Conference PaperPDF Available

University-Industry Collaboration's Next Level: A Comparative Study as Basis for a User-centred Design of a Master's Programme in Digital Transformation

Authors:

Abstract

Traditionally, educational institutions do not ask future learners about their needs and interests when developing new study programmes, nor they do involve learners-to-be in the conceptual processes of those programmes. The voices and expectations of whole generations, mostly influenced by cultural, societal, and technological factors, might fade away when confronting the slow-moving, difficult to change educational structures and systems. It happens similarly with employers: ideally, educational institutions consider industry’s future needs and demands in advance when developing study and professional programmes that guarantee high employability of the learners and prepare them with the skills of the future. Yet, employers are not asked either and matching all three, i.e. their needs, the learners’ needs, and the actual skills learned during the studies, enter a complex spiral that gives no satisfactory answer to any of the involved parties alike. There has been a solid exchange with dual partner companies at our university for a long time. Dual studies combine both university study phases and on-the-job training during the whole career. Students are involved this way in cooperative degree programmes that combine theory and practice successfully during their studies. Basic training needs that concern the digital management of these companies are already part of the curriculum, for instance. However, a study programme that explicitly puts digitalization skills at the centre of the education is still not available, neither at the undergraduate nor at the graduate level. Actually, a truly user-centred approach that responds to high pressing challenges of both tertiary education and digital transformation at the enterprise (like a fast transferability of the learned contents into praxis, agile and adaptable learning offers, and modern and blended teaching formats, among others) is still a missing piece in the complex landscape that is today’s educational system. Above all, it requires a solid new education mindset, especially new learning and teaching concepts and structures, that engages the learners and fosters agile learning experiences. We introduce in this paper a twofold comparative study on expectations of a master's programme that seeks to counteract the above-mentioned issues. On the one hand, we asked two different groups of employers to provide their opinions regarding the characteristics of an ideal technical-oriented, dual master's programme on digital transformation. On the other hand, we also asked students to provide their opinion on such an ideal master's programme. By doing so, we explicitly considered their concrete needs and interests before developing the curriculum and other educational aspects related to the programme. We present and discuss the major findings of our comparative study in this work. We also share our experiences and lessons learned in the process of conceiving, developing, and accompanying the official approval of a future-oriented, user-centred, inclusive, and dual curriculum in the age of digital transformation.
UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION'S NEXT LEVEL: A
COMPARATIVE STUDY AS BASIS FOR A USER-CENTRED DESIGN
OF A MASTER’S PROGRAMME IN DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION
D. Monett, C. Lemke
Berlin School of Economics and Law (GERMANY)
Abstract
We present and discuss the major findings of a twofold comparative study on expectations of a master’s
programme in digital transformation. On the one hand, we asked students to provide their opinion on an
ideal technical-oriented, dual master’s programme. On the other hand, we also asked two different
groups of employers to provide their opinions regarding the characteristics of such an ideal master’s
programme. By doing so, we explicitly considered the concrete needs and interests of different
stakeholders before developing the curriculum and other educational aspects related to the study
programme. Furthermore, we share our experiences and lessons learned in the process of conceiving,
developing, and following the official approval of a future-oriented, user-centred, and dual curriculum in
the age of digital transformation.
Keywords: Curriculum development, digital technologies, digital transformation, graduate study
programme, tertiary education, university-industry collaboration.
1 INTRODUCTION
Traditionally, educational institutions do not ask future learners about their needs and interests when
developing new study programmes, nor do they involve learners-to-be in the conceptual processes of
those programmes. For example, Baumann and co-authors state in [1] that [l]earners are not sufficiently
involved in the current higher education policy debates and scientific discourses on the opportunities
and challenges of digital change. This means that they usually only play the role of passive participants.”
Consequently, the voices and expectations of whole generations, mostly influenced by cultural, societal,
and technological factors, might fade away when confronting the slow-moving, difficult to change
educational structures and systemic issues.
It happens similarly with employers: ideally, educational institutions consider industry’s future needs and
demands in advance when developing study and professional programmes that guarantee high
employability of the learners and prepare them with the skills of the future. Yet, employers are not asked
either and matching all three, i.e. their needs, the learners’ needs, and the actual skills learned during
the studies, enter a complex spiral that gives no satisfactory answer to any of the involved parties alike.
A study programme that explicitly puts digitalization skills at the centre of education is still not available
at our university, neither at the undergraduate nor at the graduate level. Actually, a truly user-centred
approach that responds to high pressing challenges of both tertiary education and digital transformation
at the enterprise (like a fast transferability of the learned contents into praxis, agile and adaptable
learning offers, and modern and blended teaching formats, among others) is still a missing piece in the
complex landscape that is today’s educational system. Above all, it requires a solid new education mind-
set, especially new learning and teaching concepts and structures that engage the learners and foster
agile and solid learning experiences.
With the study we have conducted, we expect to counter some of the issues introduced above by
seeking to develop an innovative master’s study programme that puts the learners at its core. Next
sections will introduce some of the works we build upon, as well as challenges and characteristics that
novel, transformative concepts for higher education in the digital era should consider.
2 THE GERMAN DUAL STUDY MODEL AND FUTURE SKILLS
2.1 Dual, Cooperative Studies
The Department of Cooperative Studies of the Berlin School of Economics and Law (HWR Berlin), a
university of applied sciences, is an alternative system to the study model of the Duale Hochschule
Proceedings of INTED2021 Conference
8th-9th March 2021
ISBN: 978-84-09-27666-0
3409
Baden-Württemberg (DHBW). There has for a long time been a solid exchange with dual partner
companies at our university. Dual studies combine both university study phases and on-the-job training
during the whole career. Students are involved this way in cooperative degree programmes that seek
to combine theory and practice during their studies, successfully. Basic training needs that concern the
digital management of these companies are already part of the curriculum, for instance.
In the winter semester 2018/2019 alone there were 426 German tertiary educational institutions, 216 of
which were universities of applied sciences [2]. As for the winter semester 2019/2020, there were almost
2.9 million students in German tertiary education [3], a steady increase since 2007, with more than one
third of them studying STEM careers [4]. Private universities show a similar trend in student numbers
[5], with almost 16,000 students in the winter semester 1995/1996 and nearly a quarter million students
15 years later.
2.2 Future Skills and Employability
In the digital age, economy and society are subject to irreversible changes due to the omnipresent and
all-pervasive presence of digital and networked technologies. For a proactive design of the associated
challenges, competencies and skills in the ethically correct, economically and socially meaningful and
sustainable use of these technologies as well as a human-centred development and use of these form
the corresponding key competencies.
This job-integrated master’s degree in digital transformation conveys application-oriented and
implementable competencies and skills at the interface between well-founded technological knowledge
and management-oriented action and thinking and thus makes a significant contribution to successfully
realizing the challenges of digital transformation in companies and institutions. In combination with an
intensive dovetailing of theory and practice, this master’s degree creates the basis for the sustainable
development of the key competencies required in the digital age. This course sees itself as an extension
and deepening of a relevant bachelor's degree and focuses on imparting user-oriented and practical
knowledge in the field of digital transformation.
This master’s degree qualifies you for building a digital specialist and management career in the
respective partner company. Such fields of activity can be found in the context of digital transformation
in the respective IT organizations of companies and institutions that are responsible for the strategic
design of modern technologies and information systems. Here a management career can be pursued
that includes the management of the associated tasks. In addition, various fields of activity in the
respective specialist or business areas of companies and institutions can be taken on, starting with
digital innovation management, through the management of digital projects, the design of organizational
change through digitization to the management of digital initiatives within organizations. Here, too, both
a specialist and a management career are possible. Graduates of this master’s degree are able to think
critically, to look for solutions creatively and collaboratively by understanding and mastering the
technologies as well as being able to design the areas of application of these. You can communicate in
a problem-solving manner and, using the appropriate management techniques, prepare, evaluate, and
implement decisions about the technical and economically sensible use of new digital and networked
technologies.
This digital transformation master’s degree program, which integrates work, is specifically dedicated to
imparting essential skills for the sustainable and successful design of digital transformation for
companies and organizations. Skills such as agility, innovative strength and targeted management for
structural and procedural redesign through automation are key competencies with which the
technological challenges of the digital age can be implemented. This course therefore takes into account
the dynamics of technological expertise and implementation ability in particular, as there is close
interlinking between theory and practice and the didactic concept promotes the central digital skills of
future managers. All practical projects, company-driven tasks and collaborations are based on the 17
UN sustainability goals in the interdisciplinary development of ideas, concepts or solutions, observe the
principles of equal treatment and diversity and take into account any intercultural aspects and general
ethical principles.
2.3 The Need for Renewing Study Programmes in the Digital Era
Building upon previous work on the challenges of digitalization and the importance of current
technological developments, we acknowledge the role of higher education in the digital era and the
consequences for both the scholarship and research praxis as discussed in [6], which focuses on the
shift that is happening from long-established concepts to new, transforming formats. For example,
3410
expectations that companies have on learners and graduates are seen as key to this transformation,
also rethinking both the role of higher education and digital education, and clarifying their understanding,
with which we agree.
Michel and co-authors [7] present 9,5 theses that should be considered when designing future-oriented
curricula in the age of digital transformation. These are guided by a conceptual framework that is
composed of five components: needs (between employability and education), situation (between intra-
and inter-curricular teaching content), flexibility (between necessary planning and agile response to
changes), learning attitude (between reproducible didactic content and more complex project- and
research-based learning), and learning dramaturgy (between external and self-regulated learning). The
authors define curriculum 4.0 as “a curriculum that addresses the process of digital transformation in a
targeted manner.” The thesis number 9.5 (half a thesis) calls for a curriculum 4.0 as “an urgent challenge
for the entire university landscape, which must be addressed NOW.”
We also find plenty of parallels between the model of collective willingness to change from [8] and how
we approached the whole project that is the central topic of this paper, the basic idea going around
transforming higher education in the context of digitalization.
3 METHODOLOGY
The initial project aims dealt with checking the demands for master’s study programmes in digitalization
and related fields, identifying assumptions and analysing prerequisites for such programmes. Then we
conducted three surveys: one survey to be answered by students (S1) and the other two to be answered
by representatives of our university’s partner companies (S2) and other companies from the
Berlin/Brandenburg region (S3). The main goal of the surveys was to gather information about the
preferences from both perspectives, of the learners and of potential companies, when thinking not only
about the ideal conditions for studying at the master’s level, but also about the characteristics that such
a master’s programme should encompass, tailor-made to the needs of students and their future
employers. Tab. 1 shows general information about the surveys.
Table 1. General information about the surveys.
S1
S2
S3
Time period
01.Apr.2019 to
14.Apr.2019
03.Dec.2019 to
06.Jan.2020
28.Jan.2020 to
09.Feb.2020
Invitations sent
11,192
376
120
No. of responses received
461*
99
21
*: Although the response rate is proportionally much lower for survey S1 than for the other two surveys, the
required sample size is more than satisfactory (i.e. 372 for a confidence level of 95% and a 5% margin of
error).
Table 2. Typical survey topics.
Section
Topics
General information
about the person
For students: type of studies, year, term, career, faculty or school
For companies: company, role, whether they have already students
and where
General information
about master’s studies
Starting time, reasons for studying a master, location, university, time
model, payment model, format, frequency, specialization level, language
General information
about possible contents
Interest/motivation, potential modules and contents
The surveys were designed, developed, and tested in Google Forms; questionnaires were used as the
main method to collect information. Invitations to participate in the surveys were sent by email and only
one call was considered. No personal information was collected unless explicitly requested by the
participants (we refer to this in short). Data was automatically collected in Google Sheets and was used
to derive both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the responses. The questionnaires were composed
of three main sections that had the same structure in all three surveys; they differed only in a few
3411
particular questions that asked for general information about the participants, like the role or position at
the company in the case of surveys S2 and S3, for instance. Types of questions included closed-ended
questions (the majority) with choices in Likert scales, and a few open-ended questions. Tab. 2 lists
typical survey topics referred to in the questions and their corresponding sections.
After closing the surveys, the raw data was processed in Google Sheets, for example for manually
cleaning the data and preparing it for further use. General statistics and their corresponding
visualizations were also produced with that tool.
4 RESULTS
The surveys provided important information that was key for developing a conceptual model of the
master’s programme in digital transformation. The sub-sections below present some of the most
important findings.
4.1 General Information about the Person
Of the 461 students that participated in survey S1, 401 students (87%) were bachelor students (38.6%
first-year, 22.1% second-year, and 23.9% third-year bachelor studies) and 55 (11.9%) were master’s
students (5.2% first-year and 5.4% second-year master’s studies), the rest comprising other degree
programs. Almost half of these participants (49.2%) were studying at the Department of Cooperative
Studies at the time of completing the survey.
One third of the participants in survey S2 (33.3%), i.e. of the representatives of university’s partner
companies, were heads of departments or had leading management roles (C-level), 18.2% were training
or junior managers, and the rest included instructors, project leaders and consultants, among others.
78.8% of these participants said their department had students in the Department of Cooperative
Studies.
Almost two thirds of the participants in survey S3 (61.9%), i.e. from other companies in the region
Berlin/Brandenburg, were heads of departments or had leading management roles (C-level), 23.8%
were engineers or with a similar role at the company, and 9.5% were training or junior managers, among
others.
4.2 General Information about Master’s Studies
When asked about any plans for starting their master’s studies after graduating, 54% of the students
(130 students directly after their undergraduate studies and 119 at a later moment) said they had such
an intention. One third of the participants in the second survey preferred at least one year of work
experience after students graduate and almost one third had no preference whatsoever. Participants in
the third survey were not asked about this aspect since their companies have no explicit partnership
with our university.
The reasons for starting in (in the case of the students) or recommending (in the case of the other two
surveys) a master’s study programme varied among the participants. To students, the attractiveness of
the content or of the area of expertise played the most important role: 83.3% considered it very
important” or “extremely important” This reason was the first choice for participants to the survey S2
(93.9%) together with the practical relevance of the contents (also 93.9%). Participants to the survey S3
considered the latter the most important reason for recommending master’s studies (100%), followed
by the attractiveness of the contents (85.7%).
Studentssecond and third choices were the specialization or professional interest (71.8%) and better
earning opportunities (71.6%), respectively. Second in importance for respondents to the survey S2
were a better qualification and expertise after a master (57.6%) and proximity to the training company
(54.5%). Second in importance for respondents to the survey S3 were opportunities for cooperation with
other companies (66.7%) and proximity to the training company (also 66.7%).
Ideally, students would study in Berlin (67.2%), part-time (39.7%), face-to-face at selected attendance
weeks (29.9%), and without paying for the studies, if possible (61.6%). Participants to the other surveys
would assume part the costs (40.4% for survey S2 and 61.9% for survey S3) and would support the
students if they also wanted to learn or work on learning activities “at” the company (45.5% for survey
S2 and 47.6% for survey S3), although only on selected days.
3412
4.3 General Information about Possible Contents
Regarding the contents of an ideal master’s study programme in digital technologies, there was a
remarkable difference between studentsand other respondents’ choices. Fig. 1 to 3 show the top five
responses of the three surveyed groups of stakeholders (for the Likert values “very interesting” and
“extremely interesting” combined).
Figure 1: Top five choices of students (survey S1).
Figure 2: Top five choices of representatives for companies in survey S2
Figure 3: Top five choices of representatives for companies in survey S3.
As it can be seen in the figures, students’ choices include technologies that are having and will continue
to have a fundamental impact in our future, whereas the other respondents are more interested in
management or company-related processes not necessarily concerning emergent technologies; at least
not evidently.
In general, respondents to the surveys S2 and S3 expressed a genuine interest in a master’s study
programme in digital technologies: 60.6% and 90.5%, respectively. They would prefer interdisciplinary
master’s studies with focus on computer science and business informatics (36.4% for respondents to
the survey S2) and on computer science and engineering (42.9% for respondents to the survey S3).
The top inclusions in the curriculum consider non-emergent technologies, however, as it was presented
above.
The interest in a master’s study programme in digital technologies was not too evident on the side of
the students (44%), although one third chose “Maybe” as an answer. Their concrete interest in emergent
technologies is obvious, however. Are the younger generations disconnected from the reality of
(German, European) businesses? Or are these companies falling behind with regard to modern
technologies and the preferences of potential future experts?
3413
5 THE MASTER’S STUDY PROGRAMME ON DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION
The findings presented so far directly influenced the conceptual model of a new master’s study
programme in digital transformation. We considered in the module catalogue as many interests as
possible from all the surveyed stakeholders very carefully. We also considered not only our own
suggestions and recommendations regarding curriculum development, but also those from the literature
(see [9], for instance). Popular choices for possible contents from the students’ perspective were
conceived as concrete elective specializations in three different areas: artificial intelligence and robotics,
data analytics, and cybersecurity. Popular choices from companies were considered for mandatory
courses. Other mandatory courses involve both digital ethics and digital technologies modules, where
other emergent technologies like virtual reality and augmented reality may be included. Research and
other related skills are essential topics in other modules as well.
The way we approached first, the methodological development of our study and, later, the design of the
curriculum, followed similar guidelines as those presented in [1], where 17 different theses on
digitalization in higher education from the students’ perspective are suggested. For example, one of the
theses deals with enabling self-determination and participation of learners, particularly in strategy
processes and learning formats, these being at the core goals of the student survey (or S1): we asked
them about their needs and interests, e.g. their preferred modules and other general characteristics that
should shape an ideal master’s study programme. Moreover, we conceived elective modules as well as
research-oriented ones where students should play an active role organising a student conference and
all its stages, from the planning over the review phase to the final celebration. Furthermore, we also
focused on the companies’ perspective, on interdisciplinarity, on the combination of theory and practice
during the whole studies, and on digitalization aspects relevant to real-world examples, as other theses
on digitalization in higher education from Baumann and co-authors suggest [1].
At the same time, we promote social learning through collaboration and self-determined learning, as
well as group work and application-oriented project tasks depending of challenges submitted by the
partner companies. In general, the curriculum is flexible in terms of learning formats and is based on
current technological developments and academic progress. This modularity may promote students
willingness to lifelong learning, indirectly.
Regarding digital skills, our concept aims to strengthen necessary digital skills such as:
critical thinking through the acquisition of skills for a differentiated, fact-based analysis and
evaluation of different concepts and approaches from a holistic point of view (technology -
economy - society),
collaboration and communication through working in interdisciplinary teams, interlinking theory
with practical challenges, and allowing independent learning in both synchronous and
asynchronous formats, as well as
creativity through teaching modern problem-solving methods such as design thinking and agile
management in companies and organizations.
Finally, we considered innovative teaching and learning formats like blended-learning that enable a high
degree of flexibility in terms of what, when, and where students want to learn, real-labs or module
sessions “at” the companies included, i.e. at their facilities or already existent labs, as suggested in [10].
Indeed, we expect the specialization subjects “AI and Robotics Lab,” “Data Lab,” and “Hacking Lab” to
be very well received by students since they will require an active, binding involvement of the partner
companies on current and future emergent technologies. They would present the students with practical
problems or challenges to be solved in close coordination with company representatives in an
interdisciplinary manner.
5.1 Some Words on the Path of Validating and Approving the Concept
In the quest for transparency, we established a schedule of several presentations at different levels.
These included the faculty and university councils, the dual faculty committees, departmental
gatherings, as well as periodic faculty meetings where colleagues from other departments and areas of
expertise were present.
In some of them, we observed faculty being hesitant to change established settings and behaviours at
the university, for example, arguing about the need of a new master’s study programme different to the
already existing ones. Specifically, we were questioned about the topic of digitalization and why it should
become a core gear in transforming higher education. Also, some people doubted or underestimated
3414
the validity of the data that was collected (e.g. speculating about students don’t knowing much about
what AI actually is but nevertheless selecting AI as a learning module for the master, or people
questioning the understanding of the meaning of digitalization by the survey participants). Furthermore,
we observed people doubting the preparedness and expertise of the project leaders (mostly in the form
of subjective perceived behaviour, but not only). Moreover, some department leaders did not provide
timely information about the partner companies where their students were placed, thus, not allowing the
representatives of those companies to take the survey and share their needs. Early on, there was also
some refusal on the side of the companies (e.g. not understanding the importance to have “yet another”
master’s study program and “now”). We even were requested to provide information, prepare materials,
and follow processes with no explicit inclusion in any of the formal documents or mechanisms of the
university.
Fortunately, we also received a very strong support from several staff members, what encouraged us
to continue with the product we envisioned. We are sincerely grateful to them. In fact, at the time of
writing this paper and assuming the last official steps go in the expected direction, the master’s study
programme on digital transformation should start in the fall 2021.
6 CONCLUSIONS
When we look back, from the very first idea about such a master’s study programme, over all the
experiences we collected during almost two years, to the current state of the approval by university
officials, we think of a combination of intrinsic motivation, abundant resilience, and genuine interest in
changing students in particular and society in general.
Changing structures and processes is difficult. We faced this pressure and even though we chose to
bring forward the project. With this in mind, we close this paper with the following suggestions for best
practices when developing a dual master’s study programme:
a) Establish a working group with members of a dual faculty commission.
b) Report directly to the dean, periodically.
c) Establish a board of trustees with expert leaders of other institutions not only from industry.
d) Meet weekly. Daily, if possible.
e) Interact with the vice-dean for teaching and learning as well as with other experts, especially
those on dual studies, closely.
f) Share digital spaces with documents and organizational information.
g) Worship and practice Teamgeist, trust, values, common research topics and experience,
enthusiasm, and a little of stubbornness whenever needed.
h) Think of students all the times, at all stages. Ask them. Develop a master’s study programme with
them in mind, at the core of all processes and practices, for them, to motivate them to be lifelong
learners.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Baumann, A. Böckel, F.Denker, P. Gross, E. Kern, M. Lamprecht, J. Reimann, B. Rensinghoff,
Z. Sari, E. Schopf, E. Wächtler, H. Meyer, F. Rampelt, and R. Röwert, „Der Digital Turn aus
Studierendenperspektive. Studentisches Thesenpapier zur Digitalisierung in der
Hochschulbildung,“ Discussion paper, no. 7, Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung, 2019.
Retrieved from doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3250766
[2] Statista, „Anzahl der Hochschulen in Deutschland in den Wintersemestern 2014/2015 bis
2018/2019 nach Hochschulart,“ Statistisches Bundesamt, Statista, 2019a. Retrieved from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/247238/umfrage/hochschulen-in-deutschland-nach-
hochschulart/
[3] Statista, „Anzahl der Studierenden an Hochschulen in Deutschland in den Wintersemestern von
2002/2003 bis 2019/2020,“ Statistisches Bundesamt, Statista, 2019b. Retrieved from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/221/umfrage/anzahl-der-studenten-an-deutschen-
hochschulen/
3415
[4] Statista, „Anzahl der Studierenden in MINT-Fächern in Deutschland in den Wintersemestern von
2009/2010 bis 2018/2019,“ Statistisches Bundesamt, Statista, 2019c. Retrieved from
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1050904/umfrage/studierende-in-mint-faechern-in-
deutschland/
[5] Statista, „Anzahl der Studierenden an privaten Hochschulen in Deutschland in den
Wintersemestern von 1995/1996 bis 2018/2019,“ Statistisches Bundesamt, Statista, 2020.
Retrieved from https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1089894/umfrage/anzahl-der-
studierenden-an-privathochschulen-in-deutschland/
[6] J. Metzner, U. Bartosch, M. Vogel, A.-N. Schroll, M. Rademacher, and H. Neuhausen, „Was
bedeutet Hochschullehre im digitalen Zeitalter? Eine Betrachtung des Bildungsbegriffs vor den
Herausforderungen der Digitalisierung, Working paper, no. 50, Berlin: Hochschulforum
Digitalisierung, 2019.
[7] A. Michel, P. Baumgartner, C. Brei, F. Hesse, S. Kuhn, P. Pohlenz, S. Quade, T. Seidl, and B.
Spinath, „Framework zur Entwicklung von Curricula im Zeitalter der digitalen Transformation,“
Discussion paper, no. 1. Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung, 2018. Retrieved from doi:
10.5281/zenodo.2633054
[8] M. Graf-Schlattmann, D. M. Meister, G. Oevel, and M. Wilde, „Kollektive Veränderungsbereitschaft
als zentraler Erfolgsfaktor von Digitalisierungsprozessen an Hochschulen,“ in
Forschungsperspektiven auf Digitalisierung in Hochschulen, Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung
(S. Hofhues, M. Schiefner-Rohs, S. Aßmann, and T. Brahm, eds.), vol. 15, no. 1, 2020. Retrieved
from https://www.zfhe.at/index.php/zfhe/article/view/1302
[9] S. Grünewald, „Studiengänge in der Digitalisierung Baustelle Curriculumentwicklung,“ Working
paper, no. 52, Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung, 2020. Retrieved from doi:
10.5281/zenodo.3614896
[10] A. Prill, „Lernräume der Zukunft. Vier Praxisbeispiele zu Lernraumgestaltung im digitalen Wandel,“
Working paper, no. 45, Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung, 2019. Retrieved from doi:
10.5281/zenodo.3484654
3416
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Zusammenfassung Veränderungsprozesse an Hochschulen werden mit klassischen Change-Management-Ansätzen nur unzureichend erfasst, da diese die organisationalen Strukturen im deutschen Hochschulwesen nicht genügend berücksichtigen. In dem Beitrag wird das theoretisch und empirisch fundierte Modell der Kollektiven Veränderungsbereitschaft vorgestellt, das auf dem wechselseitigen Zusammenspiel von sechs Handlungsvariablen basiert. Dieses Modell als zentraler Erfolgsfaktor wurde im Zuge des Projekts QuaSiD herausgearbeitet und stellt einen organisationssensiblen Ansatz zur Beschreibung der digitalen Transformation an Hochschulen dar. Schlüsselwörter Erfolgsfaktoren, Digitale Transformation, Hochschulwesen, Abstract Classical change management approaches do not adequately address change processes at higher education institutions in Germany, as such approaches do not take sufficient account of the organisational structures found in higher education. The current paper investigates this phenomen using the theoretically and empirically grounded model of collective willingness to change, based on the interaction of six action variables. This model, which was developed by the project QuaSiD, provides an organization-sensitive approach to the description of digital transformation at higher education institutions.
Der Digital Turn aus Studierendenperspektive. Studentisches Thesenpapier zur Digitalisierung in der Hochschulbildung
  • J Baumann
  • A Böckel
  • F Denker
  • P Gross
  • E Kern
  • M Lamprecht
  • J Reimann
  • B Rensinghoff
  • Z Sari
  • E Schopf
  • E Wächtler
  • H Meyer
  • F Rampelt
  • R Röwert
J. Baumann, A. Böckel, F.Denker, P. Gross, E. Kern, M. Lamprecht, J. Reimann, B. Rensinghoff, Z. Sari, E. Schopf, E. Wächtler, H. Meyer, F. Rampelt, and R. Röwert, "Der Digital Turn aus Studierendenperspektive. Studentisches Thesenpapier zur Digitalisierung in der Hochschulbildung," Discussion paper, no. 7, Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung, 2019. Retrieved from doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3250766
Anzahl der Studierenden in MINT-Fächern in Deutschland in den Wintersemestern von
  • Statista
Statista, "Anzahl der Studierenden in MINT-Fächern in Deutschland in den Wintersemestern von 2009/2010 bis 2018/2019," Statistisches Bundesamt, Statista, 2019c. Retrieved from https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1050904/umfrage/studierende-in-mint-faechern-indeutschland/
Anzahl der Studierenden an privaten Hochschulen in Deutschland in den Wintersemestern von
  • Statista
Statista, "Anzahl der Studierenden an privaten Hochschulen in Deutschland in den Wintersemestern von 1995/1996 bis 2018/2019," Statistisches Bundesamt, Statista, 2020. Retrieved from https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1089894/umfrage/anzahl-derstudierenden-an-privathochschulen-in-deutschland/
Was bedeutet Hochschullehre im digitalen Zeitalter? Eine Betrachtung des Bildungsbegriffs vor den Herausforderungen der Digitalisierung
  • J Metzner
  • U Bartosch
  • M Vogel
  • A.-N Schroll
  • M Rademacher
  • H Neuhausen
J. Metzner, U. Bartosch, M. Vogel, A.-N. Schroll, M. Rademacher, and H. Neuhausen, "Was bedeutet Hochschullehre im digitalen Zeitalter? Eine Betrachtung des Bildungsbegriffs vor den Herausforderungen der Digitalisierung," Working paper, no. 50, Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung, 2019.
Framework zur Entwicklung von Curricula im Zeitalter der digitalen Transformation
  • A Michel
  • P Baumgartner
  • C Brei
  • F Hesse
  • S Kuhn
  • P Pohlenz
  • S Quade
  • T Seidl
  • B Spinath
A. Michel, P. Baumgartner, C. Brei, F. Hesse, S. Kuhn, P. Pohlenz, S. Quade, T. Seidl, and B. Spinath, "Framework zur Entwicklung von Curricula im Zeitalter der digitalen Transformation," Discussion paper, no. 1. Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung, 2018. Retrieved from doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2633054
Studiengänge in der Digitalisierung -Baustelle Curriculumentwicklung
  • S Grünewald
S. Grünewald, "Studiengänge in der Digitalisierung -Baustelle Curriculumentwicklung," Working paper, no. 52, Berlin: Hochschulforum Digitalisierung, 2020. Retrieved from doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3614896