017) R² = .216
Research-led: b1 = .087 R² = .006
4-8 Research-based: b1 = .110 R² = .015
Research-based: b1 = -.103 R² = .014
Research-led: b1 = .414** (p=.001) R² = .335
Research-led: b1 = .040 R² = .003
9-15 Research-based: b1 = .455 R² = .153
Research-based: b1 = .104 R² = .006
Research-led: b1 = .467 (p=.056) R² = .236
Research-led: b1 = -.291 R² = .064
16 and more Research-based: b1 = .009 R² = .000
Research-based: b1 = .311 R² = .154
Research-led: b1 = .006 R² = .000
Research-led: b1 = .189 R² = .075
Table 6: Regression analyses on the four factors
Here, we see that significant effects are only observable with regard to teachers with 0 to 8
years of experience and this effect is only significant for research-led teaching. Teachers
having up to 15 years of teaching experience and a positive attitude towards research-oriented
forms of teaching also clearly have a positive effect on using both, research-based and
research-led forms of teaching. Only for those with 16 years and more of experience, a
positive view is basically without effects. We may interpret these outcomes as a hint to a
change of generation. All these findings however need further empirical investigation and
analyses.
Another possibility of analysing the data with respect to years of experience, esp. the category
of 16 and more years, is to look at contingencies with regard to reasons for using research-
oriented elements. Here, we find that group 4 (16 and more years of experience) has a
significant response to considering the reason that with research-oriented elements students
learn to work together. Those with more experience are more likely to stress the positive
effect on students’ ability to cooperate.
14
Chi-square tests
value df Asymptotic
significance (2-
sided)
Chi-square Pearson 16,790a 3 ,001
Likelihood-Quotient 16,289 3 ,001
Correlation linear-to-linear 13,374 1 ,000
Number of valid
observations
266
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have an expected frequency less than 5. The minimal
expected frequency is 18,13.
Table 7: “How many years are you already giving lectures in a scientific
environment?” in relation to reasons for using research-oriented elements.
How many years are you already giving lectures in a scientific environment? * Which reasons do you identify for
the use of research-oriented elements?: Research-oriented elements support students in cooperating
Crosstab
Which reasons do you identify
for the use of research-oriented
elements?: Research-oriented
elements support students in
cooperating
In total
,00 Research-
oriented
elements
support
students in
cooperating
How many years are you
already giving lectures in
a scientific environment?
0-3 years Number of observations 59 21 80
Standardised residua ,9 -1,2
4-8 years Number of observations 56 19 75
Standardised residua ,9 -1,3
9-15 years Number of observations 37 21 58
Standardised residua -,2 ,3
16 and more years Number of observations 23 30 53
Standardised residua -2,0 2,8
In total Number of observations 175 91 266
15
Furthermore, the years of experience influence significantly whether teachers consider the
reason to use research-oriented elements to motivate students: More years of experience have
a positive effect on the likeliness to consider this reason.
How many years are you already giving lectures in a scientific environment? * Which reasons do you identify for
the use of research-oriented elements?: Research-oriented elements motivate students in seminars/lectures
crosstab
Which reasons do you identify
for the use of research-oriented
elements? Research-oriented
elements motivate students in
seminars/ lectures
In total
,00 Research-
oriented
elements
motivate
students in
seminars/lectur
es
How many years are you
already giving lectures in a
scientific environment?
0-3 years Number of observations 37 43 80
Standardised residua 1,1 -,9
4-8 years Number of observations 36 39 75
Standardised residua 1,4 -1,1
9-15 years Number of observations 18 40 58
Standardised residua -,9 ,7
16 and more years Number of observations 11 42 53
Standardised residua -2,1 1,6
In total Number of observations 102 164 266
Chi-square-tests
values df Asymptotic
significance (2-
sided)
Chi-square Pearson 13,319a 3 ,004
Likelihood-Quotient 13,884 3 ,003
correlation linear-to-linear 11,115 1 ,001
Number of valid
observations
266
a. 0 cells (0,0%) have an expected frequency less than 5. The minimal
expected frequency is 20,32.
16
These outcomes underscore that teachers with 16 and more years of experience have a
different view on students learning that is more oriented towards students’ motivation and less
towards competition. These findings need as well further analyses.
Differences between the Faculty a Teacher belongs
The following table shows that teachers in the faculty of mathematics use research-oriented
elements the least, teachers in the faculty of Electro and Computer Science, Chemistry and
Bio-Sciences, and Human and Social Sciences the most:
Report
SUMScoreEinsatz
Affiliation of university
teachers to departments?
Mittelwert/
Average
N Standardabweic
hung/standard
deviance
Architecture 19,9091 11 7,98066
Civil Engineering, Geo and
Environmental Sciences
18,7838 37 8,46278
Chemistry and Biological
Sciences
28,7308 26 6,42842
Chemical Engineering and
Process Engineering
24,3333 12 5,97469
Electrical Engineering and
Information Technology
25,2222 18 7,84823
Humanities and Social
Sciences
27,8421 19 10,85901
Informatics 25,9688 32 10,07547
Mechanical Engineering 23,0513 39 7,06715
Mathematics 14,4444 9 5,17472
Physics 21,0000 24 11,05323
Business Administration
and Economics
21,1935 31 6,68540
House of Competence 26,0000 2 14,14214
Centre of Cultural Studies
and General Studies
19,0000 1 .
Other 14,5000 4 10,34408
In total 22,9660 265 8,99804
Table 8: The use of research-oriented elements in faculties
These results are plausible with regard to the “nature” of the disciplines as mathematics have
in general a rather small empirical basis – although it forms the basis of quantitative research
methods.
17
This underscores our argument not to infer generally from the use of research-oriented
elements that they would (so to speak automatically) ensure a higher quality of teaching and
learning. It depends on the context and the purpose whether certain research-oriented
elements can improve these activities. For further investigations, it will be important to
explore the effects of these elements. We suggest that a theoretical foundation of the fitness of
research-oriented elements for specific learning objectives and learning needs will be
paramount.
What is theoretical experience?
With regard to this term, we need to unfold a bit more the underlying problematic. Techniques
of doing research are taken for granted without thorough reflection of the theoretical basis or
the epistemological and philosophical implications of the subject matter under investigation.
This is not a cause, but a symptom of the presently existing division between method and
methodology, between empirical and theoretical sciences. Therefore, also scientific judgments
are often made in two ways: Although some approaches mainly make a difference to asserted
knowledge by bringing precise measurements, models of calculation, or techniques of
observation to perfection, others emphasize that research has to be critical of the
epistemological means and concentrate on differentiating concepts and theories. Innovations
in science thus emanate either from “technological” improvements or from purely
philosophical efforts, which are not related to each other. The curriculum of Bachelor’s and
Master’s courses may reflect this division by placing the knowledge of methods ahead of the
knowledge of theories. Consequently, both forms of knowledge are not strategically
connected to each other. If the curriculum is shaped like this, it gives rise to a conflict for both
teachers and students.
Given the students’ expectations that they would simply need to acquire a corpus of
methodical knowledge, the starting point of the conflict consisted in the fact that the complex
dimensions of theoretical experience is overlooked or neglected – not in seminars or lectures
as such, but by the students without intent. Their expectation was that the purpose of teaching
consists in communicating knowledge (Vermittlung von Wissen) in terms of ready-made facts
or approved insights. However, knowledge is not identical with experience. One can have
knowledge without having it integrated into one’s own scope of experience. In contrast to
knowledge, experience is a reflected form of personal involvement, a way of experiencing the
world, and a way of rendering given aspects of the world into subjective meaningful objects.
It is obvious that self-dependent forms of learning during an independently conducted
research process therefore suffer from the lack of subjective meaningful objects. But this gap
needs more reflection.
The crux consists in the fact that theoretical experience can emerge only on the basis of
theoretical experience. This is not a vicious cycle in teaching and no tautology! Everyday-life
experience is not untheoretical. However, it is not elaborated in the form of scientific theories
and quite often at odds with common sense beliefs. Scientific research serves the purpose of
reconstructing causal connections, interactions, of identifying the general within the
particular/the concrete, and of analysing in what ways processes of a higher order determine
the processes of a lower order, etc. These purposes can only be fulfilled by acknowledging not
only the capacity of empirical research methods but, above all, the work of concepts. Concepts
18
do not reflect or express scientific insights, in terms of experience, they rather work or help to
produce scientific thoughts by grasping a certain problem and, at best, by solving it in a
certain manner. Concepts in use can therefore be distinguished with regard to the level of
thinking to which they belong (cf. Vygotsky 1962). They often do not differ as symbolic
signs, but as semantic tools. Therefore it is difficult to identify differences in the
communication process when someone is unfamiliar with these differences as such.
Consequently, teaching must serve the purpose of creating the prerequisites for a
communication process about the subject matter to work out on a scientific level. This is only
possible when we understand the significance of theoretical experience and its correlation
with the students’ (scientific) interests. Within academic studies, this experience is about
leading our concepts in use into a crisis.
In other words, theoretical experience is possible only when we consciously take on a certain
theoretical perspective (which may also be a perspective adopted in everyday life), deal with
it in a subjectively meaningful way, and plunge it into a crisis. It is necessary to experience
this discrepancy that a certain theoretical problem cannot be resolved with the intellectual
strategies available. Only then are we forced to realise the limits of our previous perspective
that are overcome by expanding it within a new theoretical perspective.
Conclusion
There are more issues that require consideration if we are to discuss the possibilities of
organising theoretical experience of this kind. We try to address them in a general manner and
to relate them to the prevailing type of university management:
One aspect is the increased number of lectures and seminars that students from different
disciplines attend. The new curricula of Bachelor’s and Master’s courses more often consist
of modules that are designed for the supply of teaching across different university courses.
Thus, the management calculates that the scarce teaching capacities are more effectively used.
In addition, disciplinary and interdisciplinary co-operation projects have an advantage in the
competition for research funding. Consequently, we assume that the traditional division of
academic disciplines into sub-disciplines partly loses significance. University teachers are
required to co-operate more intensively with each other regardless of paradigmatic or
epistemological divisions and gaps and therefore scientific struggles and the forming of
traditions seem to be less adequate to foster and consolidate that cross-disciplinary structure
of co-operation.
If this diagnosis is true, we need to explore whether the students’ enculturation with regard to
particular scientific paradigms has lost significance. An important effect of this would be that
research-led and research-oriented learning meets the challenge of a lack of clear orientations
within the general situation of universities. Due to the neglect of theoretical differences,
research experience is less characterised by struggles between different theoretical
approaches. Consequently, students are less stimulated to ground their experiences in a
conscious adaptation of theoretical perspectives. An indication for this loss could also be that
the curricular design of Bachelor’s and Master’s courses pays particular attention on generic
competences to ensure – beyond a certain degree of expertise – professional skills rather than
scientific qualifications.
19
Research into teaching and learning thus exceeds the boundaries of classroom or curriculum
research. It needs to be proceeded on a more general level of socio-cultural developments.
This report gives a first outline of the project.
References
Euler, D. (2013). Von der Hochschuldidaktik zur Hochschulentwicklung. Zeitschrift für
Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 109 (3). 360-373.
Kühl, S. (2011). Verschulung wider Willen. Die ungewollten Nebenfolgen einer
Hochschulreform. Working Paper 5/2011. Available at: http://www.uni-
bielefeld.de/soz/forschung/orgsoz/Stefan_Kuehl/pdf/Working-Paper-5_2011-Verschulung-
wider-Willen-110415.pdf
Langemeyer, Ines (2013) Grundzüge einer subjektwissenschaftlichen Kompetenzforschung.
REPORT Weiterbildung 1/2013, 15-24
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language. Boston:
MIT Press. (Original work written in 1934). Text available as ‘Thinking and Speaking’ at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/index.htm