TY  - BOOK
T1  - E‑Learning-Strategie 2017–2021
N2  - Die E-Learning-Strategie beschreibt zunächst das Selbstverständnis, was unter E-Learning verstanden werden soll, die aktuelle Situation an der Universität Potsdam und Eckpunkte von strategischen Ansätzen für E-Learning-Entwicklung. Die Universität Potsdam versteht sich demnach als eine Hochschule im digitalen Zeitalter, die den umfassenden Einsatz von E-Learning als gelebte Lehr-/Lernkultur für alle Studierenden, Lehrenden und Mitarbeiter(innen) verwirklichen will. Ausgehend von dem relativ hohen Niveau, dass die E-Learning-Aktivitäten bereits aufweisen, wird der Schwerpunkt der kommenden Jahre in der Verstetigung, Vernetzung und Bündelung der Aktivitäten gesehen. Auf Basis dieser Vorüberlegungen werden mögliche Handlungsfelder und Maßnahmen für die E-Learning Entwicklung der nächsten Jahre an der Universität Potsdam vorgeschlagen. Die Handlungsfelder lauten: "Austausch und Vernetzung", "Content", "Innovation und Verstetigung", "Medienkompetenz", "Organisationsstrukturen", "Qualitätsentwicklung" und "UP und die Welt". Die Priorisierung und Umsetzung der Maßnahmen wird durch eine Steuerungsgruppe initiiert und begleitet. Die Strategie wurde auf der 247. Sitzung des Senats der Universität Potsdam am 25.01.2017 beschlossen.
KW  - Universität Potsdam
KW  - Hochschule
KW  - E-Learning
KW  - Strategie
KW  - Digitalisierung
KW  - Lehre
KW  - IT
KW  - Higher Education
KW  - Strategy
KW  - Policy
Y1  - 2017
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-397916
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Patenaude, Genevieve
A1  - Lautenbach, Sven
A1  - Paterson, James S.
A1  - Locatelli, Tommaso
A1  - Dormann, Carsten F.
A1  - Metzger, Marc J.
A1  - Walz, Ariane
T1  - Breaking the ecosystem services glass ceiling: realising impact
JF  - Regional environmental change
N2  - Through changes in policy and practice, the inherent intent of the ecosystem services (ES) concept is to safeguard ecosystems for human wellbeing. While impact is intrinsic to the concept, little is known about how and whether ES science leads to impact. Evidence of impact is needed. Given the lack of consensus on what constitutes impact, we differentiate between attributional impacts (transitional impacts on policy, practice, awareness or other drivers) and consequential impacts (real, on-the-ground impacts on biodiversity, ES, ecosystem functions and human wellbeing) impacts. We conduct rigorous statistical analyses on three extensive databases for evidence of attributional impact (the form most prevalently reported): the IPBES catalogue (n = 102), the Lautenbach systematic review (n = 504) and a 5-year in-depth survey of the OPERAs Exemplars (n = 13). To understand the drivers of impacts, we statistically analyse associations between study characteristics and impacts. Our findings show that there exists much confusion with regard to defining ES science impacts, and that evidence of attributional impact is scarce: only 25% of the IPBES assessments self-reported impact (7% with evidence); in our meta-analysis of Lautenbach’s systematic review, 33% of studies provided recommendations indicating intent of impacts. Systematic impact reporting was imposed by design on the OPERAs Exemplars: 100% reported impacts, suggesting the importance of formal impact reporting. The generalised linear models and correlations between study characteristics and attributional impact dimensions highlight four characteristics as minimum baseline for impact: study robustness, integration of policy instruments into study design, stakeholder involvement and type of stakeholders involved. Further in depth examination of the OPERAs Exemplars showed that study characteristics associated with impact on awareness and practice differ from those associated with impact on policy: to achieve impact along specific dimensions, bespoke study designs are recommended. These results inform targeted recommendations for ES science to break its impact glass ceiling.
KW  - Ecosystem services
KW  - Impact
KW  - Awareness
KW  - Policy
KW  - Practice
Y1  - 2019
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1434-3
SN  - 1436-3798
SN  - 1436-378X
VL  - 19
IS  - 8
SP  - 2261
EP  - 2274
PB  - Springer
CY  - Heidelberg
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Franzke, Jochen
A1  - de la Fuente, José M. Ruano
T1  - New Challenges in Local Migrant Integration Policy in Europe
JF  - Local Integration of Migrants Policy
N2  - In this introductory chapter, the editors describe the main theoretical basis of analysis of this book and the methodological approach. The core of this book consists of 14 country-specific chapters, which allow a European comparison and show the increasing variance in migration policy approaches within and between European countries. The degree of local autonomy, the level of centralisation and the traditional forms of migration policy are factors that especially influence the possibilities for local authorities to formulate their own integration policies.
KW  - Migration
KW  - Policy
KW  - Integration
KW  - Local authorities
KW  - Coordination
KW  - Civil society
Y1  - 2021
SN  - 978-3-030-50978-1
SN  - 978-3-030-50979-8
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50979-8_1
SN  - 2523-8248
SN  - 2523-8256
SP  - 1
EP  - 9
PB  - Palgrave Macmillan
CY  - Cham
ER  -