@phdthesis{Theilmann2011,
  author    = {Theilmann, Florian},
  title     = {Die Kunst der Untersuchung : Essays zu einem erscheinungsorientierten Physikunterricht},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-56145},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {Die vorliegende Arbeit versammelt zwei einleitende Kapitel und zehn Essays, die sich als kritisch-konstruktive Beitr{\"a}ge zu einem "erlebenden Verstehen" (Buck) von Physik lesen lassen. Die traditionelle Anlage von Schulphysik zielt auf eine systematische Darstellung naturwissenschaftlichen Wissens, das dann an ausgew{\"a}hlten Beispielen angewendet wird: Schulexperimente beweisen die Aussagen der Systematik (oder machen sie wenigstens plausibel), ausgew{\"a}hlte Ph{\"a}nomene werden erkl{\"a}rt. In einem solchen Rahmen besteht jedoch leicht die Gefahr, den Bezug zur Lebenswirklichkeit oder den Interessen der Sch{\"u}ler zu verlieren. Diese Problematik ist seit mindestens 90 Jahren bekannt, didaktische Antworten - untersuchendes Lernen, Kontextualisierung, Sch{\"u}lerexperimente etc. - adressieren allerdings eher Symptome als Ursachen. Naturwissenschaft wird dadurch spannend, dass sie ein spezifisch investigatives Weltverh{\"a}ltnis stiftet: man m{\"u}sste gleichsam nicht Wissen, sondern "Fragen lernen" (und nat{\"u}rlich auch, wie Antworten gefunden werden...). Doch wie kann dergleichen auf dem Niveau von Schulphysik aussehen, was f{\"u}r einen theoretischen Rahmen kann es hier geben? In den gesammelten Arbeiten wird einigen dieser Spuren nachgegangen: Der Absage an das zu modellhafte Denken in der ph{\"a}nomenologischen Optik, der Abgrenzung formal-mathematischen Denkens gegen wirklichkeitsn{\"a}here Formen naturwissenschaftlicher Denkbewegungen und Evidenz, dem Potential alternativer Interpretationen von "Physikunterricht", der Frage nach dem "Verstehen" u.a. Dabei werden nicht nur Bez{\"u}ge zum modernen bildungstheoretischen Paradigma der Kompetenz sichtbar, sondern es wird auch versucht, eine ganze Reihe konkrete (schul-)physikalische Beispiele daf{\"u}r zu geben, was passiert, wenn nicht schon gewusste Antworten Thema werden, sondern Expeditionen, die sich der physischen Welt widmen: Die Schl{\"u}sselbegriffe des Fachs, die Methoden der Datenerhebung und Interpretation, die Such- und Denkbewegungen kommen dabei auf eine Weise zur Sprache, die sich nicht auf die Fachsystematik abst{\"u}tzen m{\"o}chte, sondern diese motivieren, konturieren und verst{\"a}ndlich machen will.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Kupetz2014,
  author    = {Kupetz, Maxi},
  title     = {Empathy displays as interactional achievements-Multimodal and sequential aspects},
  series = {Journal of pragmatics : an interdisciplinary journal of language studies},
  volume    = {61},
  journal   = {Journal of pragmatics : an interdisciplinary journal of language studies},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0378-2166},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.006},
  pages     = {4 -- 34},
  year      = {2014},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GrimmBerger2016,
  author    = {Grimm, Volker and Berger, Uta},
  title     = {Robustness analysis: Deconstructing computational models for ecological theory and applications},
  series = {Ecological modelling : international journal on ecological modelling and engineering and systems ecolog},
  volume    = {326},
  journal   = {Ecological modelling : international journal on ecological modelling and engineering and systems ecolog},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {0304-3800},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.07.018},
  pages     = {162 -- 167},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {The design of computational models is path-dependent: the choices made in each step during model development constrain the choices that are available in the subsequent steps. The actual path of model development can be extremely different, even for the same system, because the path depends on the question addressed, the availability of data, and the consideration of specific expert knowledge, in addition to the experience, background, and modelling preferences of the modellers. Thus, insights from different models are practically impossible to integrate, which hinders the development of general theory. We therefore suggest augmenting the current culture of communicating models as working just fine with a culture of presenting analyses in which we try to break models, i.e., model mechanisms explaining certain observations break down. We refer to the systematic attempts to break a model as "robustness analysis" (RA). RA is the systematic deconstruction of a model by forcefully changing the model's parameters, structure, and representation of processes. We discuss the nature and elements of RA and provide brief examples. RA cannot be completely formalized into specific techniques and instead corresponds to detective work that is driven by general questions and specific hypotheses, with strong attention focused on unusual behaviours. Both individual modellers and ecological modelling in general will benefit from RA because RA helps with understanding models and identifying "robust theories", which are general principles that are independent of the idiosyncrasies of specific models. Integrating the results of RAs from different models to address certain systems or questions will then provide a comprehensive overview of when certain mechanisms control system behaviour and when and why this control ceases. This approach can provide insights into the mechanisms that lead to regime shifts in actual ecological systems.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Doyle2007,
  author    = {Doyle, Timothy F.},
  title     = {The role of context in meaning and understanding},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-20691},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2007},
  abstract  = {In this work the concept of 'context' is considered in five main points. First, context is seen as always necessary for an adequate explication of the concepts of meaning and understanding. Context always plays a role and is not merely brought into consideration when handling a special class of statements or terms, or when there is doubt and clarification is necessary. Second, context cannot be completely reduced to some system of representation. The reason for this is the presence of humans, which is always an important component of a context. Humans experience situations in ways that are not always reducible to symbolic representation. Third, contexts are in principle open. In normal cases they cannot be determined or described in advance. A context is not to be equated with a set of information. Fourth, we understand the parameters of a context pragmatically, which is why we are not led into doubt or even to meaning skepticism by the open nature of a context. This pragmatic knowledge belongs to the category of an ability. Fifth, contexts are, in principle, accessible. This denies the idea that some contexts are incommensurable. There are a number of pragmatic ways of accessing unfamiliar contexts. Some of these are here examined in light of the so-called 'culture wars' in the U.S.A.},
  language  = {en}
}