Universität Wien: OJS-Service
Not a member yet
7694 research outputs found
Sort by
Vincenz Sebacks (1805-1890) außergewöhnliche Büchersammlung: Eine niederösterreichische Privatbibliothek als Quelle zur Literaturrezeption im 19. Jahrhundert
Get PDFDie Stiftsbibliothek Klosterneuburg beherbergt mit der ihr nachgelassenen Privatbibliothek des Chorherren und Theologieprofessor Vincenz Seback (1805-1890) den Wurzbach zufolge vermutlich vollständigsten und bestsortiertesten zeitgenössischen Bestand deutschsprachiger Literatur des 19. Jahrhunderts. Im Rahmen einer Masterarbeit und einem darauf aufbauenden Dissertationsprojekt wurde bzw. wird diese Sammlung nun erstmals mithilfe interdisziplinärer Methoden beforscht. Ziel ist es, ausgehend von diesem einzigartigen Buchbestand, neue Erkenntnisse über die belletristische, (nieder-)österreichische Literaturlandschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts zu erlangen
Evolution and Ethics as Core Topics of Biology Teaching – an Innovative Course at the University of Vienna
Get PDFDie Übung „Evolution und Ethik“ an der Universität Wien will Lehramtsstudierende des Fachs Biologie und Umweltbildung auf die Vermittlung komplexer und oft kontroverser Themen in den Bereichen Evolution und (Bio-)Ethik vorbereiten. Obwohl Evolution das zentrale Erklärungskonzept für alle Phänomene der Biologie ist, ist sie in Schulbüchern und Lehrplänen bis in jüngster Zeit nur unzureichend vertreten. Zudem haben viele Schüler:innen (aber auch zukünftige Lehrende) Schwierigkeiten, mit der Evolution einhergehende Prinzipien zu verstehen und anzunehmen. Ähnlich verhält es sich mit ethischen Fragestellungen, die nahezu alle Bereiche des Biologieunterrichts durchdringen und vernetztes Wissen von Lehrenden und Lernenden erfordern. Die Übung „Evolution und Ethik“ fördert interaktives Lernen und kontinuierlichen Perspektivenwechsel. Die Studierenden wechseln dabei zwischen den Rollen als Forschende, Lehrende, Lernende und Feedback gebende Kolleg:innen. Analysen von verfügbaren Vermittlungsmaterialien zu den Kursthemen spielen im Zuge dessen ebenso eine Rolle wie die Planung und Durchführung von Unterrichtssequenzen in authentischen Micro-Teaching-Situationen sowie die Förderung einer kritischen Selbstreflexion. Dabei lernen die Studierenden im geschützten Rahmen, wie sie diese anspruchsvollen Themen im Unterricht lernförderlich ansprechen können. Das Prinzip einer „geschützten Werkstätte“ erlaubt es den Studierenden, neue Methoden und Sozialformen auszuprobieren und aus eigenen und fremden Fehlern zu lernen. Diese Herangehensweise stärkt die didaktischen Fähigkeiten der Studierenden und bereitet sie, ebenso wie ihre gestärkte Fachkompetenz in Bezug auf die Auswahl und den Einsatz potenziell nutzbarer Medien, auf den Umgang mit ethischen und evolutionsbiologischen Themen im Unterricht vor.The seminar “Evolution and Ethics” at the University of Vienna aims to prepare biology teacher students for the teaching of the complex and often controversial topics of evolution and (bio)ethics. Although evolution is regarded as a central explanatory theory in biology, it is often inadequately represented in textbooks and curricula, and many students (and also future teachers) struggle to understand and accept its principles. Similarly, ethical issues, which affect nearly all areas of biology education, present significant challenges. The seminar is designed to promote interactive learning and continuous perspective shifts, with students alternating between the roles of researchers, teachers, learners, and feedback-giving colleagues. To achieve this, students are challenged to analyse and evaluate existing teaching materials for both topics as well as planning and executing teaching sequences in authentic microteaching situations, and engaging in critical self-reflection after receiving feedback. Thus, students learn how to effectively address these demanding topics in the classroom. The concept of a “sheltered workshop” allows students to experiment with new methods and social forms, and to learn from failures. The results show that this approach enhances students’ didactic skills and prepares them, in combination with their increased competence in assessing and using available tools and materials, to handle ethical and evolutionary topics in school teaching
Students’ ideas of “stimulant herbal drugs”
Get PDFDieser Beitrag untersucht die Alltagsvorstellungen von Schüler:innen der Sekundarstufe zu sogenannten „Drogenpflanzen“. Aufbauend auf qualitativen Interviews mit Jugendlichen aus drei Altersgruppen (6., 9. und 12. Schulstufe) zeigt sich, dass der Begriff „Drogenpflanze“ je nach Alter sehr unterschiedlich verstanden wird – meist diffus, teils fehlerhaft und häufig mit mystifizierenden Zuschreibungen belegt. Die Ergebnisse belegen, dass viele Schüler:innen nur wenige bekannte Beispiele wie Cannabis oder Schlafmohn nennen können und Schwierigkeiten haben, zwischen Pflanzen und ihren isolierten Wirkstoffen zu unterscheiden. Zudem verschwimmen in den Vorstellungen oft die Grenzen zwischen Heil, Gift- und Drogenpflanzen. Der Artikel diskutiert das Potenzial, Drogenpflanzen als didaktisches Vehikel zu nutzen, um das bestehende Interesse Jugendlicher für eine fundierte botanische Bildung und Suchtprävention zu aktivieren. Durch eine differenzierte und kontextualisierte Auseinandersetzung können stereotype und gefährliche Fehlschlüsse vermieden und ein reflektierter Zugang zur Pflanzenwelt gefördert werden.This article explores secondary school students’ everyday conceptions of so-called “stimulant herbal drugs.” Based on qualitative interviews with students from three grade levels (6th, 9th, and 12th), findings reveal that the term “drug plant” is understood very differently depending on age—typically in vague, sometimes incorrect, and often mystified ways. The study shows that students can usually name only a few well-known examples such as cannabis or opium poppy and struggle to distinguish between the plant as an organism and its extracted substances. Moreover, the boundaries between medicinal, toxic, and drug plants are frequently blurred in their perceptions. The article discusses how drug plants can serve as an effective didactic vehicle to harness students’ existing interest for scientifically grounded botanical education and substance abuse prevention. By encouraging a contextualized and nuanced approach, educators can reduce misconceptions and foster a more informed and critical understanding of the plant world
Research Assessment as a Tool for Strategic Management: Promoting Interdisciplinarity through Enhancement-Led Evaluation at the University of Helsinki
No full textThe paper examines the evolution of research assessment as a tool for strategic development and management. At the University of Helsinki, research assessment framework’s enhancement-led approach emphasizes continuous development and quality enhancement, supporting the implementation and planning of the organisation’s strategy. In 2025, the statutory research assessment is harnessed as a tool for promoting multi- and interdisciplinary research by rethinking what and how to evaluate. Integrating interdisciplinarity into comprehensive research assessment exercise is an ambitious attempt in the field of research assessment. To succeed, it requires careful and regenerative planning
Everyone Is Equal in the Lottery Drum. More Opportunities for Risky Research, Postdocs, and Female Scientists?
No full textThe growing importance of third-party funding for research funding and for the evaluation of research performance has magnified well-known problems of peer review: risk-aversion reviewer overburden, the danger of bias and the Matthew effect (“To him who has shall be given”). The Volkswagen Foundation responded to these problems with its “Experiment!” funding initiative and has funded risky research questions for several years. In addition to peer review, lottery also played a decisive role in the unusual application and selection process. This article presents selected findings from accompanying research, highlighting the initiative’s role in exploring new review procedures and creating a space for experimentation that could inspire other funders.The growing importance of third-party funding for research funding and for the evaluation of research performance has magnified well-known problems of peer review: risk-aversion reviewer overburden, the danger of bias and the Matthew effect (“To him who has shall be given”). The Volkswagen Foundation responded to these problems with its “Experiment!” funding initiative and has funded risky research questions for several years. In addition to peer review, lottery also played a decisive role in the unusual application and selection process. This article presents selected findings from accompanying research, highlighting the initiative’s role in exploring new review procedures and creating a space for experimentation that could inspire other funders
Inside the Funding Process: Using Generative AI to Assess Reviewers’ Criteria Prioritisation in Multi-Stage Application Assessments
No full textWhen evaluating funding schemes with multiple aims (expressed through multiple assessment criteria such as quality, novelty, relevance, collaboration, etc.), there is an inherent challenge in assessing what role different assessment criteria play in the selection and awarding process. As part of a process evaluation of the Austrian FWF’s Emerging Fields programme, we used generative AI to analyse peer reviewers’ reports on applications submitted to the scheme. The purpose of this analysis was to understand how various assessment criteria were being operationalised in the review process. Specifically, the Emerging Fields scheme has two separate written application assessment stages: a short outline-proposal stage, followed by a full application review stage. Background research on the scheme’s design led us to a hypothesis that reviews in the first of these two stages should emphasise and reward innovative potential and novelty of the proposed project ideas, while reviews in the second stage should place a greater emphasis on scientific quality of the research plans. Our analysis of reviews at both assessment stages used generative AI to assess, first, what priority various criteria had in terms of the amounts of text devoted to each criterion. Second, the analysis assessed the extent of positive or negative sentiment with which reviews covered each criterion (specifically, the criteria covered were scientific quality, novelty, feasibility, and team qualifications). We then compared the results in all combinations between passed applications, failed applications, stage 1 applications and stage 2 applications. Results largely substantiated our hypotheses, most notably with novelty having a significantly higher priority at stage 1 and scientific quality having a significantly higher priority at stage 2. This analysis added substantial value to the Emerging Fields evaluation and has potential to become an invaluable tool to test the effectiveness and appropriateness of research funding processes, particularly in complex multi-stage designs with multiple scheme objectives
Obituary HRin Mag.a Gertraud Wehrmann: Library Director, Vienna University of Economics and Business, 1985–2000
No full textRezension: "Dokufiktionales Erzählen. Narrative Liminalität in der Gegenwartsliteratur" von Agnes Bidmon
Get PDFAgnes Bidmons Studie Dokufiktionales Erzählen. Narrative Liminalität in der Gegenwartsliteratur bietet eine umfassende literaturwissenschaftliche Systematisierung des Phänomens Dokufiktion. Die Autorin analysiert Texte, die sich zwischen Faktualität und Fiktionalität bewegen, und entwickelt auf Basis kulturtheoretischer und narratologischer Konzepte eine „Poetik der Liminalität“.Agnes Bidmon’s Docufictional Narration. Liminality in Contemporary Literature (original title: Dokufiktionales Erzählen. Narrative Liminalität in der Gegenwartsliteratur) presents a model for analyzing German contemporary prose between fact and fiction. By distinguishing ‘semidocumentary’ and ‘pseudodocumentary’ modes in five liminal dimensions, the study gives structure to a heterogeneous corpus. The texts are discussed in relation to cultural memory, media reality, and the instability of reference
Young-Science-Tage an Schulen: Einreichschluss: 10. Juli 2026
Get PDFDer OeAD lädt Schulen aus ganz Österreich ein, einen Young-Science-Tag zu organisieren und in die Welt der Forschung einzutauchen. Beim jährlich im Herbst stattfindenden Young-Science-Kongress werden die Schulen, die die spannendsten Forschungstage organisiert haben, vor den Vorhang geholt und mit Geldpreisen für die Klassenkassa ausgezeichnet! Beiträge können bis 10. Juli 2026 von einer Lehrperson über ein Online-Formular eingereicht werden.The OeAD invites schools from all over Austria to organize a Young Science Day and immerse themselves in the world of research. At the Young Science Congress, which takes place annually in the fall, the schools that have organized the most exciting research days are brought to the fore and presented with cash prizes for the class fund! Contributions can be submitted by a teacher via an online form until July 10, 2026
A “Complete Anachronism”? Common Informing, Popular Participation, and Social Philosophy in Eighteenth- and Twentieth-Century England
Get PDFThis article analyses the tensions between popular participation and democracy using the example of common informing in eighteenth- and twentieth-century England. Common informing describes the enforcement of penal laws by private citizens from the Middle Ages until its abolition in 1951. The instrument was always controversial, but for different reasons: in the early modern period, the populace often rebelled against the use of the instrument by governments. Going to court for the common good was set against the higher social value of freedom from blackmail, harassment, and denunciation. In the twentieth century, on the other hand, the instrument was regarded by MPs as a “complete anachronism” precisely because it allowed too much political participation. The article thus aims to contrast the debates around common informing in the eighteenth and twentieth centuries with a view to the underlying ideas and contradictions of fundamental rights, popular participation, and democracy.This article analyses the tensions between popular participation and democracy using the example of common informing in eighteenth- and twentieth-century England. Common informing describes the enforcement of penal laws by private citizens from the Middle Ages until its abolition in 1951. The instrument was always controversial, but for different reasons: in the early modern period, the populace often rebelled against the use of the instrument by governments. Going to court for the common good was set against the higher social value of freedom from blackmail, harassment, and denunciation. In the twentieth century, on the other hand, the instrument was regarded by MPs as a “complete anachronism” precisely because it allowed too much political participation. The article thus aims to contrast the debates around common informing in the eighteenth and twentieth centuries with a view to the underlying ideas and contradictions of fundamental rights, popular participation, and democracy