Call for Papers: ZFHE 20/1

Posted on 2024-04-04

Call for papers

Psychological findings for university teaching

Editors: Immanuel Ulrich (Frankfurt am Main), Carla Bohndick (Hamburg), Josef Buchner (St. Gallen), Roland Grabner (Graz), Elisabeth Mayweg-Paus (Berlin), Martina Mörth (Berlin) & Tobias Ringeisen (Berlin)

Date of publication: March 2025

 

To the main topic

In recent years, the quality of teaching in higher education has become increasingly important for universities and higher education institutions in Germany, Austria and Switzerland due to the focus on outcomes such as academic success (Berendt, 2005; Ulrich et al., 2017; Schulze-Vorberg et al., 2020). University didactics deals with this both scientifically in research and practically with the optimization of the quality of university teaching. The latter is primarily accomplished through further training for teachers or curriculum and organizational development (e.g. Fabriz et al., 2021; Kerres et al., 2020; Macke et al., 2016; Zumbach & Astleitner, 2016). In line with school research (e.g. Hattie, 2023), empirical studies are increasingly being used for this purpose (e.g. Schneider & Preckel, 2017; Ulrich, 2020, 2023).

Higher education didactics draws on the findings of various related disciplines, such as educational science, psychology and sociology (Rhein & Wildt, 2023). Since those working in higher education didactics at universities and colleges are strongly focused on their respective subject (despite interdisciplinary approaches), there is a risk (in an interdisciplinary field such as higher education didactics) that those working in the field may take their respective subject into account but overlook important empirical findings from subjects close to their own. For example, the learning and motivation of students are often addressed in university didactics, while findings on other psychological topics—such as memory models, differences in aptitude, social and collaborative processes, emotions, examination design or cognitive-neuroscientific findings beyond myths (e.g. "brain-friendly learning")—are often overlooked (cf. e.g. Brinker & Schuhmacher, 2022; dghd, 2022, Grabner & Meier, 2021; Kordts-Freudinger et al, 2021; Krammer et al, 2021; Tremp & Eugster, 2020). By working out the connecting lines of the higher education didactic reference disciplines, higher education didactics can be strengthened as a science, and thus teaching can be improved (Rhein & Wildt, 2023). The prerequisite for this is that the contributions from the individual disciplines are made visible.

Psychological theories, models and scientific findings already have a long tradition in higher education didactics and teaching (McKeachy, 1967; Schulmeister, 1983; Wildt, 1984; Wild & Wild, 2001). The aim of this special issue is to show how psychological models are used for university teaching and, furthermore, how the respective people have developed and implemented teaching (Mörth et al., 2023). In this call, we invite you to present psychological findings for university teaching in research contributions, research-led development contributions or development contributions within the framework of this thematic issue to also demonstrate their significance for university didactics.

Topics from all psychological sub-disciplines can be taken up here, provided they are relevant to university teaching. These could include, but are not limited to, the following (cf. Mörth et al., 2023):

  • How does learning work (e.g., learning theories, memory models, self-regulation and learning strategies)? (cf. e.g. Kiesel & Spada, 2018; Wild & Möller, 2020)
  • How can metacognitive and reflective learning activities be mapped and promoted? (Mayweg-Paus & Zimmermann, 2022)
  • How can cognitive-neuroscientific findings be categorized and used beyond neuromyths to understand learning, personality development and social interaction? (cf. Coleman, 2021; Jäncke, 2017)
  • What role do emotions and (intrinsic) motivation play in students' learning processes and academic success? How are they connected and how do they develop over the course of their studies? (cf. e.g. Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2018; Schickel & Ringeisen, 2022; Schürmann et al., 2022)
  • How can the (healthy/positive) personal development of students be promoted? (cf. e.g. Aronson et al., 2023, chap. 1,5,7,14,15)
  • How can prejudices and stereotypes be explained, and how can group-based discrimination such as racism and sexism be reduced in social interaction? (cf. e.g. Degner, 2022; Petersen & Six, 2020)
  • What role do social aspects of learning play and how can collaborative forms of learning be implemented (Hänze & Jurkowski, 2022; Chen et al., 2018)?
  • Why are objectives important for teachers and students when planning and implementing teaching? How should they be formulated? (cf. e.g. Biggs et al., 2022; Ulrich, 2020, chapter 4)
  • How can media/educational technologies be used to promote learning? (cf. e.g. Buchner & Kerres, 2021; Kerres, 2018)
  • How can feedback be designed to promote learning with regard to learning objectives and in different contexts (adaptive tutorial systems, peer feedback in group work, personal appearance, etc.)? (cf. e.g. Narciss, 2020; Panadero & Lipnevich, 2022; Ruwe & Mayweg-Paus, 2023)
  • How can tests be designed to be valid? (cf. e.g. Schaper, 2021; Schürmann et al., 2022)
  • How can further training in higher education didactics be made attractive for teachers, and how can it improve the quality of teaching at universities and colleges? (cf. e.g. Nerdinger et al., 2019, chap. 4, 7-12, 19, 24, 26, 31)
  • What are the quality criteria for coaching, consulting and moderation processes—for example, in the development of study programs or mission statements? (cf. e.g. Greif et al., 2018)

 

 References

Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Sommers, S. (2023). Sozialpsychologie (10. Aufl.). Pearson Studium.

Berendt, B. (2005). „Academic Staff Development“ im Kontext und zur Unterstützung des Bologna-Prozesses. Stellenwert und Stand hochschuldidaktischer Aus- und Weiterbildung. In B. Berendt, B. Szczyrba & J. Wildt (Hrsg.), Neues Handbuch Hochschullehre (Rn. L 2.2). DUZ Verlags- und Medienhaus.

Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (5. Aufl.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Brinker, T., & Schuhmacher, E. (2022). Digital, analog und hybrid befähigen: Neue Ideen für die Hochschullehre. Hep.

Buchner, J., & Kerres, M. (2021). Lernwerkstattarbeit in der digital vernetzten Welt. Die Perspektive der gestaltungsorientierten Mediendidaktik. In B. Holub, K. Himpsl-Gutermann, K. Mittlböck, M. Musilek-Hofer, A. Varelija-Gerber & N. Grünberger (Hrsg.), Lern.medien.werk.statt. Hochschullernwerkstätten in der Digitalität (S. 137–146). Klinkhardt. https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2021/22809/pdf/Holub_et_al_2021_lern.medien.werk.statt.pdf#page=139

Chen, J., Wang, M., Kirschner, P. A. & Tsai, C. C. (2018). The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 799–843. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584 

Coleman, J. (2021). The teacher and the teenage brain. Routledge.

Dghd. (2022). Programm der 50. dghd Tagung an der Universität Paderborn. https://groups.uni-pa-derborn.de/dghd22/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/UPB_dghd_2022_Programm_online.pdf

Degner, J. (2022). Vorurteile haben immer nur die anderen. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60572-1

Fabriz, S., Hansen, M., Heckmann, C., Mordel, J., Mendzheritskaya, J., Stehle, S., Schulze-Vorberg, L., Ulrich, I., & Horz, H. (2021). How a professional development programme for university teachers impacts their teaching-related self-efficacy, self-concept, and subjective knowledge. Higher Education Research and Development, 40(4), 738–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1787957

Grabner, R.H., & Meier, M.A. (2021). Die Entwicklung von Expertise. In V. Müller-Oppliger & G. Weigand (Hrsg.), Handbuch Begabung (S. 149–167). Beltz.

Greif, S., Möller, H., & Scholl, W. (2018). Handbuch Schlüsselkonzepte im Coaching. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49483-7

Hattie, J.A. (2023). Visible Learning: The Sequel. A Synthesis of Over 2,100 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge.

Hänze, M., & Jurkowski, S. (2022). Das Potenzial kooperativen Lernens ausschöpfen: Die Bedeutung der transaktiven Kommunikation für eine lernwirksame Zusammenarbeit. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 36(3) 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000335

Heckhausen, J., & Heckhausen, H. (Hrsg.). (2018). Motivation und Handeln (5. Aufl.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53927-9

Jäncke, L. (2017). Lehrbuch Kognitive Neurowissenschaften (2. überarb. Aufl.). Hogrefe.

Kiesel, A., & Spada, H. (Hrsg.). (2018). Lehrbuch Allgemeine Psychologie (4. Aufl.). Huber.

Kerres, M. (2018). Mediendidaktik. Konzeption und Entwicklung digitaler Lernangebote (5., überarb. und aktualisierte Aufl.). De Gruyter Oldenbourg. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110456837

Kerres, M., Getto, B., & Buchner, J. (2020). Hochschulbildung in der digitalen Welt: Ein Rahmenmodell für Strategieoptionen. In C. Trültzsch-Wijnen & G. Brandhofer (Hrsg.), Bildung und Digitalisierung. Auf der Suche nach Kompetenzen und Performanzen. Nomos-Verlag.

Kordts-Freudinger, R., Schaper, N., Scholkmann, A., & Szczyrba, B. (Hrsg.). (2021). Handbuch Hochschuldidaktik. Utb.

Krammer, G., Vogel, S.E., & Grabner, R.H. (2021). Believing in neuromyths makes neither a bad nor good student-teacher: the relationship between neuromyths and academic achievement in teacher education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 15(1), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12266

Macke, G., Hanke, U., Viehmann-Schweizer, P., & Raether, W. (2016). Kompetenzorientierte Hochschuldidaktik. Lehren, vortragen, prüfen, beraten (3., überarb. u. erw. Aufl.). Beltz.

Mayweg-Paus, E., & Zimmermann, M. (2022). Kritisches Denken beim Umgang mit Online-Informationen an der Hochschule. In H. A. Mieg & F. Havemann (Hrsg.), Critical Thinking. Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch 2021. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.

McKeachy, W. (1967). Research on teaching at the College and University Level. In N.L. Gagne (Hrsg.), Handbook of Research on Teaching – A Project of the American Educational Research Association (5. Aufl., S. 1118–1172). Rand McNally & Company.

Mörth, M., Paridon, H., Enders, N., & Ulrich, I. (2023). Psychologie als eine Grundlage der Hochschuldidaktik: Ansatz für eine interdisziplinäre Annäherung. In R. Rhein & J. Wildt (Hrsg.), Hochschuldidaktik als Wissenschaft: Disziplinäre, interdisziplinäre und transdisziplinäre Perspektiven (S. 109–136, Reihe „Hochschulbildung: Lehre und Forschung“). Transcript. https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-6180-4/hochschuldidaktik-als-wissenschaft/

Narciss, S. (2020). Feedbackstrategien für interaktive Lernaufgaben. In H. Niegemann & A. Weinberger (Hrsg.), Handbuch Bildungstechnologie: Konzeption und Einsatz digitaler Lernumgebungen (S. 369–392). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54368-9_35

Nerdinger, F. W., Blickle, G., & Schaper, N. (Hrsg.). (2019). Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie (4. Aufl.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41130-4_7

Panadero E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022). A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements. Educational Research Review, 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416

Petersen, L.-E., & Six, B. (Hrsg.). (2020). Stereotype, Vorurteile und soziale Diskriminierung: Theorien, Befunde und Interventionen (2. Aufl.). Beltz.

Rhein, R., & Wildt, J. (Hrsg.). (2023). Hochschuldidaktik als Wissenschaft: Disziplinäre, interdisziplinäre und transdisziplinäre Perspektiven (Reihe „Hochschulbildung: Lehre und Forschung“). Transcript. https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-6180-4/hochschuldidaktik-als-wissenschaft/

Ruwe, T., & Mayweg-Paus, E. (2023). „Your Argumentation is Good“, says the AI vs Humans – The Role of Feedback Providers and Personalized Language for Feedback Effectiveness. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100189

Schaper, N. (2021). Prüfen. In R. Kordts-Freudinger, N. Schaper, A. Scholkmann & B. Szczyrba (Hrsg.), Handbuch Hochschuldidaktik (S. 87–101). Utb.

Schickel, M., & Ringeisen, T. (2022). What Predicts Students’ Presentation Performance? Boredom and Competence (Beliefs) During Presentation Training. Current Psychology, 41, 5803–5816. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12144-020-01090-8

Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098

Schulmeister, R. (1983). Pädagogisch-psychologische Kriterien für den Hochschulunterricht. In L. Huber (Hrsg.), Ausbildung und Sozialisation in der Hochschule (Enzyklopädie Erziehungswissenschaft, Bd. 10, S. 331–354). Klett-Cotta.

Schulze-Vorberg, L., Heckmann, C., Ulrich, I., & Horz, H. (2020). Der Qualitätsanspruch an Hochschullehre. In S. Hummel (Hrsg.), Grundlagen der Hochschullehre: Teaching in Higher Education (S. 187–211, Reihe Doing Higher Education, Hrsg. von R. Egger, T. Brinker, B. Eugster & J. T. Frederiksen). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28181-6_9

Schürmann, L., Kärner, T., & Ringeisen, T. (2022). Need Strength, Perceived Need Support, Stress Symptomatology, and Performance in the Context of Oral Exams: A Typological Approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.992314

Tremp, P., & Eugster, B. (2020). Klassiker der Hochschuldidaktik? Kartografie einer Landschaft (Reihe Doing Higher Education). Springer VS.

Ulrich, I. (2020). Gute Lehre in der Hochschule. Praxistipps zur Planung und Gestaltung von Lehrveranstaltungen (2., aktualisierte, korr. u. erw. Aufl.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31070-7

Ulrich, I. (2023). Good Teaching in Higher Education: Practical Tips for Planning and Designing Courses. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39137-9

Ulrich, I., Kirkdal, M., & Horz, H. (2017). Qualitätspakt Lehre 2011–20 in Deutschland: Ziele, Ergebnisse und Perspektiven 2020+. In K. Franke, B. Engbrocks & C. Bade (Hrsg.), Qualitätspakt Lehre in Sachsen. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven aus der ersten Förderphase (S. 9–20). Klemm + Oelschläger.

Wild, E., & Möller, J. (2020). Pädagogische Psychologie (3. Aufl.). Springer.

Wild, E., & Wild, K.-P. (2001). Jeder lernt auf seine Weise – Individuelle Lernstrategien und Hochschullehre. In B. Berendt, H.-P. Voss & J. Wildt (Hrsg.), Neues Handbuch Hochschullehre (Rn. A 2.1). Raabe.

Wildt. J. (1984). Forschung über Lehren und Lernen an der Hochschule. In D. Goldschmidt, U. Teichler & W.-D. Webler (Hrsg.), Forschungsgegenstand Hochschule. Überblick und Trendbericht (S. 155–180). Campus.

Zumbach, J., & Astleitner, H. (2016). Effektives Lehren an der Hochschule. Ein Handbuch zur Hochschuldidaktik. Kohlhammer.

 

Guidelines regarding the journal

The ZFHE is a peer-reviewed online journal that publishes scientific contributions of practical relevance concerning current higher education development issues. The focus is on didactical, structural, and cultural developments in teaching and learning. Topics that are innovative and still regarded as open in respect of their design options are preferred.

The ZFHE is published by a consortium of European researchers and funded by the Austrian Ministry for Science, Research and Economics. For more information, see https://www.zfhe.at.

 

Submission information

German or English contributions may be submitted in two possible formats:

Research contributions should meet the following criteria. The paper:

  • addresses a systemic question in transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary or subject-specific contexts;
  • has a research gap as its starting point;
  • is extensively embedded in current scholarly discourse;
  • has a robust methodological approach;
  • includes reflection on the author’s own work;
  • explains the research methodology;
  • employs a method that is suitable for answering the research question;
  • presents the scientific discourse in a reflective manner;
  • makes a clearly recognizable contribution to answering the research question or to the research discussion;
  • consistently follows relevant citation rules (APA style, current edition);
  • comprises between 20,000 and 33,000 characters (with spaces, including cover page, bibliography and author information).

Research-driven development contributions should meet the following criteria. The paper:

  • features a higher education development perspective with a sound research base;
  • discusses and differentiates a systemic problem in teaching development;
  • is an academically grounded "institutional research" contribution;
  • is supported by a literature review;
  • meaningfully addresses the interaction between science and praxis and/or the link between the two poles of "research and development"
  • consistently follows pertinent citation rules (APA style, current edition);
  • comprises between 20,000 and 33,000 characters (with spaces, including cover page, bibliography and author information).

 Development contributions should meet the following criteria. The paper:

  • deals with a concrete problem in higher education development in the (author’s) higher education institution;
  • addresses a practical need;
  • is embedded in the scientific discussion and literature (without claiming to provide an overview of the literature);
  • offers suggestions for teaching and university development, with recommendations for action (if applicable);
  • offers a systematic and transparent discussion (e.g. no incomprehensible references to specifics or details in a field of practice);
  • elaborates on generalisable aspects relevant to theoretical development;
  • addresses considerations related to the transfer to practice;
  • mentions possibilities for further research;
  • consistently follows relevant citation rules (APA style, current edition);
  • comprises between 20,000 and 33,000 characters (with spaces, including cover page, bibliography and author information).

 

Submission and review schedule

September 30, 2024 – Submission deadline for complete articles: Please upload your contribution(s) to the ZFHE journal system (https://www.zfhe.at) in the corresponding section (research contributions, research-driven development contributions, development contributions) of ZFHE 20/1 issue in anonymous format. To do so, you must first register as an author in the system.

November 15, 2024 – Feedback/Reviews: Scientific contributions and workshop reports are evaluated in a double-blind process (see below).

January 13, 2025 – Revision deadline: Where necessary, contributions may be revised according to feedback and recommendations from the reviews.

March 2025 – Online publication: In March 2025, the finalized contributions are published under https://www.zfhe.at and also made available in print.

 

Review Process

All submitted contributions will be examined in a double-blind peer review process to guarantee scientific quality. The editors of the current issue propose the reviewers for the respective theme and allocate individual contributions to the reviewers; they also determine which contributions will be accepted. The selection of reviewers and the review process for each thematic issue are always supervised by a member of the editorial board.

 

Formatting and submission

In order to save valuable time with the formatting of the contributions, we kindly ask that all authors work with the template from the beginning. The template can be downloaded from the ZFHE website under the following links:

https://www.zfhe.at/userupload/ZFHE_20-1_TEMPLATE_de.docx

https://www.zfhe.at/userupload/ZFHE_20-1_TEMPLATE_en.docx

Since we must be able to edit the texts, they must be submitted unlocked/unprotected in in Microsoft Word (.doc), Office Open XML (.docx), Open Document Text (.odt) or Plain Text (.txt) format. Please do not submit any PDF files! Submissions in the “Scientific Contribution” and “Workshop Report” categories must first be made in anonymous format in order to guarantee the double-blind review process. Please remove all references to the author(s) of the document (including in the document properties!). Upon a positive review result, this information will be re-inserted.

 

Questions?

If you have any questions regarding the content of the issue, please contact Immanuel Ulrich (immanuel.ulrich@iu.org), Carla Bohndick (carla.bohndick@uni-hamburg.de), Josef Buchner (Josef.Buchner@phsg.ch), Roland Grabner (roland.grabner@uni-graz.at), Elisabeth Mayweg-Paus (elisabeth.mayweg@hu-berlin.de), Martina Mörth (martina.moerth@tu-berlin.de) & Tobias Ringeisen (tobias.ringeisen@hwr-berlin.de).
For technical and organizational questions, please contact Elisabeth Stadler (office@zfhe.at).

 

We look forward to your submissions!

Immanuel Ulrich, Carla Bohndick, Josef Buchner, Roland Grabner, Elisabeth Mayweg-Paus, Martina Mörth & Tobias Ringeisen