Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Postprint (1)
Keywords
- capacities (2)
- effectiveness (2)
- motivation (2)
- resources (2)
- risk governance (2)
- vulnerability (2)
- Bildungswissenschaft (1)
- Fachdidaktik (1)
- Lehramtsstudium (1)
- Professionswissen (1)
Eine verbesserte Zusammenarbeit und Abstimmung von Fachwissenschaft, Fachdidaktik, Bildungswissenschaften und schulpraktischen Lernorten ist einer der Förderbereiche der „Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung“. Zahlreiche der geförderten Projekte haben für dieses Handlungsfeld im Bereich Vernetzung von Fachwissenschaft, Fachdidaktik und Bildungswissenschaften hochschulspezifische Maßnahmen konzipiert und umgesetzt.
Der vorliegende Tagungsband beinhaltet Beiträge von 15 entsprechenden Projekten, von denen sieben anlässlich von zwei standortübergreifenden Projekt-Tagungen in Hannover und Potsdam vorgestellt und in Workshops diskutiert wurden. Insgesamt geben die Beiträge einen theoretisch fundierten und gleichzeitig praxisorientierten Überblick über aktuelle Ansätze und Konzepte zur besseren Vernetzung fachwissenschaftlicher, fachdidaktischer und bildungswissenschaftlicher Studienanteile im Lehramtsstudium. Dargestellt werden Projektarbeiten der Hochschulen, die auf verschiedenen Ebenen wirksam werden (curricular-inhaltliche Ebene, kollegiale Ebene, hochschul-strukturelle Ebene). Die Maßnahmen sind so beschrieben, dass sie als Grundlage für einen Transfer auf andere Fächer bzw. andere Standorte genutzt werden können.
Die Beiträge richten sich an alle Lehrenden im Bereich der Lehramtsbildung sowie sonstige Akteure im Bereich der Lehr- und Qualitätsentwicklung an den Universitäten. Sie alle können den beschriebenen Konzepten und Umsetzungsformaten transferierbare Ideen und Impulse entnehmen.
Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.
Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.