Quelltext der Seite EHL10 04

<div style="color:grey">Im folgenden werden alle Zitate aufgelistet, die aus der Quelle [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04] ]] stammen. Sie sind nach den Seitenthemen, in denen sie vorkommen, gegliedert.</div>

==[[E-Learning]]==

* Barrios and Carstensen (2004) have found that only 5% of the active faculty in German-speaking universities use learning technologies for their courses – a threshold for e-Learning integration which a recent OECD survey (2005) confirms at the international level. Zemksy and Massy (2004) have found no better results for the US higher education context. They have consequently dubbed e-Learning as a “thwarted innovation” in their report- And according to Latchem et al. (2007) the e-Learning integration in Japanese higher education advances at the leisurely speed of a tortoise. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 240]]]

* Faculty is nowadays facing new pedagogical challenges; they have to design learning environments, which respond to the changing needs of technology-savvy students; and they have to integrate ICT [Anm. Information and communication technologies] into their courses to extend the flexibility of educational services in universities. But does faculty have the competences to respond to these challenges?A number of studies (...) state that an inadequate level of e-Competence of the majority of faculty members is one reason for the slow adoption of e-Learning in higher education. Academic teachers have to enhance existing competences and acquire new competences that enable them to know and to judge why, when, and how to use ICT  [Anm. Information and communication technologies] in education. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 240-241]]]

== [[Kompetenz]] : Weitere Aussagen ==

* North and Reinhard (2003) have assigned the contributions from different science disciplines for competence research into two wider categories: (1) cognitive sciences, including psychology, pedagogy, philosophy, linguistics, neuro-, and computer science; and (2) social sciences, including sociology, organizational studies, business science, and public management science. Weinert (1999) identifies at least eight different and mutually exclusive concepts for competence, and a common framework to harmonize these different approaches does not exist. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 242]]]

==[[E-Competence]]==
=== model of action competence ===

[[Datei:Ehl10 04-S244-b.png|500px|Abb. aus [EHL10_04, pg. 244] ]]

* Van der Blij (2002) coherently defines action competence as the ”... the ability to act within a given context in a responsible and adequate way, while integrating complex knowledge, skills and attitudes.” Similar definitions of action competence are given by a number of other researchers (Dejoux 1996; Erpenbeck and Heyse 1999; Euler and Hahn 2004; Weinert 1999). [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 242]]]

* The concept of action competence combines cognitive and motivational components into one holistic system of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. It assumes a learning process at the core of competence development and it puts an emphasis on action or on performed behaivor. (...) Apart from cognitive dispositions, action competence includes individual, role-specific, and collective conditions for the successful development of competences within a group or an institution. Action competence represents in this perspective the ability to react in an adequate way to challenges that occur in complex situations. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 242-243]]]

* Competence always implies that a sufficient degree of complexity is required in the act of performance to meet given demands and tasks. Those dispositional factors, which can be in principle automatised in performance situations, are more adequately characterized as skills. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 243]]]

* Motivation is a final key component for understanding of action competence. It explains the difference between the ability to act and the concrete action. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 243]]]

* We can identify the following components as main building blocks of action competence: (1) learning at the inner core of the model; (2) a system of dispositions including knowledge, skills, and attitudes; (3) the four key competences, which combine into performance; (4) the visible outer action competence shell; (5) the independent factor of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation; and (6) the context of performance (Fig. 19.2). [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 243]]].
**<div style="color:grey">Siehe obige Abbildung.</div>

* Table 19.1 summarizes the basic assumptions for each key component of the action competence model. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 243]]].
**<div style="color:grey">Tabelle hier: [[:Datei:Ehl10 04-S244-a.png|Table 19.1, pg. 244]]</div>

=== about e-Competence ===

* e-Competence needs to be interpreted in a wider mode. It includes not only the technical aspects but is also understood as the educational ability to use ICT [Anm. Information and communicate technology] in teaching and learning in a meaningful way. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL!0_04, pg. 245]]]

* e-Competence defines in general terms the ability to use ICT in a meaningful way. The personal e-Competence of faulty describes their ability to use learning technologies for teaching and course delivery in the context of e-Learning integration in universities. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL!0_04, pg. 245]]]

*The action competence model and its inherent implications are used for discussion of the e-Competence model. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 246]]]

[[Datei:Ehl10 04-S246.png|500px|Abb. aus [EHL10_04, pg. 246]]]

* The following model includes a range of layers for e-Competence which is, at the micro-level, part of the general action competence development measures that universities create to foster the adoption of e-Learning; and the motivation of faculty is influenced by wider institutional e-Learning rewards, which universities establish to encourage the use of learning technologies. The portfolios of direct and indirect competence development measures for faculty are a part of institutional innovation strategies at the macro-level of universities which aim to exploit the pervasive potential of ICT for educational purpouses (Fig. 19.3). <br> Based on this argument, we subsequently propose a generic model for e-Competence, which takes the potential performance options of teachers in digital learning environments into account. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 245]]]

* Teachers also need to select ICT tools that are adequate for use in given pedagogical scenarios. The available ICT options represent a spectrum of electronic variables which range in their complexity from single electronic documents - for example the storage of .pdf files on a website for download, to highly complex electronic learning enviroments - for example the setup and use of a virtual classroom with complex applications for interaction and communication. [[quellen#ehl10_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 247]]]

* The final key component for the model is the e-Competence of the students who interact with teachers or with each other in specific teaching and learning scenarios. [[quellen#ehl1_04|[EHL10_04, pg. 247]]]