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