@techreport{PetersenKirchner2008,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Petersen, Hans-Georg and Kirchner, Markus},
  title     = {Education return and financing},
  issn      = {1864-1431},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-26969},
  year      = {2008},
  abstract  = {The paper sheds some light on the education returns in Germany in the post war period. After describing higher education in Germany the current stand of higher education financing within the single states is presented. In six states tuition fees will be introduced in 2007/08 and discussions are going on in even some more. In the second part of the paper an empirical analysis is done using longitudinal data from the German social pension system. The analysis over the whole lifecycle renders results which proof that the higher education advantages are quite remarkable and might be a justification for more intensified financing by tuition fees. But all this has to be embedded into an encompassing strategy of tax and social policy, especially to prevent a strengthened process of social selection, which would be counterproductive for an increased and highly qualified human capital in Germany.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{AmannRzepka2021,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Amann, Erwin and Rzepka, Sylvi},
  title     = {The Effect of Goal-Setting Prompts in a Blended Learning Environment},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {25},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-49347},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-493476},
  pages     = {22, vi},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {We investigate how inviting students to set task-based goals affects usage of an online learning platform and course performance. We design and implement a randomized field experiment in a large mandatory economics course with blended learning elements. The low-cost treatment induces students to use the online learning system more often, more intensively, and to begin earlier with exam preparation. Treated students perform better in the course than the control group: they are 18.8\% (0.20 SD) more likely to pass the exam and earn 6.7\% (0.19 SD) more points on the exam. There is no evidence that treated students spend significantly more time, rather they tend to shift to more productive learning methods. The heterogeneity analysis suggests that higher treatment effects are associated with higher levels of behavioral bias but also with poor early course behavior.},
  language  = {en}
}