Denn klar ist auch: Mit allen bisherigen Maßnahmenvon Bund und Ländern in Bezug auf OER ist einesnoch nicht erreicht: eine möglichst umfassende unddatenschutzkonforme Bündelung zentraler digitalerOER-Funktionen und -Dienste für die Lehrenden undLernenden. Eine solche Bündelung soll zukünftig alsselbstverständliches Steuerungselement im individu-ellen digitalen „Cockpit“ für das Lehren und Lernenin jeder Bildungssituation zur Verfügung stehen.Damit einhergehend wird auch eine Konsolidierungund Fokussierung bisheriger OER-Infrastrukturennotwendig sein. Ein standardkonformes und inter-operables Finden, Erstellen und Ablegen von freienBildungsmaterialien in OER-Bibliotheken wird damitzuverlässiger möglich.

Insgesamt soll die Akzeptanz freier Bildungsmediendurch wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse verbessertwerden.

Die Bildungsforschung hat sich dem Thema OER erstzögerlich angenommen.

Das BMBF fördert z. B. mit derberufswahlapp

Um diese Aspekte stärker zu betonen, sollen OER auchim Kontext nonformaler Bildungsangebote stärker indie Fläche gebracht werden und sich in zusätzlichen,erlebbaren Handlungsräumen etablieren.

Open-Source-Software bietet hier optimale Voraus-setzungen, um solche offenen Infrastrukturenbereitzustellen und gleichzeitig hohe Anforderungenan die Sicherheit und Usability einzulösen.

Qualitätsmechanismen

Nurdie technisch-semantische Vereinheitlichung derMetadaten-Beschreibungen und eine zukunftssichereInteroperabilität verschiedener Metadaten-Standardskönnen die Auffindbarkeit von OER und die dyna-mische Erweiterung des OER-Ökosystems verbessern.

Darüber hinaus sind Anpassbarkeit, Zugänglichkeit,Barrierefreiheit und Inklusion verbindliche Entwick-lungskriterien für solche technischen Arbeits- undGestaltungsumgebungen.

Das BMBF wird insbesondere die Entwicklungflexibler Bausteine mit möglichst hoher Usabilityfördern, die einem Plugin-Konzept folgen.

Ziel des BMBF ist es, Synergien für die einfacheVerwaltung und die fortlaufende Weiterentwicklungund der Qualität der Materialien zu schaffen. Beste-hende Hürden in der Verfügbarkeit und der Nutzungs-freundlichkeit von OER und OER-gestützten Bildungs-angeboten müssen abgebaut werden. Doppel ent-wicklungen oder gar der Aufbau von Parallel-strukturen etwa bei der Suche nach OER-Inhaltenmüssen vermieden, Bestehendes soll zusammen-geführt werden.

Ein Verständnis von Lehren und Lernen, das diegemeinschaftliche Gestaltung und Verteilung vonMaterialien verfolgt, braucht die Unterstützung desWandels von OER als „purer Materialerstellung“ hinzu OEP als „Nutzungsstrategie zur Gestaltung neuerUnterrichtsformen und Gestaltungsprozesse“ für OER.

Zieldes BMBF ist es somit, die Entwicklung von OERhin zu einer aktiven Gemeinschaft verschiedensterAkteure und deren Kooperation auszubauen

Die Open-Access-Strategie desBMBF schafft bereits den Rahmen für die Umsetzungin Wissenschaft und Forschung

Ziel ist eine Praxis des rechtssicheren Teilens auf Basisfunktionierender Lizenzmodelle. Dafür wird dasBMBF identifizieren, welche juristischen Beratungs-und Rechtsschutzstellen beim Engagement für dieWeiterentwicklung von Creative-Commons-Lizenzenund bei der Beratung von Lehrenden adressiert undunterstützt werden sollen.

Deshalb will das BMBF dasrechtssichere Erstellen und Teilen von OER unter-stützen, Vorbehalte und Hürden für das Teilen selbst-erstellter Inhalte identifizieren und durch fachlicheHandreichungen bzw. rechtliche Hintergrund-informationen Vorurteile abzubauen helfen.

Start-ups, die die Aus- und Weiterbildung von wenigerdigitalaffinen Lehrenden und Bildungsakteurenadressieren, will das BMBF – auch mit Blick aufbildungsbereichsübergreifende Kooperationen –unterstützen, in diesem Themenbereich zusätzlicheImpulse und Beiträge zu liefern.

Um den OER-Einsatz auszubauen, will das BMBFdeshalb pädagogische Fachkräfte auf ihre Rollebeim Einsatz von OER in der Bildungspraxis besservorbereiten und unterstützen.

massiven Anstieg

oder auch aufgrund regionaler Besonder-heiten

Zivilgesellschaftliche und kommerzielle Akteure unter:dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/314/1931438.pdf

Die Fördermaßnahmen des BMBF aus dieser Strategiezielen darauf, ein nachhaltiges, OER-förderlichesÖkosystem aus Technologien, Dienstleistungs- undVernetzungsangeboten zu schaffen.

Das BMBF will Anreizsysteme zur Erstellungund Nutzung von OER schaffen, ausbauen sowiebestehende technische, pädagogische undorganisatorische Rahmenbedingungen verbessern.

Das Ziel der OER-Strate-gie ist daher ein tiefgreifender Wandel der Lernkultur.

wirksame Strukturen

z. B.

langfristige

Für eine Einführung in deutscher Sprache:de.creativecommons.net/start

Hochschulen konnten besser auf vorhan-dene technische Infrastrukturen aufsetzen und dieLehre in kürzester Zeit auf eine reine Online-Lehreumstellen. Demgegenüber fehlte den Schulen vieler-orts noch die digitale Infrastruktur.

Titel: AdobeStock/Friends Stock

Open Source Software

This specific distinction between the matching/meshing hypothesis, and the existence of individual preferences, is at the heart of many studies which have examined belief in the matching hypothesis.

The lack of evidence to support the matching hypothesis is now acknowledged by some proponents of Learning Styles theory.

Additional concerns are that the continued belief in Learning Styles undermines the credibility of educators and education research

Another concern is that to try and match instruction to Learning Styles risks wasting resources and effort on an ineffective method.

The proposed harms include concerns that learners will be pigeonholed or demotivated by being allocated into a Learning Style.

In the mid-2000s two substantial reviews of the literature concluded that there was currently no evidence to support the idea that the matching of instructional methods to the supposed Learning Styles of individual students improved their learning (Coffield et al., 2004; Pashler et al., 2008). Subsequent reviews have reached the same conclusion (Cuevas, 2015; Aslaksen and Lorås, 2018) and there have been numerous, carefully controlled attempts to test this “matching” hypothesis (e.g., (Krätzig and Arbuthnott, 2006; Massa and Mayer, 2006; Rogowsky et al., 2015, 2020; Aslaksen and Lorås, 2019).

There are now over 70 different Learning Styles classification systems (Coffield et al., 2004). They are largely questionnaire-based; students are asked to self-report their preferences for different approaches to learning and other activities and are then assigned one or more Learning Styles.

Ironically, in early 2020, a bug was encountered within the jointly developed student information system that was able to reveal personal data of all (!) students from nearly all public universities in Germany (Tremmel 2020).

explains

No managerial strategies, no teacher training, no debates on technological design or politics, no arguments about the pros and cons—we just do it.

schools have been struggling with planning and implementing basic digital services for years

To what extent, and by which mechanisms, is higher education a factor behind increasing public support for environmental policy instruments?

Rapidly Changing Content

Yet, we can contrast all of this with the immense opportunities on the internet for learning (e.g., courses and demonstrations on YouTube, Coursera, TEDx talks) that are game-changers and enhance our educational options.

There are benefits to relying on the internet: more information, social connections, and reduced processing load (in some cases). But, relying on the internet may convey a sense of ownership over external information and reduce the depth of processing that is necessary to make information stick, likely exacerbated by the very speed with which hits are returned in response to one's search terms. Relying on the internet can also increase the influence of misinformation because anyone can edit information and do so at a fast pace.

We go a step further here and predict that compared to information from a friend or a book, information found on the internet may be particularly vulnerable to hindsight bias (I already knew that; Fischhoff & Beyth, 1975), inflated judgments of learning (e.g., Koriat & Bjork, 2005), or inadvertent plagiarism (cryptomnesia; Gingerich & Sullivan, 2013). Of course, these problems are not specific to the internet. Rather, what is unique about the internet is perhaps the number of opportunities it provides for authorship, and the relative anonymity of the information sources, both of which likely increase information appropriation. Furthermore, searching the internet is not entirely passive; one must input search terms and select links—activities with the potential to be confused with the cognitive operations that typically mark self-generated information (Johnson & Raye, 1981). Finally, the near-constant access to the internet that many people now have (e.g., via the smartphone almost always at hand) may further blur the distinction between what one knows and what exists on the internet—yielding the digital expansion of the mind.

In short, social media allows selectivity in sharing, audience tuning, and rehearsals, at a rate that may be greater than traditional means of sharing one's memories.

Is the Internet a More Potent Source of Misinformation?

Depending on the types of social networks that users inhabit (e.g., relatively insular chat groups on Facebook versus much more distributed following on Twitter), information bubbles and echo chambers can coalesce the users’ opinions, whereas large, diverse, and complex interconnections yield varied mental representations.

More generally, the very act of searching may change one's beliefs about what one knows.

Do people read differently when reading screens? It appears they do.

there is a cost to having to make choices (even if one doesn’t choose the distraction)

reliance on the internet can become habitual

We are also concerned with the focus on the save/erase paradigm, given that we need more studies to understand these effects at the time of this writing.2 In our own studies, for example, we did not find a difference in memory as a function of whether participants were told that the computer would save versus erase what they typed (Marsh & Rajaram, 2018).

Experimental work is still in its infancy, although much popular press warns (prematurely, in our opinions) about the dangers of internet reliance and whether the internet is “serving as the external hard drives for our memories” (Wegner & Ward, 2013), or even “making us stupid” (as asked on the cover of the July/August 2008 issue of The Atlantic Monthly in 2008; Carr, 2008).

Unlimited Scope

Many Connections to Others

Source Information is Obscured

The Ability to Author

Fast Results

The Requirement to Search

Widespread Access

Many Distractions and Choices

Inaccurate Content

we encourage the identification of important properties of the internet to identify and build upon basic laboratory studies focused on the same properties

how does relying on the internet change cognition?

“digital expansion of the mind”

Our goal is to consider the impact of internet usage on many aspects of cognition, as people increasingly rely on the internet to seek, post, and share information.

Aufgabentypen für das Videobasierte Assessment

Abb. 3

Durch die Unterbrechung der Wiedergabe zur Einblendung verankerter Testfragen kommt es dennoch zur Beeinträchtigung des Bewegtbildes.

Dies erfordert Genauigkeit bei der Annotation von Fragen, um weder gesprochene Worte, noch Sätze durch eine eingeschobene Frage abzuschneiden.

Um Aufgabentypen für das Video Assessment identizieren und beschreiben zu können, wurden drei Schritte unternommen: Erstens untersuchten wir die Funktio-nalität von 121 Videolernumgebungen, von denen 15 Systeme1 bereits Formen von E-Assessment Aufgaben aufwiesen [25]. Diese Beispiele kennzeichnen somit den Ist-Stand. Im zweiten Schritt wurden Aufgaben- und Fragetypen aus gewöhnlichen, d.h. nicht videobasierten E-Assessment-Systemen und -Tests aus der Literatur [26, 27] zusammengetragen.

Lernformen

Flipped Classroom bzw. Inverted Classroom Methode

können mit Multiple-Choice-Aufgaben im Video nur schwer abgebildet werden

Assessment Methoden

Dies er-scheint zunächst als eine naheliegende Forderung, denn Lehrende die videobasierte Lernaktivitäten für ihre Studierenden entwickeln, wollen über den Erfolg ihres Ange-bots und den Lernerfolg der Teilnehmer informiert werden.

Bonus Best Practice: Provide Feedback

When using multiple-choice items to facilitate learning, it is also ideal to produce tests of moderate difficulty. The main reason for this recommendation is that, as described above, multiple-choice tests can have positive and negative effects on learning.

In order to effectively measure learning, each multiple-choice item must help to discriminate between students who have and have not acquired the desired skills and knowledge. When this psychometric goal is achieved, it often produces tests of moderate difficulty that challenge students but allow them to succeed much of the time (assuming that they have at least some of the requisite skills and knowledge).

The findings from research on using multiple-choice tests for learning also suggest that it is best to have relatively few alternatives, but this recommendation is made for a different reason. When learning is the purpose, the fact that multiple-choice tests expose test-takers to a lot of incorrect information is worrisome because they could potentially learn it.

Determining the number of response options that is optimal for measurement purposes has been a frequent topic of investigation in the assessment literature. After conducting a meta-analysis of this sizeable literature, Rodriguez (2005) concluded that using three response options (the correct answer and two lures) provides the best balance between psychometric quality and efficiency of administration (e.g., students can answer more three-alternative than four-alternative questions in the same amount of time). Although using three alternatives is optimal in theory, this body of research also suggests that the exact number chosen is best determined by the number of plausible incorrect responses that can be created (Haladyna et al., 2002). If only one plausible incorrect response can be identified, then it is better to have an item with just two alternatives than to add a third low-quality (incorrect) alternative; likewise, if efficiency is not a concern and three plausible incorrect responses can be identified, then using four alternatives is acceptable. A recent synthesis of this literature provides practical advice for test creators about how to develop and use distractors for multiple-choice items (see Gierl, Bulut, Guo, & Zhang, 2017); for example, the recommendations for creating effective distractors include using common errors or misconceptions and true statements that do not correctly answer the stem.

In sum, the findings to date suggest avoiding the use of NOTA and AOTA because they are clearly detrimental to assessment and any possible benefits to learning are relatively small.

One common criticism that is leveled at multiple-choice tests is that they are limited to the recognition of basic factual knowledge, whereas constructed-response formats can require higher-order thinking. On the contrary, it is quite possible to create multiple-choice items that measure higher-order thinking, even if it is more difficult (Aiken, 1982), and research has shown that taking multiple-choice tests that require higher-order thinking can produce learning that improves subsequent performance (e.g., McConnell, St-Onge, & Young, 2015).

ncluding “none-of-the-above” (NOTA) and “all-of-the-above” (AOTA) as alternatives on multiple-choice questions is a popular practice, but the assessment literature suggests it is best to avoid using them.

When creating a test for the purpose of assessment, each item should tap particular content and engage specific cognitive processes in order to provide broad coverage of the learning objectives across items while minimizing overlap among items.

The assessment literature suggests that confidence-weighted multiple-choice testing may improve validity without comprising reliability because it enables the measurement of partial knowledge (Hambleton, Roberts, & Traub, 1970). Correspondingly, recent research examining how confidence-weighted multiple-choice testing affects performance on a subsequent test suggests that the cognitive processes engaged in evaluating each alternative can be beneficial to learning (Sparck, Bjork, & Bjork, 2016).

Within the assessment literature, there is a general consensus that CMC items should be avoided for several reasons. First, CMC items tend to be more prone to “clueing”—that is, they inadvertently enable test-takers to engage in strategic guessing. If test-takers can eliminate one or more of the primary responses, it can rapidly whittle down the number of plausible secondary choices. Due to clueing, CMC items tend to produce artificially higher levels of performance and have lower reliability relative to the traditional, simple multiple-choice format (Albanese, 1993). Second, research suggests that CMC items are not inherently better at measuring higher-order thinking than simpler item types (Dawson-Saunders, Nungester, & Downing, 1989), and thus do not necessarily offer any greater validity. Finally, CMC items are difficult to create and frequently dropped from the pool of potential items during the verification phase of test development because of the issues described above. Taken as a whole, the assessment literature suggests that the costs associated with CMC items greatly outweigh the benefits.

The primary goal of assessment is to measure the extent to which students have acquired the skills and knowledge that form the learning objectives of an educational experience (e.g., an activity, session, or course). To do so effectively, a test needs to differentiate students who have greater mastery of the to-be-learned skills and knowledge from students who have less mastery, which is referred to as discriminability. Effective assessment also requires stable and consistent results, which is called reliability, and accurate measurement of the intended skills, knowledge, or both, which is called validity (Green, 1981). In contrast, the primary goal of using tests for learning is to produce knowledge and skills that are durable, so that they will be retained over long periods of time, and generalizable, so that they can be flexibly used in different contexts.

For example, multiple-choice testing has been found to improve retention and transfer on subsequent unit and final exams in middle school (McDaniel et al., 2013, Roediger et al., 2011), high school (McDermott, Agarwal, D’antonio, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014), and college courses (Butler et al., 2014, Glass, 2009, McDaniel et al., 2012). In addition, multiple-choice testing can enhance the learning of non-tested, conceptually related information (Bjork, Little, & Storm, 2014) and restore access to previously acquired knowledge that has become inaccessible (Butler et al., 2018, Cantor et al., 2015).

As an aside, it is interesting to note that despite wide-spread communication of these best practices, significant flaws remain common in most multiple-choice assessments (DiBattista and Kurzawa, 2011, Downing, 2005).

The ubiquity of multiple-choice testing in education today stems from the many advantages that it offers relative to other assessment formats. For example, multiple-choice tests are relatively easy to score, offer greater objectivity in grading, and allow more content to be covered by reducing the time it takes test-takers to respond to questions.

Are the Best Practices for Assessment Also Good for Learning?

The most common approach to open data, making data available on request, does not work. Researchers requested data from 140 authors with articles published in journals that required authors to share data on request, but only 25.7% of these data sets were actually shared

Preregistration

Cost of Access

The Failure of Replication

In the education sciences specifically, one study found that only about 54% of independent replication attempts are successful (Makel & Plucker, 2014)

Open Education Science is concerned with the transparency of scientific research on education but not (directly) with the openness of educational practice.

It does not restrict any particular research practice but rather, asks researchers to be transparent and honest about their practices. There is nothing wrong with analyzing data with no a priori hypotheses, but there is something fundamentally corrosive to publishing papers that present post hoc hypotheses as a priori.

For all the methodological variety in educational research, most studies proceed through four common phases that include (1) design, (2) data collection, (3) analysis, and (4) publication.

There is no single philosophy or unified solution advanced by Open Science advocates (Fecher & Friesike, 2014)

NonCommercial

Each aspect of the scientific cycle—research design, data collection, analysis, and publication—can and should be made more transparent and accessible.

3 DataEmpirical studies on dropout at German universities show that performanceproblems represent the single most important cause of leaving higher educationamong bachelor students (see figure 1).2If multi-selection was allowed, 70%of dropout students mention performance issues as a relevant factor for theirdecision (Heublein, 2010).

If lecture capture is to be utilised widely in a teaching environment, it is important to find ways to make the attendance of lectures hold value beyond their recorded substitute. One way of doing this is to ensure the experience that students get in a lecture is substantively different (and richer) than they would get from passively watching a recording. This may be through the encouragement of enhanced student interaction and/or participation during lectures or including small ‘live’ formative (or even summative) assessments during lectures.

Lectures are used not only for helping deliver course content but they are a key touch point where information about assessment is transferred.

not having face-to-face contact with instructors will mean that they cannot ask questions of clarification

The study is unique in that it examines two different aspects of the introduction of lecture capture on student engagement and attainment: the effects of lecture capture availability to students and the effects of students’ usage of lecture capture.