@article{HoehneTiberius2020,
  author    = {H{\"o}hne, Stefan and Tiberius, Victor},
  title     = {Powered by blockchain},
  series = {International journal of energy sector management},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {International journal of energy sector management},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Emerald Group Publishing Limited},
  address   = {Bingley},
  issn      = {1750-6220},
  doi       = {10.1108/IJESM-10-2019-0002},
  pages     = {1221 -- 1238},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Purpose: The purpose of this study is to formulate the most probable future scenario for the use of blockchain technology within the next 5-10 years in the electricity sector based on today's experts' views. Design/methodology/approach: An international, two-stage Delphi study with 20 projections is used. Findings: According to the experts, blockchain applications will be primarily based on permissioned or consortium blockchains. Blockchain-based applications will integrate Internet of Things devices in the power grid, manage the e-mobility infrastructure, automate billing and direct payment and issue certificates regarding the origin of electricity. Blockchain solutions are expected to play an important big role in fostering peer-to-peer trading in microgrids, further democratizing and decentralizing the energy sector. New regulatory frameworks become necessary. Research limitations/implications: The Delphi study's scope is rather broad than narrow and detailed. Further studies should focus on partial scenarios. Practical implications: Electricity market participants should build blockchain-based competences and collaborate in current pilot projects. Social implications: Blockchain technology will further decentralize the energy sector and probably reduce transaction costs. Originality/value: Despite the assumed importance of blockchain technology, no coherent foresight study on its use and implications exists yet. This study closes this research gap.},
  language  = {en}
}
@masterthesis{Dahl2021,
  type      = {Bachelor Thesis},
  author    = {Dahl, Dorothee Sophie},
  title     = {Let's have FUN! Gamification im Mathematikunterricht},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51593},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-515937},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {78},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Spiele und spieltypische Elemente wie das Sammeln von Treuepunkten sind aus dem Alltag kaum wegzudenken. Zudem werden sie zunehmend in Unternehmen oder in Lernumgebungen eingesetzt. Allerdings ist die Methode Gamification bisher f{\"u}r den p{\"a}dagogischen Kontext wenig klassifiziert und f{\"u}r Lehrende kaum zug{\"a}nglich gemacht worden. Daher zielt diese Bachelorarbeit darauf ab, eine systematische Strukturierung und Aufarbeitung von Gamification sowie innovative Ans{\"a}tze f{\"u}r die Verwendung spieltypischer Elemente im Unterricht, konkret dem Mathematikunterricht, zu pr{\"a}sentieren. Dies kann eine Grundlage f{\"u}r andere Fachgebiete, aber auch andere Lehrformen bieten und so die Umsetzbarkeit von Gamification in eigenen Lehrveranstaltungen aufzeigen. In der Arbeit wird begr{\"u}ndet, weshalb und mithilfe welcher Elemente Gamification die Motivation und Leistungsbereitschaft der Lernenden langfristig erh{\"o}hen, die Sozial- und Personalkompetenzen f{\"o}rdern sowie die Lernenden zu mehr Aktivit{\"a}t anregen kann. Zudem wird Gamification explizit mit grundlegenden mathematikdidaktischen Prinzipien in Verbindung gesetzt und somit die Relevanz f{\"u}r den Mathematikunterricht hervorgehoben. Anschließend werden die einzelnen Elemente von Gamification wie Punkte, Level, Abzeichen, Charaktere und Rahmengeschichte entlang einer eigens f{\"u}r den p{\"a}dagogischen Kontext entwickelten Klassifikation „FUN" (Feedback - User specific elements - Neutral elements) schematisch beschrieben, ihre Funktionen und Wirkung dargestellt sowie Einsatzm{\"o}glichkeiten im Unterricht aufgezeigt. Dies beinhaltet Ideen zu lernf{\"o}rderlichem Feedback, Differenzierungsm{\"o}glichkeiten und Unterrichtsrahmengestaltung, die in Lehrveranstaltungen aller Art umsetzbar sein k{\"o}nnen. Die Bachelorarbeit umfasst zudem ein spezifisches Beispiel, einen Unterrichtsentwurf einer gamifizierten Mathematikstunde inklusive des zugeh{\"o}rigen Arbeitsmaterials, anhand dessen die Verwendung von Gamification deutlich wird. Gamification offeriert oftmals Vorteile gegen{\"u}ber dem traditionellen Unterricht, muss jedoch wie jede Methode an den Inhalt und die Zielgruppe angepasst werden. Weiterf{\"u}hrende Forschung k{\"o}nnte sich mit konkreten motivationalen Strukturen, personenspezifischen Unterschieden sowie mit mathematischen Inhalten wie dem Probleml{\"o}sen oder dem Wechsel zwischen verschiedenen Darstellungen hinsichtlich gamifizierter Lehrformen besch{\"a}ftigen.},
  language  = {de}
}
@phdthesis{Giesewetter2011,
  author    = {Giesewetter, Stefan},
  title     = {Resolute readings of later Wittgenstein and the challenge of avoiding hierarchies in philosophy},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-57021},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {This dissertation addresses the question: How did later Wittgenstein aim to achieve his goal of putting forward a way of dissolving philosophical problems which centered on asking ourselves what we mean by our words - yet which did not entail any claims about the essence of language and meaning? This question is discussed with reference to "resolute" readings of Wittgenstein. I discuss the readings of James Conant, Oskari Kuusela, and Martin Gustafsson. I follow Oskari Kuusela's claim that in order to fully appreciate how later Wittgenstein meant to achieve his goal, we need to clearly see how he aimed to do away with hierarchies in philosophy: Not only is the dissolution of philosophical problems via the method of clarifying the grammar of expressions to be taken as independent from any theses about what meaning must be - but furthermore, it is to be taken as independent from the dissolution of any particular problem via this method. As Kuusela stresses, this also holds for the problems involving rule-following and meaning: the clarification of the grammar of "rule" and "meaning" has no foundational status - it is nothing on which the method of clarifying the grammar of expressions as such were meant to in any way rely on. The lead question of this dissertation then is: What does it mean to come to see that the method of dissolving philosophical problems by asking "How is this word actually used?" does not in any way rely on the results of our having investigated the grammar of the particular concepts "rule" and "meaning"? What is the relation of such results - results such as "To follow a rule, [...], to obey an order, [...] are customs (uses, institutions)" or "The meaning of a word is its use in the language" - to this method? From this vantage point, I concern myself with two aspects of the readings of Gustafsson and Kuusela. In Gustafsson, I concern myself with his idea that the dissolution of philosophical problems in general "relies on" the very agreement which - during the dissolution of the rule-following problem - comes out as a presupposition for our talk of "meaning" in terms of rules. In Kuusela, I concern myself with his idea that Wittgenstein, in adopting a way of philosophical clarification which investigates the actual use of expressions, is following the model of "meaning as use" - which model he had previously introduced in order to perspicuously present an aspect of the actual use of the word "meaning". This dissertation aims to show how these two aspects of Gustafsson's and Kuusela's readings still fail to live up to the vision of Wittgenstein as a philosopher who aimed to do away with any hierarchies in philosophy. I base this conclusion on a detailed analysis of which of the occasions where Wittgenstein invokes the notions of "use" and "application" (as also "agreement") have to do with the dissolution of a specific problem only, and which have to do with the dissolution of philosophical problems in general. I discuss Wittgenstein's remarks on rule-following, showing how in the dissolution of the rule-following paradox, notions such as "use", "application", and "practice" figure on two distinct logical levels. I then discuss an example of what happens when this distinction is not duly heeded: Gordon Baker and Peter Hacker's idea that the rule-following remarks have a special significance for his project of dissolving philosophical problems as such. I furnish an argument to the effect that their idea that the clarification of the rules of grammar of the particular expression "following a rule" could answer a question about rules of grammar in general rests on a conflation of the two logical levels on which "use" occurs in the rule-following remarks, and that it leads into a regress. I then show that Gustafsson's view - despite its decisive advance over Baker and Hacker - contains a version of that same idea, and that it likewise leads into a regress. Finally, I show that Kuusela's idea of a special significance of the model "meaning as use" for the whole of the method of stating rules for the use of words is open to a regress argument of a similar kind as that he himself advances against Baker and Hacker. I conclude that in order to avoid such a regress, we need to reject the idea that the grammatical remark "The meaning of a word is its use in the language" - because of the occurrence of "use" in it - stood in any special relation to the method of dissolving philosophical problems by describing the use of words. Rather, we need to take this method as independent from this outcome of the investigation of the use of the particular word "meaning".},
  language  = {en}
}