Personal epistemology als Teil wissenschaftlicher Schreibentwicklung

Wissenschaftliches Schreiben ist ein Mittel, um zu lernen und Wissen zu schaffen. Daher wird Schreiben in der Schreibwissenschaft gerne als epistemischer Prozess bezeichnet. Wenn – salopp formuliert – Schreiben Wissen schafft und wissenschaftliches Schreiben wissenschaftliches Wissen schafft, ist zu vermuten, dass die Eigenschaften wissenschaftlichen Wissens den Erwerb wissenschaftlicher Schreibkompetenzen beeinflussen. Wir schaffen zunächst die theoretische Basis für unsere Hypothese und präsentieren Ergebnisse unserer Analyse von Fokusgruppen-Interviews, die wir mit Studierenden während ihrer Abschlussarbeit zu ihren Wissensbegriffen und Schreibprozessen geführt haben. Sie zeigen, dass Wissensbegriff und Perspektiven auf den Schreibprozess miteinander korrespondieren und mit anderen Herausforderungen im Schreiben einhergehen. (Herausgeber)Academic writing is a means of learning and creating knowledge. Therefore, writing is often referred to as an epistemic process in writing science. If - casually put - writing creates knowledge and scientific writing creates scientific knowledge, it can be assumed that the characteristics of scientific knowledge influence the acquisition of scientific writing skills. We first establish the theoretical basis for our hypothesis and present results of our analysis of focus group interviews conducted with students during their senior thesis on their concepts of knowledge and writing processes. They show that notions of knowledge and perspectives on the writing process correspond with each other and are associated with other writing challenges. (Editor

Short digital-competence test based on DigComp2.1: Does digital competence support research competence in undergraduate students?

This article presents a ten-item short scale for measuring digital competence. The scale is based on the Digital Competence Framework for Citizens, DigComp2.1 (Carretero et al., 2017). For our surveys, we used five items from the DigCompSat study (Clifford et al., 2020) and created five new ones to address the competence areas defined by DigCom2.1. We tested the scale on a sample of 1416 students from four countries (Germany, Lithuania, Austria, UK), using the questionnaire in two languages (English, German). The scale proved to be reliable (Cronbach’s α of 0.87 and McDonald’s ωt of 0.88) and valid (construct and content validity). Using the scale, we replicated findings from previous studies on differences in digital literacy by gender, study subject, and level of study. Despite the inhomogeneous structure of items from five different competence areas (according to DigComp2.1) and of two different types (specific, general), the scale does not seem to be multifactorial. A detailed analysis of digital competence and undergraduate research in the context of the pandemic shows: digital competence seems to support research competence and may even support inclusion.Peer Reviewe