Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten und Schreiben. Eine Einführung aus der Perspektive der Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main 2022
Available here
Tag: higher education
Reflections on evaluations and (critical) feedback
Recently, I have held a number of internal and external higher education workshops.
Due to the suggestions of the participants of the first workshops, I had changed some parts of my concept and was now curious to see how these interventions would be received. Surprisingly for me, those parts that were praised initially were now partially criticized. Also those parts were partially criticized which I had taken up (or changed) due to the wishes of previous participants. On the other hand, parts that I left in the workshop despite criticism from the last time participants were now positively appreciated.
I know these contradictory statements from teaching evaluations of my own courses and lectures at my university:
“It helps that you teach with a headset microphone.” versus “I find it ridiculous and annoying that you teach with a headset microphone.”
“The speed is just right for me” versus “It’s all going way too fast (slow) for me.”
“I find the online units very helpful” versus “I don’t like the online units at all”.
“I think it’s very good how we’re developing the content step by step on the blackboard.” versus “I find it annoying when I don’t get a finished (printed) picture served.”
And so on…
Of course there is a natural dispersion in many aspects of teaching and learning, but especially with polar and conflicting evaluation results one can start to wonder whether one is doing it right or wrong.
What do I personally learn from this?
1) Small group sizes cannot per se convey a representative picture. Each group unfolds a different dynamic, which also results from the interaction of the individual participants. Although this is a truism, we sometimes tend to take criticism personally and/or professionally very seriously. Especially if we have reflected intensively on the instructional design beforehand.
2) It is unlikely that the expectations and needs of all participants can be fully satisfied. Therefore a seemingly unconditional positive feedback should be rather critically questioned. This holds true for the reverse case as well.
3) Diplomatically phrased statements like „I would have wished for…“ indicate individual needs, which do no not have to coincide with the wishes of other participants or the intended learning outcome of the workshop. Each participant has his or her own truth. And this applies to the instructor or coach as well…
Conclusion: Although evaluations and feedback can provide important indications for interventions, the instructor or coach is responsible for a theoretically and conceptually sound workshop concept. Not every criticism or suggestion should lead directly to an intervention.
In other words: Stay true to the intended learning outcome and the corresponding instructional design. Intervene cautiously and not erratically. Do not let yourself be carried away by the wishes of selected participants who speak out loud.
Workshop on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) at ExAcT – RWTH Aachen University, 3 June 2019
On 3 June 2019, I held a workshop on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) at ExAcT, RWTH Aachen University in Aachen. Together with eleven participants, mainly research assistants, Ph.D. candidates and postdocs, we were exploring aspects of the SoTL concept. As always, it was interesting to see how the participants approached the concept. SoTL is primarily concerned with the systematic inquiry into teaching and learning of students, but essentially postulates a professional attitude. A conceptual introduction cannot replace a more in-depth examination of the methodological and methodical foundations of teaching and learning research. However, it represents the first step towards a changed view of one’s own actions in academic teaching. Ultimately, I received valuable feedback from the participants to further refine the workshop concept. I am looking forward to return to RWTH Aachen in October.
New book chapter on academic self-concept in explorative learning designs (in German)
Mucha, A., & Decker, C. (2018).
Das akademische Selbstkonzept als Adventure Capital in explorativen Lernumgebungen. In Problembasiertes Lernen, Projektorientierung, forschendes lernen & beyond: Tagungsband zum 7. Tag der Lehre an der FH St. Pölten am 18.10.2018 (S. 51 – 60). St. Pölten: Fachhochschule St. Pölten.
New article on Internationalisation-at-Home (in German)
New article:
Decker, C., Mucha, A., & Gille, M. (2018).
Organisationale Diversitätsrendite und individuelle Heterogenitätskosten: Internationalisation-at-Home in einem international ausgerichteten Studiengang. In die hochschule. journal für wissenschaft und bildung 1–2, 138-146.
New book chapter on team teaching in e-learning and blended learning settings
Decker, C., & Frielitz, F. (2018).
Team Teaching in E-Learning and Blended Learning Settings. In B. Jansen-Schulz, & T. Tantau (ed.), Excellent Teaching. Principles, Structures and Requirements (p. 291 – 302). Bielefeld: WBV/W. Bertelsmann.
Conference paper on research-based learning (in German)
New article:
Decker, C., & Mucha, A. (2018).
Bridging the Gap: Vom passiven Lesen zum aktiven Forschen.
In N. Neuber, W. Paravicini, & M. Stein (Hrsg.), Schriften zur allgemeinen Hochschuldidaktik Band 3. Forschendes Lernen. The Wider View (S. 201 – 204). Münster: WTM-Verlag.
New publication on research-based learning (in German)
New article:
Decker, C., & Mucha, A. (2018).
Forschendes Lernen lernen. Zu den didaktischen und emotionalen Herausforderungen der Integration von Lernen über, für und durch Forschung.
In die hochschullehre 4, 143 – 160.
Link to article (open access):
New publication on learning without fear and shame (in German)
New article:
Mucha, A., & Decker, C. (2018).
Lernen ohne Angst vor Scham – wie geht das?
In: DUZ. Deutsche Universitätszeitung (2), 69 – 71.
Link to article (restricted access):
New publication on explorative learning settings in higher education (in German)
New article:
Mucha, A., & Decker, C. (2018).
Explorative Lernumgebungen in der Hochschullehre: Eine Zumutung? In: Die Neue Hochschule (1), 28 – 29.
New publication on doctoral studies as explorative learning environments (in German)
New article:
Mucha, A., & Decker, C. (2017)
Der Dissertationsprozess als explorative Lernumgebung: Warum erfolgreiches Promovieren (auch) eine Frage der sozialen Herkunft ist. In: ZDfm. Zeitschrift für Diversitätsforschung und -management 2(2), 29 – 34.
Link to article (restricted access)
New publication on Learning-how-to-learn (in German)
New article:
Mucha, A., Decker, C., & Szmigielski, D. (2017).
Learning-how-to-learn oder Sich selbst eine gute Lehrperson sein. Zu mehr Selbstkompetenz durch Selbstreflexion. In J. Haag, J. Weißenböck, W. Gruber, & C. F. Freisleben-Teutscher (Hrsg.), Deeper Learning – (wie) geht das?!: Tagungsband zum 6. Tag der Lehre an der FH St. Pölten am 19.10.2017 (S. 37 – 47). St. Pölten: Fachhochschule St. Pölten.
New publication on learning styles and instructional design (in German)
New article:
Decker, C., & Mucha, A. (2017).
Der Lernstilansatz als Inspiration für die universitäre Lehre: Theoretische Grundlagen und exemplarische Anwendung. In B. Berendt, A. Fleischmann, N. Schaper, B. Szczyrba, & J. Wildt (Hrsg.), Neues Handbuch Hochschullehre (Griffmarke A 3.25). Berlin: DUZ.
Conference presentation on research-based learning in corporate finance
On 27 September 2017, Anna Mucha and I presented our findings on a research-based learning intervention at the research conference “Forschendes Lernen – The Wider View” which took place at Wilhelms-Universität Münster. In our presentation entitled “Bridging the Gap – From Passive Reading to Active Research”, we elaborated on an instructional design that was introduced in the Corporate Finance course of the Master of International Business Programme (M. Sc.) at HAW Hamburg. The instructional design consists of five core phases:
Phase 1: Transparent explanation of instructional design to students
Phase 2: Reception and reflection of selected seminal papers of Nobel laureates in groups of two students
Phase 3: Development of a new (own) research question
Phase 4: Exploration of the new problem
Phase 5: Presentation of (i) seminal paper and (ii) own research findings to other course participants
The instructional design helps to overcome the gap between reception of research findings (and underlying methods) on the one hand side and production (derivation) of new research findings (using newly acquired research methods) on the other hand side. Thereby, students are guided from “learning about research” via “learning for research” to “learning through research”.
In 2018, a summary of our findings will be published in the conference proceedings.
New publication on SoTL and agile (dynamic) digital higher education (in German)
New article:
Mucha, A., & Decker, C. (2017).
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning für eine agile digitale Hochschuldidaktik. In Synergie. Fachmagazin für Digitalisierung in der Lehre 3(2), 20 – 23.
Workshop on “Online courses” at Universität zu Lübeck, 12 & 13 June 2017
On 12 and 13 June 2017, I held a workshop on “Online courses in higher education” at Dozierenden-Service-Center (DSC), Universität zu Lübeck. Together with seven participants, I was exploring selected facets of online teaching.
Among others, we did a card assisted brainstorming on identifying characteristics of “online courses”. It still seems to be a challenge to find a consistent idea among a group of informed participants about what characterises an “online course”. Maybe this should not come as a surprise since the term carries many connotations. Moreover, I observed that discussions tend to become more fruitful when moving away from technological aspects while approaching higher education issues (i.e. instructional design aspects).
@ Dr. Bettina Jansen-Schulz: Thank you very much for the invitation and your sympathy and support!
New publication on shame and failure in problem- and research-based learning scenarios (in German)
New article:
Mucha, A. & Decker, C. (2017).
(Die Angst vor) Scheitern und Scham in problemorientierten und forschenden Lehr-/Lernszenarien.
In B. Berendt, A. Fleischmann, N. Schaper, B. Szczyrba, & J. Wildt (Hrsg.), Neues Handbuch Hochschullehre. Berlin: DUZ.
